RicardoM

Thanks Martin, Does that mean that in that case the system will generate reactive energy or will active energy simply be capped with cos phi = 1? Kind regards, Ricardo

Good morning dear developers and happy new year! (even though we are already two weeks in) Can you please point me in the direction of a detailed explanation for each of the losses shown in the energetic balance of the simulation? I'm sure there is a link somewhere, but I haven't found it. For example, how is the maximum AC power regulation calculated? I'm aware that a lot of these calculations are probably trade secrets, but I am just asking for general tips in case I ever need to go into a lot of detail with a customer (I'm already familiar with most sections in the report, but not all). Thanks!!

Hi Frederik, I think I found the issue, apparently I have two versions of the inverter, one of them is the one you have with 22 A and the other one has 26 A. This second version appears created by a hidden user, which I guess must have been a colleague of mine. No need to worry then, now I know what I need to use. Thanks!

Hello dear developers, I just noticed that Huawei inverter SUN2000-36KTL shows a maximum current of 26 A per MPPT: However, looking at the datasheet, that value should be 22 A: Can you please double check and if needed fix the value in PV*SOL? The difference means one or two strings per MPPT, which as you can imagine is quite significant. Thanks!!

Hi Martin, Thanks, I will do that in the future. Kind regards, Ricardo

Hi Martin, It does help, thanks. My bad for inadvertently choosing a different inverter when both should have been the same, but this leads me in another direction: these are values that I don't see in the product datasheet (please find it attached), so as the inverter did not exist in the PVSOL database, when I created it I must have left the default values, which apparently are more conservative than actual values. Would you say those actual values should be 98, 99%, higher...? Thanks and regards, Ricardo SUN2000-40KTL-US Español.pdf

Good morning dear developers, I designed a project and then rearranged some of the modules among different roofs (always with the same orientation and inclination), keeping the same total number of modules, same number of inverters and same number of modules per string. Besides the different layout (which influenced cable distances, longer in the secod simulation) I also decreased some cable sections. Comparing both simulations, the 2nd one is 2% lower in total energy output but cable losses, although larger, do not account for that. The main difference I see is what is referred to as "Adaptación MPP" in Spanish, which goes from 2,00% to 4,00%. As both results are quite exact and the second is exactly double, I was wondering, where does that come from? Have I perhaps inadvertantly set that parameter somewhere, so that it is not a product of the simulation but rather a design choice, in the line of soiling losses? If so, where do I change it? If not, what influences it? Please see below an excerpt of the energy balance of both simulations (in the same order): Thanks for your time, kind regards, Ricardo

Hi Martin, Thanks but no, I did not install it in a new device. I've been using the same one for quite a while already... Any other option? How can my user id have changed and how can I prevent that from happening again? Kind regards, Ricardo

Good afternoon dear developers, For some of my previous projects I've been using the Jinko 525 Wp module (please see attached datasheet), which does not yet exist in the PV*SOL databases, so I created it. Unfortunately, now that I try to use it again, I can't find it anymore: If I open my old project, there I can find it, no problem: What can I do to make this module (or any others I create) permanently available for all my projects? Also, any chance this module will be officially uploaded by PV*SOL? Thanks and regards, Ricardo TR JKM520-540M-7TL4-V-A1-EN.pdf

Hi Martin, As requested, I'm trying to attach the project via private message; however, it is 7 MB and apparently the maximum allowed file size is 3,22. Can I e-mail it to you somehow? Thanks and regards, Ricardo

Good evening dear developers, Something funny happens in one of my projects, depending on how I select the modules on it the numbers don't seem to add up: As you see in the first two images, if I add the modules it is 110+101 = 211 and if I add the kWp of both selections it is 30,80 + 30,30 = 61,1 kWp. This last number, however, is not the same as what I get when I select all 211 modules at once, as you see in the last image (that totals 59,08 kWp and not 61,1). The top two blocks of modules (110 total, 280 Wp each) are a different model than the bottom three blocks (101 modules, 300 Wp each). When I perform the simulation PV*SOL believes it is actually a 61,1 kWp installation, which makes sense: 110*0.28 + 101*0.3 = 61,1 kWp. So why does it count 59,08 kWp when I select all the modules at once?? Thanks and regards, Ricardo

Hi Martin, I'm not sure I follow what you say or how it relates to my question but I have sent you my simulation results (pdf) via DM, as the PV*SOL file itself is too big. Let me know if it reaches you, if you need more information I'll be happy to e-mail it to you. Thanks and regards, Ricardo

Hello dear developers, I'm working on a self-consumption project for which I'd like to calculate net present value, IRR, payback and cashflow and I noticed that PV*SOL seems to take the total produced energy for its financial calculations, instead of what is actually self-consumed by the customer (the rest of the energy is wasted, as we need to use a zero injection device to guarantee that none of the energy is fed into the grid). This is not right, as the benefit for the customer is the lower electricity bill due to the PV energy produced and consumed for his process, there is no feed-in tariff or any other compensation for the surplus energy. How can I indicate that this other value (223.029 kWh and not 274.693 kWh) needs to be used for the financial calculations? Thanks and regards, Ricardo

Thanks Martin, I had missed that. Kind regards, Ricardo

Hi, Thanks for the quick replies and for pointing me to those threads. It seems I may indeed have made a mistake creating the module, but I don't know where. I didn't see the IAM value on the datasheet and I didn't see any way to enter it when I created the module, could you please show me how to do that and what value I should include? If having my project would help, please let me know how to send it to you privately, Martin, as it has some confidential information and I don't want to share it publicly ? Thanks and regards, Ricardo