unilhexio Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Woluld be great an option to simulate in batch mode a long term period of time (i.e. all simulations for 20 or 25 years, for example), by increasing PV module degradation year by year automatically, and geneating pdf reports.Regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE2015 Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 I also agree, this would be very helpful for financial calculations. I hope it is a planned feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unilhexio Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 I also agree, this would be very helpful for financial calculations. I hope it is a planned feature. Yes... this complete set of simulations is a very demanded info from financials. It wolud be very useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtarin Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 I use the module quality field in batch mode to simulate DC degradation over time. I dont get PDFs, but have a macro to assemble the csv files together into a spreadsheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unilhexio Posted January 19, 2017 Author Share Posted January 19, 2017 I use the module quality field in batch mode to simulate DC degradation over time. I dont get PDFs, but have a macro to assemble the csv files together into a spreadsheet. It is an idea, but module quality is not the same than degradation. The behavior is different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Santos Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Totally agree! I was about to make the same suggestion... I have to estimate the system production over 20 years, and sometimes 2 or 3 different configurations, so I have to run 60 times and save 60 different files, with every loss number on them. And if by chance I notice that I made any mistake, I have to start from zero, it's a torture! :mrgreen: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unilhexio Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 I am doing at this moment 5 different configurations, for a period of 25 years each. This is 125 PVsyst simulations. I patiently hope PVsyst developers would take this suggestion into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Santos Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Here's a solution that fitted me! It gives slightly different results, but almost the same! ;) Before a perform a simulation, I go to the "degradation losses" section and take note of all degradation and mismatch values for a given time horizon (in my case, 20 years), in a Excel spreadsheet. Then I untick the option to use degradation in the simulation.Then I go to the batch simulation and change the variables "module quality" and "mismatch", and paste the values given in the spreadsheet.But one should never forget the initial values (eg. if I use module quality -0.4% and mismatch 1%, these values have to be added every year)!I don't know if I was clear enough, but if anyone have a question, feel free to ask!Regards,Rafael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Mermoud Posted March 3, 2017 Share Posted March 3, 2017 From version 6.60, the Degradation (year number for a simulation and degradation parameters) is indeed part of the parameters you can use/modify in the batchs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unilhexio Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share Posted March 13, 2017 Dear André,I am testing now the calculation for several years, and the results that I got in batch simulation are not the same than I got by changing the year of simulation in "Ageing" tool.In "batch simulation", I have specified Degradation-> year of simulation", and then in the csv batchparams file I have introduce the years I want to simulate, but the Energy Injected into Grid that I obtain after batch simulation is sliglthly higher than the results I got by changing the year of simulation in "Ageing" tool.What can be wrong? Is the batch simulation taking into account the mismatch increase due to degradation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMBalGrp Posted August 8, 2017 Share Posted August 8, 2017 Hi All,Can anyone clarify the below:1. What is "year 0" meant to be?2. What degradation factor is employed for each year? For instance, if I specify year as '1' for a simulation is the degradation loss for that simulation equal to the default degradation loss you would see in the 'Ageing' menu when you select year 1? I would really appreciate a bit more guidance material on batch simulation in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE2015 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Does anyone know if the mismatch growth is included in the batch simulation? The module degradation is easy to show (even by using other params, as it is linear), but the mismatch growth will reduce production by an additional 2-3% over 20 years, needs to be included in the batch parameters list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unilhexio Posted September 19, 2017 Author Share Posted September 19, 2017 Hi All,Can anyone clarify the below:1. What is "year 0" meant to be?2. What degradation factor is employed for each year? For instance, if I specify year as '1' for a simulation is the degradation loss for that simulation equal to the default degradation loss you would see in the 'Ageing' menu when you select year 1? I would really appreciate a bit more guidance material on batch simulation in general.Does anyone know if the mismatch growth is included in the batch simulation? The module degradation is easy to show (even by using other params, as it is linear), but the mismatch growth will reduce production by an additional 2-3% over 20 years, needs to be included in the batch parameters list. It would be wonderful if someone from PVsyst could clarify these issues. http://forum.pvsyst.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2754Evenmore, if you set RMS dispersion values for Isc and Voc to zero, the batch calculation for Energy injected into grid is zero for all the years!!!Sinceresly, I have lost my hopes and I don't know what to do about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Santos Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Hi,By default, PVsyst considers the average degradation loss throught the whole year. So, if you put degradation loss of 0,4%/year, for year 1, it will consider degratadion losses of 0,2% (starting the year with no degradation losses at all, since the modules are brand new, and ending the year with 0,4% losses, thus averaging 0,2%).Year 0 means it will not consider any degradation losses. So if want to make a batch simulation for eg. 10 years and you use 1 to 10, PVsyst will consider the average losses throught each year. If you want to change for the losses in the beggining of each year, you should use 0 to 9.Best regards,Rafael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Santos Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Regarding the RMS dispersion values, this is strange, because I allways set them zero and it works just fine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SE2015 Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 From version 6.60, the Degradation (year number for a simulation and degradation parameters) is indeed part of the parameters you can use/modify in the batchs. Has the growth of mismatch been included as well, or just the aging?Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Santos Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Has the growth of mismatch been included as well, or just the aging? Growth of mismatch is also included! =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praveenksadh Posted April 11, 2018 Share Posted April 11, 2018 Hi,It would be helpful if we can include active power limitation parameters in batch simulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNWild Posted March 30, 2019 Share Posted March 30, 2019 Yes, it would be useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now