dtarin

Degradation and mismatch are included in the waterfall. I don't see a dedicated report available. Aging is also summarized under array losses.

Since this is a vertical bifacial module, you probably need to import GHI into your custom weather file and not POA, and let PVsyst calculate front/rear POA.

Unless your site is 20 years old, you want the model assumptions to match the conditions of the site you are testing. You're including degradation and mismatch losses which may not exist for your site.

https://forum.pvsyst.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1784&hilit=Technical+Definition+of+a+Shed Enter anything greater than 10 for nb of sheds

Import front side irradiance as POA in PVsyst. I do not believe it is possible to import rear-side irradiance. To achieve the best results, it is best to import measured GHI and measured DHI. For a vertical bifacial system if you have GHI (with or without DHI), it will be better than POA. I do not think PVsyst can properly calculate GHI and DHI if using POA from a vertical bifacial system (a PVsyst admin should comment here). Yes

I think more information is needed to understand. What does your meteorological instrument set-up look like, where are the sensors and what are they measuring? What data was imported into PVsyst? Also, unrelated to you PR question, I noticed you are modeling degradation at year 20 which I am not sure you want to be doing, but I could use some more information to better understand. Feel free to shoot me a pm if you'd like to discuss.

That is correct. Separate the orientations into different variants, combine output in excel.

Where are you getting the 20% figure from? Bifacial systems are not 20% higher than monofacial, even under high albedo conditions. 5-6% is common, but can vary between 3% and 11% depending on location, design, weather conditions, etc. for typical sites.

Calculate the monthly averages with your measured data and enter in the bifacial settings menu under the System menu. PVsyst does not use hourly albedo values.

There is not default horizon methodology; however PVGIS is free and included in PVsyst. It is up to the user to decide which source to use. The yellow sun-path area is determined by PVsyst according to project location. The horizon data generated from PVGIS is based on the coordinates located in the .SIT file. The data comes from PVGIS, and should not be dependent on the PVsyst version, so long as it is working in the version you are using (some older versions of PVsyst no longer work with PVGIS). Similarly, if you are using meteonorm software, the horizon data generated there will be based on the coordinates you use.

https://www.pvsyst.com/help/performance_ratio.htm In your case, GlobInc should be replaced with (GlobInc + GlobBak * ϕ), where ϕ = bifaciality factor of module

GHI, DHI, ambient temperature, wind speed, or POA irradiance (GlPMeas in the custom meteo menu), ambient temperature, wind speed

It is due to the orientation. PVsyst calculates POA as if it is a monofacial module first. A monofacial module oriented vertically 90 degrees in the EW direction would not receive direct light when the sun is behind the module, which is essentially for half the day. A module flat on the ground at 0 tilt receives no transposition gain, POA = GHI (roughly speaking). When you tilt that module vertically to 90 degrees in the EW direction, it's halved. In your waterfall diagram, GlobInc is -51%.

Is this a vertical bifacial system? I believe the PR calculation you see does not take into account rear-side irradiance in the PR calculation, and only the front-side POA irradiation. Since your bifacial gain is so high and your POA (GlobInc) is negative, this would lead to a PR greater than one. Try manually calculating PR to include the rear-side irradiance, and see what your results are.

We got these values from Belpex, so It's quite accurate... Belpex: https://my.elexys.be/MarketInformation/SpotBelpex.aspx Those are prices per MWh. Check if you entered the correct price per kWh. Electricity doesn't cost that much, so the issue is with your feed-in tariff. A screenshot of that tab would help if there is further doubt. For example, assuming the year 1 production is 13,346 kWh (the energy sold to the grid), your year 1 cost of energy according to your results is 344,300/13,346 = €25.79/kWh. This does not seem correct.

Your feed-in tariff is too high, unrealistic price of energy.

Their performance would just be reflected in the soiling profile the user enters.

This is not an error. It is letting you know the array is sized higher than the inverter input rating. In the OND file, you likely have the contractual specification checked on the maximum PV power. You can uncheck this to remove the warning. Note you have defined 1.9 inverters in your global system.

Pitch and tilt need to be uniform for bifacial. Split the different orientations into different variants and combine in excel with the 8760.

How close are your carports together? If you have laid them out according to the layout, and they are somewhat close, PVsyst might be interpreting them a certain way as having non-uniform pitch. Try separating them by a considerable distance and see if that works. A picture if your layout would also help.

I would recommend also collecting ambient temperature (Tamb) and plane of array irradiance (POA) at a minimum. With POA, Tamb, windspeed, and power output, you can conduct a capacity test according to ASTM E2848 to compare the model and measured data. Since you are considering bifacial, you might also want to include backside irradiance and albedo.

Yes, the hourly output file. The variable to select is inverter output (EOutInv). It will be the sum of all inverters. Check the maximum hourly output against the (number of inverters * inverter rating).

Interesting find.

The PV engineer should determine the number of inverters to use in PVsyst and enter that number, taking into account elevation, ambient temperature, etc. PVsyst will display Pnom on the report, however if you check the 8760, it will reach 215 max output (assuming you have the irradiance and enough DC), not 200. Inverters are not sized by the average temperature of a location, though. Usually a higher temperature is selected so that nameplate is guaranteed for most operating conditions (http://ashrae-meteo.info/v2.0/). Note that the inverter manufacturer has defined Pnom here, not PVsyst. Nevertheless, your output is not being limited to Pnom.

Yes, the PAN file is associated with PV modules, and the OND file is associated with inverters.