Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/11/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Hello everyone, please share your best image/design created with PV Sol. Why? - To show and explain the best ways to create visually attractive solar systems. This is mine created with amazing PV Sol; A new-build housing development in the UK - instead of roofing with attractive expensive Cornish slate, the contractor wants to reduce their material costs by installing in-roof panels and experiment with how 'green' they could get. We were able show the contractor thier project in PV Sol by;Importing the site plan, altering the orientation and referencing elevation plans to recreate the neibourhood. Orange buildings highlight PV systems within public view, lighter buildings highlight PV systems with limited public view, grey buildings highlight properties outside consideration. The image went down so well it was reported the contractor specially printed this at poster size to show and tell to Prince Charles of Wales.
  2. 3 points
    1. More control when drawing lines: snap to 10cm or input to drive line length 2. Snap to mid point of line - the ridge of a roof is almost always in the middle 3. ctrl+Z to undo 4. better control when rotating the camera position 5. Higher resolution on panels when zoomed out 6. Default project image zoomed out enough to show whole array Keep up the good work PVSOL team.
  3. 2 points
    Hey there, It follows the order Inveter.MPPT.String.Module Hope that answers your question. Cheers!!
  4. 2 points
    For us, a fixed (or at least globally adjustable) colour scale for the shade frequency analysis would be very useful. So that e.g. 5% of shading has always the same colour for every roof in every project. As it is right now, 5% or even 10% of module shading might appear as a vibrant green, just because a part of the roof (maybe even with no modules) might be shaded very strongly. Not ideal at all. This, along with an option to export these pictures with one press of a button would be very useful to our workflow. As of right now we have to screengrab each and every roof. Edit: exmple picture added.
  5. 2 points
    - would like to see an undo button as discribed above. (or at least be able to lock a complex building and their surroundings, so one misclick doens't destroy your work) - need more options for EV. (e.g. distance travelled per week day, range according new WLTP system) - while the software perfectly suits my technical needs, it seems lackluster/old as a client proposal. - could we have a blanc page in the customer presentation where we can add project or installer specific additional information. - some presentation pages need additional (customizable) information. (while a graph or scheme or just some numbers wth a title above will be very clear for us, a customer most of the time doens't know what he is looking at) - file size of the presentation should be smaller, but pictures should still be high res. - would like to be able to send an electronic presentation to a customer with some analytics possibilities. (where do customers actualy look at?) - easier construction of "complex" buildings. (depth of building schould be addapted to the angle and dimensions of the roof area being used for the array)
  6. 2 points
    Martin, I was genuinely thinking it was my fault the data was not being adopted, that I had done something wrong. It never crossed my mind this could be the intended behaviour by design. The logical approach (at least to me) would be to use 3D to take precise length measures and then adopt them into the 2D design. I always assumed this was the case. As it is it makes absolutely no sense at all, I can't understand why was this module designed like this, and I see it's not just me. What you're saying is that all of the trouble of designing combiner boxes, different cable sections, strings combined into arrays, etc, it all disappears into ONE SINGLE magic number. Just as @timgreen13 pointed out, one is expecting to see cable losses by section, see individual string lengths and losses, etc, because if not then what's the point of all that detailed "painting"? We need to check if individual strings and individual arrays are above our own loss thresholds, to be able to correct them if necessary. Having just one global loss number won't let you see that, you might even have 5% losses in one string branch and get 0,8% global losses in the system. Again I'm in the position of having this powerful software (PVSOL) I paid for that won't do basic functionality, and having to go back to freeware manufacturer software (SUNNY DESIGN) to get some of the design steps done. After fine tuning the strings and cable sections on SUNNY DESIGN I will have to go back to PVSOL and try to input MPPT equivalents... can you see how cumbersome this is? The more I work with PVSOL the more frustrated I get, really, it should be the opposite. You guys do the most difficult part, the math simulations, to unimaginable precision (congrats on that!), and then fail at the most basic functionality and design elements. Go figure...
