Mistake in documentation

[LauraH]

I found what appears to be a mistake in the latest documentation about the Aging Tool (https://www.pvsyst.com/help/project-design/array-and-system-losses/ageing-pv-modules-degradation/index.html?h=degradation#guaranteed-and-average-degradation-rate).  Initially it says that the manufacturer's warranted degradation is the LOWER limit of degradation.  This should be UPPER, as the first sentence of the next paragraph rightly states:

"In these curves, the initial loss (of the order of 3%) should be considered as the LID, or initial Power possible deficit (tolerance, factory measurement uncertainty). Therefore the annual guaranteed lower limit diminution rate is the slope of this curve. In our example (-3% initial, -20% after 25 years), this means a rate of -0.68%/year. But this is not the degradation rate of the full array.

In this tool we define an average degradation rate (for a set of modules). This loss value may be much lower than this guaranteed limit."

[Incidentally, the help page is titled "Ageing" but the spelling "aging" is used in PVsyst.  Apparently both are correct, but I don't think I've ever seen "ageing" in the US.  It's extremely rare to have a silent "e" in the middle of a word.]

[Muhammed Sarikaya]

Dear Laura,

Thank you for reaching out to us.

First of all, we will replace "Ageing" with "Aging."

Regarding the manufacturer's lower limit guarantee, you can see it clearly in the graph below:

The sentence states that the module warranty represents the lower limit in reference to this graph, where it shows the loss of efficiency. It compares the black curve, which represents the module warranty, with the calculated aging curve, showing that the warranty curve has a higher efficiency loss than the calculated degradation.

Therefore, the sentence in the help documentation is correct in relation to this graph.

Regards,