Is it redundant to consider shading losses in irradiance and additionally include electrical shading losses?

[Angel David Duarte Moreno]

Hi all,

We are currently performing a technical comparison between PVsyst and HelioScope for a C&I rooftop project (FEMSA Coca-Cola case), and we observed that shading losses reported in HelioScope appear lower than those obtained in PVsyst.

In PVsyst, we are considering:

• Near shading irradiance losses (~3.5%)

• Additional electrical mismatch losses due to shading (~1.9%)

This leads to a relevant question from a modeling standpoint:

In HelioScope, are shading losses reported as:

1. Pure irradiance (geometrical) losses only?FEMSA_ Coca-cola_ Tocancipá_Project.VC1-Report.pdfFEMSA_ Coca-cola_ Tocancipá_Project.VC1-Report.pdfFEMSA_ Coca-cola_ Tocancipá_Project.VC1-Report.pdf

2. Or do they already include the electrical mismatch effects caused by partial shading?

From a methodological perspective, we are trying to understand whether including:

• Irradiance shading losses, and

• Additional electrical mismatch losses

could potentially lead to double counting in PVSyst, depending on how each software handles the shading model internally.

 

PVSyst results:

 

Helioscope results:

 

We would appreciate clarification from anyone who has experience reconciling results between the two platforms.

Best regards,

 

Angel Duarte