  7. 2 points
    Dear Remu, there are a whole lot of reasons why simulation results differ between PVGIS and PV*SOL. 1. The climate data used is different. Most of all the irradiation data, which has the strongest influence on the results. The standard in PV*SOL are climate data from Meteonorm, while PVGIS uses its own compiled climate data. See these forum threads here: 2. The simulation models (and even the simulation approaches) are completely different. We follow a time-step based approach (in one-hour or one-minute intervals) that is simulating very accurately the irradiation on module, their temperature, shadows and so on, the electrical generation inside the PV module (with the two-diodes model), the interconnection of various modules and the superposition of their IV characteristics, the inverter behaviour, grid behaviour and what not. PVGIS is following a factor based approach, as you can read in their documentation. In the example you posted here, they just apply a loss factor of 15% to the results and that's it. I'd say, PVGIS is more a tool for a first good guess of the energy yield of a PV system. They do a really good job in integrating meteorological data from various sources, and the web interface is superb. You can click very easily on every point in Europe and see how much a average PV system would generate. PV*SOL is more a tool for designing and simulating PV systems that you are really going to build in real life. You can select real world PV modules, inverters, choose and modify their configuration and so on. You can't really compare the tools, as the scope and the input data used are so different. If you want to dig deeper in our simulation models, have a look here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/calculation/ Here is also a link to the documentation of PVGIS: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/PVGIS/docs/methods Hope that helps, Martin
  8. 1 point
    Good afternoon, I think it would be a good idea if Valentin software developers make a wish list in the Forum for the users so they can have a feedback of what is more important and required by the costumers/users and if they are mentioned very often try to include them in the following releases. Here are my wishes 🙂 1- More stand alone inverter/chargers/components brands, as Victron, Steca, Ingeteam, Solarwatt 2- Bigger area to develop bigger projects 3 - A better relation with 3D software as Sketch-up 4 - The possibility of include some images/pictures or even text in the final report (for clients would be interesting if we can include in one only document the pictures of a visit for example or special information) 5 - BIM/ifc files compatibility. Thanks for your attention. Kind regards
  9. 1 point
    Hi JoelB, would it be possible for you to send us the project file? That would make it a lot easier for us to identify the problem. You can send it to me via private message here in the forum. Thanks and kind regards, Martin
  10. 1 point
    i tried to record a similar video for one of our projects but the animation is available only for year 2017. is it possible to select the current year. i know, this may not make a big difference but, you know, marketing people can be really annoying to get these details right. no offense to marketing people reading this 😜
  11. 1 point
    This is a screenshot recording of the above residential development in Cornwall, UK. •90 x Candidate Properties •750 x SunPower Maxeon3 370W All Black panels in-roof •1,320m² total solar PV roof coverage •Annual Energy yield of 270,000kWh •Annual 〖CO〗_2 emissions avoided 163,000 kg •25 year Solar Panel warranty •12 year Inverter warranty •10 year Workmanship warranty Development 5.mp4
  12. 1 point
    Dear Natheera, the climate data we use in PV*SOL is from Meteonorm, that is correct. The Meteonorm climate data are based on various sources of radiation measurements (ground stations, satellite) , with different time ranges (e.g. 1961 - 1990 or 1991 - 2010 and so on). The availability of climate dataset source varies from location to location. You can find more on that topic here in the manual of Meteonorm in Chapter 3.1: https://meteonorm.com/assets/downloads/mn73_software.pdf This information refers to a another type of product by Meteonorm, historical time series with one hour resolution. These are not climate data files which we normally use for simulation, as they are not representative. Generally it is advised to use the climate datasets with the most recent years that are available, that is correct. The availability of high quality long term measurements however is distributed very unevenly around the globe, however. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  13. 1 point
    Hi K24, as Vishnu pointed out, the activation of minute values is most of all important if you have sizing factors fo above 115 %, or if you have battery systems or electrical appliances that are involved. If your DC/AC ratio ist about 1, and you just want to analyse the feed in, you might be well off with hourly values. But I would always recommend to compare the results at least once. Just simulate your PV system with hourly values, save the results somewehre, and then simulate the same system with one-minute values. Then you'll directly see the differences for your specific case. Our recommendation for the diffuse model is Hofmann (disclaimer: that is me), but we don't recommend it just like that, we have scientific evidence that it performs best under nearly all conditions (especially when using one-minute resolution). See more on diffuse irradiation models here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/calculation/irradiation/diffuse-irradiation/ Kind regards, Martin
  14. 1 point
    I am not sure about diffused radiation model but it is a good pratice to activate minute values when DC/AC ratio is above 1,15 and with batteries. It almost takes forever for the simulation but still
  15. 1 point
    Nice! Here's another before and after, by about one month apart from eachother.
