Jump to content

Thin film modules vs crystalline at UK


oron
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dear PVsyst experts,

im already using PVsyst for long time , and i had been in your great trainging a year ago which was very informative for me.

In Israel we can see clearly the advantage of thin film modules technology (8-10% more), and i think that the reason is the high temprature on the israeli deserts (summer average above 35 deg)

now i design a PV plant in UK (centre) and i found that there is no difference at system's annual yield between the two technologies (less then 3% or no difference at all)

i tried to do many simulations at different tilt and different shading angle but nothing...

is that reasonable or i did something wrong here?

thanks a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Indeed, I don't know any systematic and significant differences of PR between different technologies in "usual" climates.

Sometimes it may be more, sometimes less. Only the simulation can give an answer in a given climate, and you have an estimation of the respective irradiance and temperature losses.

Moreover, the comparison results are not necessarily reliable as the module's performance parameters may be defined in different ways (Manufacturer-defined or default parameters for Rserie and Rshunt, etc).

We don't have a detailed measurement report for each module (especially for low-light performance, i.e. Rserie determination).

As you point out, it is possible to have less thermal losses with thin film technologies with lower muPmpp coefficients in very hot climates, but 8 to 10% seem a very high discrepancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...