Energy injected into grid x Global incident in coll. plane

[Lucas Simão]

I have just created two similar simulations in 2 different states in Brazil (Ceará and Santa Catarina), with the first having a higher Global Horizontal Iradiation than the other. Yet, the generation in the site with the lower Global Horizontal Irradiation is higher than the other one. From what I've been able to understand, the biggest difference between the simulations is the Global Incidento in the Collector Plane, but still it doesn't seem like it's supposed to occur this way. Is there any clear mistakes in the simulation that can explain this difference? If not, what justifies such high generation from a site with a lower irradiance?

 

[dtarin]

These are not equivalent models. The global incident in collector plane shows a 7% gain for sim#1, whereas it is a loss in sim#2. Something is off with the orientation or shade scene. Additionally, there is a large difference in ambient temperature, and sim#1 has a lower temperature loss compared to sim#2. The latter you can do nothing about. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by dtarin

[Lucas Simão]

Thank you for your feedback. Still, I haven't been able to identify the precise point that's causing this. I've corrected the tilt to the ideal for each location, checked the pitch between tables in the shading scene, but still the Global Incident in Coll. Plane for Ceará (sim#2) won't go higher than 0,7%. Do you have any other hunches as to why this is happening?

[Michele Oliosi]

Ceará is very close to the equator, so you won't get much better than the horizontal plane (unless you are studying EW systems or tracking orientations), I think ?

[dtarin]

They are in different locations, and you have different tilts. Without knowing these and overall orientation details, no. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by dtarin

[Lucas Simão]

Hey Michele, thank you for your answer! I did think about that, and that since the tilt will be so low, the impact of the bifacial modules will be way lower due to the amount of exposition of the back of the module. But still, even with those considerations, it makes little sense. 

[Lucas Simão]

ReTeste - Ceará_Project.VC0-Report.pdf

[dtarin]

What about for the other system?

[Lucas Simão]

The forum is presenting an unknown error when I try to attach the file, I'm trying to save new formats but haven't been able to solve it yet

[Lucas Simão]

ReTeste - Santa Catarina_Project.VC1-Report.pdf

[dtarin]

These are not equivalent models, so the comparison with GHI is not a valid comparison. The locations are very different, as Michele noted, the site by the equator has an optimal tilt around 6-7 degrees which means you are limited in your POA transposition gain. The Santa Catarina site is further from the equator and realizes a higher transposition gain from the 27 degree tilt, which makes up for the lower GHI by comparison. It also has a lower temperature loss compared to Ceara.