  16. 1 point
    Dear Vishnu, please do not apologize for aksing these questions. You can be sure that if you have the question there will surely be others that have the question as well. 1) Unless the manufacturer explicitly forbids the usage of modules with higher power, you don't risk the loss of warranty (but I am not a lawyer) or damage of the micro inverter. As you said, in usual conditions a 340 Wp module is not delivering 340 W. What you risk if you connect a module with higher power, current or voltage to an inverter is the clipping. The inverter just cuts anything that is over these threshold values, and you lose a bit energy. How much you lose can be verified in the results section, under "Energy balance". 2) Yes, clipping occurs for current, voltage (min and max) and power limitations. And yes, you are right, most of the employees of Valentin are Berlin based. Thank you for your wishes, same to you! Kind regards, Martin
  17. 1 point
    Would be nice to be able to Edit the name of the column headers on the parts list table
  18. 1 point
    Hi everyone & Valentin, we're creating an orientation and pitch chart to show others clearly the kind of performances to expect. Like a compass - difference in Orientation axis follows around the chart, and difference in pitch runs from the centre to the circumference in smaller to larger circles (0 degrees to 80 degrees pitch). So the first circle from the centre represents 10 degrees pitch, the second circle from the centre represents 20 degrees pitch and so on. It's quite smart and will hopefully give clarity to others than Northern facing systems still produce an acceptable level of generation. This is what we've made so far as an example; ...All we've done above is estimated what we think the chart would look like. We'd like to make a PV Sol experiment on what the chart would actually look like. So to do this I'm noting down the PV Sol PV Generator Energy (AC Grid) value for every different combination of orientation and pitch. I've made one for Newquay UK using 14 SunPower Maxeon2 350 panels and a solis 3.68kw inverter (no shading). Just as an illustration; Just using my simple head I would have initially thought East and West orientations would mirror eachother down the South line, as in East and West would give equal or similar energy - lets say 20° due West would provide the same amount of energy as 20° due East. But then this is Newquay, there's the ocean to the West which would skew the results to favour the West though a big water body Albedo. So then I tried other locations; Baldhu UK, Norfolk UK, Riyadh SA and PV Sol shows West orientations generate more PV Generator Energy (AC Grid) than East orientations. Couple of questions please; is there a location in the world where East and West orientations match PV Generator Energy (AC Grid)? am I missing something here... generally speaking is it normal for West orientations to generate more than East? Thank you everyone!! Yours, Jordan
  19. 1 point
    Hallo Julian, um PV-Anlagen mit elektrischen Verbrauchern zu rechnen, musst du zunächst die Anlagenart umstellen: Und dann ist es mit dem Eigenverbrauch so, dass er sich aus dem Zusammenspiel zwischen Energieproduktion der PV-Anlage und dem Energieverbrauch der Verbraucher ergibt. Man kann ihn daher nicht einstellen, so dass er beispielsweise 25% beträgt. Wenn die PV-Anlage im Jahr z.B. 10000 kWh produziert, und man einen Verbrauch von 2500 kWh hat, wäre das ja bilanziell übers Jahr gesehen ein Verbrauchsanteil von 25%. Es ist aber nicht gesagt, dass die PV-Anlage zu jeder Zeit die Last decken kann. Die Gleichzeitigkeit und die Leistungs-Profile von PV und Last sind hierbei ausschlaggebend. Auch der Zeitschritt der Simulation hat einen erheblichen Einfluss auf den Eigenverbrauch. Am besten wählst du mal ein paar Lastprofile aus, mal in 1min, mal 15min und mal 1h-Auflösung und variierst den Jahres-Energieverbrauch und simulierst das dann. Du wirst sehen, wie sich in den Ergebnissen der Eigenverbrauch ändert. Wenn du mehr Unterstützung brauchst, sag Bescheid. Beste Grüße, Martin
  20. 1 point
    Hi, I was wondering, is there an option to undo changes in PV SOL, other than not saving and simply opening the last saved version of your file? Something in the line of Ctrl+Z in MS Office. Thanks!
