dtarin

For a graph: Run simulation Go to detailed results Click hourly graphs Under time axis definition select monthly Under variables to be drawn, select energy injected to the grid (or whatever you want to see) Select bar chart or graph Specify units for energy (kWh, etc) Click graph To export to excel, click export values to clipboard For a table: Run simulation Go to detailed results Select table Select Energy use and Users Needs On the right select Energy injected to the grid Define units of energy Press Table This can also be exported to excel

Increase or decrease the number of strings in your array under the system menu.

Great point and a good reminder. I have done the same method in years prior before utilizing PVcase for this.

Use whatever method you have for degradation, take the P-factors for each Pxx and multiply the resulting data by them to get your Year N @ Pxx data.

One thing to note is that when using tracker zones or placing trackers with the auto-altitude tool, it will not adjust the NS slope, only the elevations of the trackers. For @Michele Oliosi, any possibility to have this be implemented in PVsyst such that NS slope is modified? That is, placing the trackers orthogonal to the surface using whatever reference point is selected.

I did not encounter issues with tracker zones and bifacial modules. The module declaration is done under system and not in the shading menu.

Inverter loss over nominal power is the same as inverter clipping. PVsyst handles clipping losses appropriately in my experience. It is difficult to say what is occurring without knowing some other details like which inverter or where the project is located (temperature, yearly GHI, etc). A 1.4 ratio seems a bit high to only have 0.3%, but it will be dependent on system type (ground mount, tracker, rooftop, etc.), equipment, and location.

Lead acid or lithium ion are the two most common I believe.

There is no single frame of reference to define bifacial gain. You can look at the irradiance gain after bifaciality and consider that. Or you can look at the the output at the inverter terminals with and without bifacial included, as you have. One might compare a monofacial module to a bifacial, as there are physical (and economic) differences between the two. Using irradiance after bifaciality is common in my experience.

You are comparing an irradiance gain with an energy gain. The two are not the same, nor will ever be. It is typical to have a higher irradiance gain than your MWh gain as there is conversion still from light to electricity and other downstream losses than can be influenced (i.e. clipping).

SolarGIS, SolarAnywhere, or any of the other satellite based providers (not free) or NREL PSM (free, not sure if it's been updated but tends to overestimate GHI).

Try creating a net with the handrail object. Set width of rail to whatever the thickness is, and the number of vertical rails to the spacing of the net, and place in the front of your fixed tilt system oriented normally. Then run a simulation with and without, take the delta, and add to rear shading. I tried running this with a 4x7 table and a large "net" structure with thin object shading set to 5%, but after running for hours it crashed. Perhaps a single module will be more successful.

Try to include the version you are using whenever posting on an issue. I have tested in 7.2.14 with no issues, whether automatic length on or off. The blue band that appears when you activate the slide tool stays on the screen however after I use it. When I close the zone menu it goes away, but when zone is active again, it comes back. Maybe a bug with the tool, as I have not encountered this in prior versions. You can still slide them by deactivating zone and using the standard crosshair tool.

Or alternatively, run however many different PVsysts there are for each scenario, then splice them into one 8760.

Export to excel to accomplish this for the time being.

Is this calculated as a weighted average?

You might be able to accomplish this using batch runs. You cannot do this on an hourly basis, but on a yearly basis and then assemble the results as you wish.

One year of data is not sufficient to establish what an outlier condition is (what if it is warm that year?), nor would TMY data be sufficient. A TMY (synthetic or based on time-series) contains "typical" values, and not what you are looking for when designing a system to protect against damage in the rare situation where you have both low temperatures and sufficient irradiance. Ideally you want a few decades of temperature data. I've provided one resource which gives you several different timespans containing the low temperatures. I am not sure if NREL or NOAA has data for AUS, but there might be some public source for weather data similar to what we have in the US.

Create an inverter with dummy MPPTs and allocate strings accordingly for each module type to one shared inverter. It looks like there you have two inverters which have two types of modules connected to it, but hard to read the small print in the screenshot.

Here is one reference. Select from here temperatures under the "extreme annual design conditions". From there, it is up to the designer to select. They generally go from least to most conservative starting with the mean on down towards n=50 years. I personally wouldn't select the mean or n=50, however. I usually go with the 10 or 20 year minimum depending on other factors. http://ashrae-meteo.info/v2.0/

I was able to edit, click the three dots, edit button is there, works fine. ::Edit::

IAM is automatically included using plain glass fresnel option. They are reviewing whether to include this as a separate loss factor so as to be able to determine rear POA before all loss considerations.

If you are using unlimited sheds, the exact number of rows does not really matter. Enter 100 for large utility scale plants.

When re-running a project (initially created in 7.2.6) in 7.2.14 using the fast simulation method, the near shading losses are 0.34% lower (tracker site in Maryland, USA). Can PVsyst provide any information on where the change might have occurred with some context? I have found the following in the release notes. 0.34% for a utility scale project is not a small number. Without being able to parallel install subversions, it is difficult for users to properly track changes to production due to changes in the software, and continues to be a problem. As such, I cannot run detailed comparisons with full variable export in 8760 without having to now uninstall and downgrade to 7.2.6, then reinstall back to 7.2.14. 7.2.10 - Shadings: a small diffuse shadings correction was added for negative tilts. 7.2.12 - Simulation of trackers: irradiance optimization is now taken into account in the calculation of diffuse shading

Want to push this request up. When exporting projects for customers or other parties, it is quite cumbersome to have to go and delete various weather files, components, variants, etc. every time.