  21. 1 point
    Hello, I'm from Brazil, I'm having trouble opening 3D modeling
  22. 1 point
    Hi Remu, you can use the Enphase inverters in the automatic or manual configuration like any other inverter as well. Here in my example I have 44 modules on the roof, so I use 44 Enphase inverters: You can also select all Enphase inverters using the link under "Suggest Configuration", and let PV*SOL search for a valid configuration by clicking on the arrow. Regarding the DC and AC power values of the Enphase IQ7-60. Its values are correct in the database: You will have to allow for sizing factors (DC power / AC power) of above 140%. You can do so by clicking on "Configuration Limits" and then set the upper limit to 150 for example: Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  23. 1 point
    Hi Remu, thank you for reporting this error. I will forward it to our database team at database@valentin-software.com. If you find any errors concerning the database entries in the future, you can also report it to them directly. Kind regards, Martin
  24. 1 point
    Dear Remu, sorry for the late answer. I wrote that feature request down, thank you. Kind regards, Martin
  25. 1 point
    Hi RobS, your issue seems to be connected to DPI settings. Look into this answer (and thread) for further help: Hopefully this helps! Best regards, Frederik
  26. 1 point
    The first point mentioned by Jon is an issue since back in 2013. And also the lack of the 3-D-Rotation is definitely not state of the art anymore. Especially for a program with a 4-digit-price. The software maybe was good in the 2000's, but today, 10 - 20 years later? Compare the value-for-money-ratio with AutoCAD or MatLab - PVSol's price is way too high for what is offered. The only good thing is the incredible database - but for somebody like me, travelling a lot and therefore often having problems connecting into the internet, the new policy with only online-database is now getting a pain in my furthest backward part. Overall I believe they are on a quite good way of loosing pace if they don't get into refurbishing their software and marketing policy. My only hope are people like you and me - explaining their needs and hopefully be understood as constructive critcizers.But to be honest... If the way they handled my requests on phone reflects their attitude, I have considerable doubts about helpful progressive changes.
  27. 1 point
    Dear Martin, I'm so happy now. Thank you it worked but with some additions to what you recommended. I made it to run as Windows 8 compatibility, changed the override to "system" and made it run as "Administrator". Please see a screenshot of the clicked/selected properties. Thank you so much
  28. 1 point
    Hallo PVSol Team, I was wondering how PVSol calculates the rating of circuit breakers needed after the inverter and after the bidirectional meter for a system. z.B. the following system uses Solaredge SE7K 3 phase inverter with max output current per phase of 11,5 Amp. PVSol suggested a 16A breaker. Could you please explain how this suggestion was made? Thanks.
  29. 1 point
    Hi Joao, just a short feedback: I can reproduce the problem with your projects, and I haven't found the reason for this behaviour yet, but what I can say so far is that it doesn't affect the simulation results. And there is also a way to make it visible in the project report again. Load your project, go to results page, see in the energy balance "PV energy (AC) minus standby use", it is 128738,39 kWh Go to presentation page, create the report -> your horizon is not visible Go to 3D environment, Terrain View, right click on Horizon, open and close it with OK, and say OK to the warning "This action deletes the results of the shading simulation". Go back to PV*SOL, let the shadowing simulation run again Go to results page again, see in the energy balance "PV energy (AC) minus standby use", it is still 128738,39 kWh Go to presentation page, create the report -> your horizon is visible now We will look into the reason why the horizon lines disappears in step 1 and 2, but this will be next week. We are sorry for the inconvenience this may cause. Kind regards, Martin
  30. 1 point
    😅 No bugs there! Thanks Martin.
  31. 1 point
    Hi Joao, yes, this is normal. Only Bugfix/Smaller releases inside one major family replace the preceding installation. For example PV*SOL premium 2020 R4 will replace 2020 R3, but 2020 R1 will not replace 2019 R14 or any other version before it. This is intended behaviour, as some customers still want to use their old version for a while, and only switch slowly step by step. If you don't want 2019 on your machine, it is safe to uninstall it. Kind regards, Martin
  32. 1 point
    Hi Joao, thank you for reporting this bug, it is already fixed in the next major release. Unfortunately the zoom level isn't something we can easily control as it is an integer value that is given to the various map APIs. There are no values possible between e.g. zoom level 16 and 17. At least not with the tool that we use to access the APIs at the moment. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  33. 1 point
    Some of Valentin's PVSOL Premium potential customers might have, as I did, decided to buy the software based on 3D modeling and shading simulation capabilities. Several anecdotal evidences of this capability can be found on this forum, and on promotion materials spread across several media by Valentin Software sales team. Let me give some examples below... Above - PVSOL Online Shop suggests drone usage for photogrammetry Above - Youtube tutorial suggesting the use of photogrammetry software for 3D import (Pix4D) Above: Feature advertised online since 2017, note the mention to "3D objects created with photos taken from a drone" I guess these examples should be enough to prove the spin over 3D photogrammetry and real life 3D models import into PVSOL. Most people most probably will do the same as we did, download the software and try it out with simple small examples, and it does work, how nice... we then decide to buy the software. Unfortunately it's only when starting to use it for real, with real projects, real data, real photogrammetry, that the trouble starts... errr... ok... let's go smaller then... decimate 3D model and retry... oops... there is a limit of ONLY 500.000 vertices! Anyone with the thinnest experience in photogrammetry knows 500k vertices is nothing, any model with such a low count of vertices is either a single building alone with very little detail and very decimated, or the scene is in terribly low quality with lots of 3D defects. This 500k vertices limit renders the 3D photogrammetry almost useless. In order to work with photogrammetry 3D models one has to decimate the model to a number of vertices really below the 500k vertices limit, because as reported in this other thread (without answer for weeks now) the vertices count is wrong and includes some own PVSOL vertices as overhead, limiting even further the model quality. We have no choice but to comply with the previously unmentioned limits, and we decimate the model further, making the 3D almost unrecognizable, and voila it finally loads and we can start designing the PV system believing all is well now, apart from the 3D miserable quality: This illusion ends as soon as we press the "Start shading frequency" button with the option to show shading percentages on the modules. With the example above, with only 320 modules, the application crashes with an "out-of-memory error": Now this is very strange because this is a 16GB machine and memory usage by PVSOL process never went above 1.4GB on all of the tests we did, so there is a nasty bug here. Valentin official answer is to just say we ran out of memory (despite proof we did not), and telling me "We would use the planning mode with map section.", yes really! So we are working with a 3D model decimated already to just a few hundred vertices, and still PVSOL can't cope with it. Astonishing! We did not give up, and went to the extent of DELETING part of the 3D model objects, parts that would not interfere with shading on the modules, and decimated even further. The result was an .obj file with just 82.034 vertices, that’s 16% of what PVSOL claims to be able to handle, and guess what... it still crashes and can't simulate shading. Conclusion: Don't be fooled by Valentin Software claims over the use of 3D import of photogrammetry models, it's nothing but a toy for micro systems, it's not for professional use. Hope this narrative is useful to anyone considering buying PVSOL Premium based on 3D photogrammetry imports. PS: I have found PVSOL capabilities in regards to computation to be flawless thus far, if you don't mind a miserable 3D component, it's worth it. The 3D module however is just lame. PPS: The worst part on this is that Valentin Software refuses to admit it has a memory management bug, and provides no real assistance nor solution apart from dropping 3D import.
  34. 1 point
    Dear Remu, yes, if you click "Add Row" below your first string, you can add a row for each module area (for each roof). Then select "Connect strings in series". Then all rows with the same string number will be connected into one electrical string. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  35. 1 point
    Dear Remu, you can view and edit the configuration when you select the tree view node named "System 1: Arbitrary [...]" and then click "Edit Configuration": Kind regards, Martin
  36. 1 point
    Dear Developers, i'm "playing" little bit with the cables planner just to see how it works and etc. i made this for example(questions below): why the cable losses AC are 0% -what i need to do in order to see something :)? because i tried to change allot of things and it's always 0% another thing: if i confirm the design above and will go to the cable losses : 1.why on the schematic drawing there is no information from the 3D cable modeling (cable length and etc.) the only thing that has some connection is the 0.95%(in gray) that mean if i want i can put it in the total losses right? Thank you!
  37. 1 point
    Dear Support, Is it possible to see how the cable losses are divided(by % or W) per string , for example i have 12 strings and the DC cable losses are 3% , which of this 12 strings got the st loss
  38. 1 point
    Dear PVSOL team, Is there a way to centre / fit better the project overview photo generated in the presentation? I noticed that the picture is always cut and it doesn't catch the entire view of the project layout. Thank you and appreciate your feedback on this issue. Alex Suciu
  39. 1 point
    Dear Remu, merci beaucoup pour votre question. If you want to supply all colleagues with the same database, the procedure described in the thread is correct, but in the meanwhile, the database files can be found in the directory C:\ProgramData\Valentin EnergieSoftware\PVdatabase\Version6.0 The file you have to copy is "PVSOL.sdf" If you don't see the folder ProgramData on your C drive, select the option for hidden items in the Windows Explorer: A side note: In the next major release, PV*SOL premium 2020 R1, which will be published in January 2020, we introduce online databases, where you can very easily share database entries across different computers. Kind regards, Martin
  40. 1 point
    Dear Bulent, thank you for your question. In PV*SOL, we use climate data from the well-known climate data specialist Meteonorm, see here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/calculation/irradiation/climate-data/ PVsyst also uses Meteonorm, so in terms of irradiation data there shouldn't be any difference between PV*SOL and PVsyst. Do you have an example project where we can see PVsyst and PV*SOL energy yields side by side? Often the differences in the energy yield come from the models that are used to calculate the irradiance on the tilted plane of the PV modules. These models can be modified in the program options under Options -> Program Options -> Project Options -> Simulation: Regarding values from SolarGIS: Yes, it is not unusual that climate data values can vary within +- 15 % between the sources. SolarGIS uses mainly satellite data, if I remember correctly. Meteonorm uses mainly ground measurement stations in combination with satellite data. And then there is PVGIS which also uses satellite data and whose values differ both from SolarGIS and from Meteonorm. See some details about the meteorological approaches here: SolarGIS: https://solargis.com/docs/methodology/solar-radiation-modeling Meteonorm: https://meteonorm.com/assets/downloads/mn73_theory.pdf PVGIS: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_static/pvgis5.pdf As you will soon realize, there is no true or false for climate data. Nor is there any "higher values are better". It depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to achieve a higher simulated energy yield than your competitor, yes, you might be willing to choose the data source with the highest irradiation for a given place. But what happens if this simulated energy yield is too high? Won't the customer be dissappointed? We think that on the ling run, it will shed a negative light on the project planners and users of our software (and the whole industry), which is why we always try to provide simulations that are conservative, but sitll realistic. The climate data of Meteonorm do fit nicely in this "conservative" concept, where the yield that we simulate is nearly always topped in reality. But of course, you are free to import any other climate data into our software and simulate with that. A guide how to import climate data from other sources can be found here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/pages/system-type-climate-and-grid/meteosyn/#options Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  41. 1 point
    Hi UserPV, in the case of the example project "Solar Park Neuhardenberg incl P90", we have module degradation as well as P50/P90 analysis. See these topics for more information: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/pages/financial-analysis/bankability-p50p90/ https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/pages/pv-modules/module-degradation/ These two factors effect the amount of energy that is fed into the grid in the first year. If you set the P50/P90 bankability to 50 and the module degradation to 100% (no degradation), then hese two numbers are equal: You can play around with the factors to see how they influence the results. Kind regards and good luck, Martin
  42. 1 point
    Im Bereich Wirtschaftlichkeit wäre es schön, wenn man eine Laufzeit für den Bereich Kostenbilanz separat einstellen könnte. Z.B.: 20 Jahre Betrachtungszeitraum und 18 Jahre für Betriebskosten.
  43. 1 point
    Hi Remu, please correct me if I got your question wrong, but you don't have to calculate anything by hand if you want to place module mountings on flat roof tops. There is a dialog that helps you to get the inclination and orientation of the PV modules that you want: Then the program will determine the orientation to the mounting surface and enter the values accordingly: Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin
  44. 1 point
    Hallo GeromeK, vielen Dank für das Projekt. Für die anderen Leser fasse ich mal die Anlage-Konfiguration zusammen: In diesem Fall sind 14 Module mit SolarEdge P370 Powert-Optimizern auf einer Dachfläche (Nord-Ost) in Reihe geschaltet mit 10 Modulen auf der gegenüberliegenden Dachfläche (Süd-West), die ebenfalls mit P370 ausgestattet sind. Der SolarEdge Wechselrichter SE7K, an den die Module angeschlossen sind, hat eine feste MPP-Spannung von 750 V. Was in diesem Fall passiert, kann man sich anhand der Kennlinien in den Ergebnissen ganz gut visualisieren. Die Aufzeichnung der Kennlinien kann man in den Programmoptionen unter "Simulation" aktivieren. Ich nehme mal als Beispiel den 01. Juni um 14h. Da wird die süd-westliche Dachfläche mit 1013 W/m² bestrahlt, während die im nordosten nur 75 W/m² abbekommt, da sie im Vollschatten liegt. Dadurch überlagern sich die Kennlinien der Power-Optimizern zu folgender Gesamt-Kennlinie, die der Wechselrichter sieht: Dunkelblaue Kurve: Strom-Spannungs-Kennlinie Hellblau: Leistung-Spannungs-Kennlinie Das Überlagern der Kennlinien läuft in einer Reihenschaltung ja so, dass sich die Spannungen addieren, während die Ströme gleich bleiben. Um die MPP-Spannung des Wechselrichters zu erreichen, braucht man mindestens 13 Module mit P370 Power-Optimizern ( 750 V / 60 V = 12,5 - die 60V kommen von der maximalen Ausgangsspannung der P370). In diesem Fall werden aber nur 10 Module voll bestrahlt, die restlichen 14 auf der nordöstlichen Seite tragen kaum etwas bei. Daher sackt die Leistung knapp über 600 V auf der Gesamt-Kennlinie ab und der Wechselrichter sieht nur noch etwa 1000 W statt der eigentlich verfügbaren 3100 W. Diese Verluste werden dann der Abregelung wegen des MPP-Spannungsbereichs zugeschrieben und sind insofern korrekt. Das zeigt mal wieder, dass der Einsatz von SolarEdge-PowerOptimizern nicht zwangsläufig zu einer Ertragssteigerung in jeder beliebigen Anlagen-Konfiguration führt. Auch hier muss sehr genau (wie bei herkömmlichen Wechselrichtern auch) auf die Verschaltung geachtet werden. Daher wird auch von SolarEdge für die neuen P370 bei 3phasigen Wechselrichtern (wie der SE7K einer ist) eine minimale Modul-Anzahl von 16 vorgeschrieben, um diese Art von Verlusten zu vermeiden. Siehe hier: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-p-series-add-on-frame-mounted-power-optimizer-datasheet-de.pdf Darauf wird bei der Verschaltung in PV*SOL auch hingewiesen, wenn die neuen P370 gewählt werden (die mit worldwide im Namen). Beste Grüße, Martin
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    Dear PV*SOL users, we are proud to announce that we have published our new help pages now. You can find them here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/en/ We hope that you'll find them useful in the future, and we'd be glad to hear what you think of them. Thanks and kind regards, Your PV*SOL team
  47. 1 point
    If the program was released after your maintenance ends, the program will start as test version. To fix this : Uninstall this version and install a version released before your maintenance end. Renew the maintenance.
  48. 1 point
    Dear Bernard, unfortunately this is not directly possible, no. But you could do the following: copy the data of the horizon line table to the clipboard, paste it in Excel subtract 180 from the azimuth values copy both azimuth and height values to a text file use space as a value separator save the file as *.hor Of course this would only include the horizon line and no near objects. May I ask the use case for the hor-export function? Perhaps we should consider implementing it in the future. Thanks, Martin
  49. 1 point
    Dear Bernard, thank you for your interesting question. The hor files only contain the horizon line value pairs. That is, those values only apply for shading objects that are far away from your pv system (=horizon or very distant houses or the like). The horizon line always has a transmittance of 0%. For near shading objects like trees you should not use hor files, but real 3D objects instead. In the 3D planning environment in PV*SOL premium you can choose from several objects like chimneys, walls and said trees. Those trees can have custom transmission factors. The difference between the shading by the horizon line and the near shading objects is that if the sun is behind the horizon line, there is only diffuse irradiance. There is also no shadow caused by direct sunlight since there is no direct sunlight anymore. Near shading objects however can cast a hard shadow on the pv system, depending on the sun's position and the geometries of the object and the pv systems. Those shadows can lead to important changes to the I-V characteristics when parts of the pv system receive full irradiance and others only the diffuse fraction (as described here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/calculation/pv-field/ ). Hope that helps, Martin
  50. 1 point
    Hello rui, It is right. If you combine to different module areas to configure them to an inverter with multiple MPP trackers then you have to find one inverter wich matches the number of modules. If you need more than one inverter you have to arrange the moduel areas or modules in advance. In the 3D planning you have to select all modules which should be configured on one inverter in the module configuration window. This can be done with your mouse and if necessary the CTRL key. After you have selected the modules, right click on them and choose "Add to Group Module Ares Dialog". You have to do this for the different roofs. If you have add all needed modules to groups please use the button "Group module areas for the configuration" (3rd icon from the left). In the appearing window you should now have different module groups with different orientations or tilt angles. Select the groups which should be configured. You can also merge gropus if needed. Afterwards select "Configure" and the inverter selection window will open. Here you have to do the steps which you have described and select your inverter. In the 2D planning you have to divide your module areas into "sub" areas. For Example: you have to module areas with 40 modules. You want to configure all the 40 modules module of one area and 20 modules of the other to one inverter. You have to divide one of the module areas into two module areas with 20 modules. Now you can select the area with 40 modules and one of the areas with 20 modules, combine them and choose an inverter. Best regards Technical Support
  • Create New...