developer_mh

Hello mmakatri, on the page "System, Climate and Grid", choose the System Type "Grid-Connected PV System with Electrical Appliances and Battery Systems". Then you can select battery systems on the Battery Systems page. There are three types of systems, as described here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2019/calculation/battery-systems/#type-of-coupling Yours would be a "DC intermediate" or "DC-link" coupling. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi Antonio, you can have a look at our help pages, a good starting point would be here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2019/pages/presentation/ You can also use the search function to search for specific parameters. If you find parameters that are not explained in the help pages, please let us know. Kind regards, Martin

Hallo Sonnenstrom Pöppl, um die Abregelungseffekte möglichst realistisch einschätzen zu können, empfiehlt es sich immer, mit Minutenwerten der Solarstrahlung zu rechnen. Mit Stundenwerten wird der energetische Verlust durch die Wechselrichter-Abregelung unterschätzt. Die Verwendung von Minutenwerten kann unter Optionen -> Projektoptionen -> Simulation eingestellt werden: Generell hängt die Höhe der Abregelungsverluste von vielen Faktoren ab. Die Ausrichtung der Anlage ist sicherlich ein wichtiger Faktor, ja. Sehr wichtig ist z.B. auch der Dimensionierungsfaktor der Anlage, also das Verhältnis von DC Nennleistung der PV Module zur AC Leistung des Wechselrichters. Je größer der Dimensionierungsfaktor, desto höher auch die Abregelungsverluste. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hi Robin, no, I am afraid that is not possible. You can have more than 1 inverter configuration for two combined module areas, but they have to be identical. In this case you can enter a number greater than 1 in the first field here: But I guess that this will not solve your problem. Right now, there is no other possibility, sorry. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Robin, you are not doing something wrong, and it is not a bug, it is just a missing feature. But I am glad to be able to announce this feature for the next major release PV*SOL premium 2020 R1. We will publish it in January 2020 if all goes according to plan. Kind regards, Martin

Hallo ojsolar, ja, wir sind uns dessen bewusst. Der Fehler hätte in der aktuellen Version schon gefixt sein sollen, ist er aber nicht. Eine Lösung ist auf dem Weg. Wir möchten uns für die Unannehmlichkeiten entschuldigen. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hi Alex, yes, I can confirm that in some cases the camera doesn't catch the whole system. My recommendation would be to use the screenshot manager to define your own project overview. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi Tim, for the AC cable losses you'll have to enter the AC cable details after selecting the inverter in the tree view on the left: The only information that is translated from the 3D planning into the cable planning page is the total loss, that is true. In that case we consider the cable planning done in detail in 3D, so that you are in "Total loss" mode on the cable planning page and you can add some security devices if you wish. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi Stefany, could you send us the 3D model (the obj file), so that we can have a look? Unfortunately we haven't received a file from Vicente, so we don't know the reason there. Thanks, Martin

Hi Moritz, der Variantenvergleich wird mit der nächsten Hauptversion (PV*SOL premium 2020 R1) veröffentlicht, die voraussichtlich im Januar 2020 auf den Markt kommt. Bis dahin muss man leider den Vergleich manuell durchführen. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hi Trond, the attached txt file here contains one value per line, for each hour of the year. The unit is Watts, so you have to choose this in PV*SOL when you import the file. Hope that helps, Martin PVSOL Load Profile for Import.txt

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

Hallo PV-Flow, leider kann man derzeit in PV*SOL nur einen GAK pro MPP-Tracker festlegen. Die DC Hauptleitung, die bei dir unterschiedliche Längen und Querschnitte haben, würden somit in PV*SOL zu einer zusammengefasst. Aus pragmatischen Gründen würde ich empfehlen, einmal den worst case zu rechnen (alle Leitungen haben 115m und 50mm² Durchschnitt), und einmal den best case (56m und 120mm²). Für beide Fällen schaust du dir in der Energiebilanz hinten bei den Ergebnissen die Kabelverluste an. Dann kannst du einschätzen, in welchem Rahmen sich das bewegt. Dann würde ich am Ende eine Länge und einen Querschnitt nehmen, der näher am worst case ist, aber das Ergebnis auch nicht zu sehr verzerrt. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hallo Rübezahl, kannst du einen Link schicken, auf welche FAQ du dich beziehst? Ich vermute, dass hier ein Missverständnis vorliegt, die Modulneigung wird in jedem Fall mit in die Ertragsberechnung einbezogen, sie ist essentiell. Meinst du diesen Eintrag hier? Hier geht es um die resultierende Modulneigung und -ausrichtung, wenn aufgeständerte Anlagen auf schiefen Ebenen platziert werden, da sich deren Neigungs- und Ausrichtungswinkel überlagern. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hi RicardoM, sorry for the late reply. There is no way right now in PV*SOL to add DC loads or DC/DC converters. Other than that, the system you showed in the diagram looks strongly like the one you selected (we developed the offgrid part of PV*SOL together with SMA some years ago), except for the DC loads of course. Even the housing of the bidirectional battery inverter looks like the SMA Sunny Island Could you tell me which device this is? Do you have information how the energy flow is managed? Kind regards, Martin

Hallo ElektroFreitag, momentan lassen sich DC-gekoppelte Batteriespeicher, wie das SolarWatt-System eines ist, immer nur mit einem PV-Wechselrichter verbinden. Wir sind uns der Einschränkungen bewusst und haben das als Feature- / Weiterentwicklungswunsch schon auf der Liste. Allerdings noch nicht terminiert, also können wir leider noch nicht sagen, wann das Feature verfügbar sein wird. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hi Jack, thank you for sending the project files. I can confirm that I see the same behaviour. There seems to be a bug when using module mounting systems with an inclination of 0,01° and module numbers of above 4 or 5. I think the root of the problem is that the module mounting systems are not used in the way we intended. If you want to place modules parallel to roof, consider to place them directly on the roof using the "module coverage" mode instead of using mounting systems. See more here: https://3d-help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/en/#t=html%2Fen%2F3d%2FEinfuehrung_in_die_Modulbelegung.htm There the bug doesn't effect you, and you can also work faster and more flexible. I configured one of the projects that you sent me in this way to demonstrate what I mean. I will send it to you by private message. I hope this helps, kind regards, Martin

Hallo Ralf, hallo GeromeK, ja, das stimmt natürlich, über die Grenze hinweg lassen sich dann keine Module legen. Ein entsprechendes Dach fehlt in den Vorlagen, auch das ist richtig. Die Alternative wäre, wie bereits erwähnt, ein Satteldach mit den Sperrflächen zu versehen. Zur Präsentation beim Kunden könnte man, wenn die Sperrflächen optisch nicht gefallen, z.B. auf Photo Plan zurückgreifen. Die Variante mit dem 2D-Dach scheint mir in diesem Fall keine geeignete Alternative zu sein, da hier gegenüber der Variante mit dem Satteldach und den Sperrflächen ja nichts gewonnen ist. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hallo Ralf, Krüppelwalm-Dächer werden bei uns immer in zwei Segmente unterteilt, da die entstehenden Dachflächen nicht zwangsweise den gleichen Neigungswinkel haben. Hier z.B.: Man kann aber natürlich trotzdem beide Teil-Dachflächen belegen und dann gemeinsam elektrisch verschalten, indem man im Reiter "Modulverschaltung" auf "Alle unverschalteten Modulflächen verschalten" klickt. Dann mit gehaltener Strg-Taste beide Modulflächen selektieren, auf "Modulflächen gemeinsam verschalten" und dann wie gewohnt verschalten: Ich hoffe, das hilft weiter. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hi Sebastian, sorry for the late answer, I think we overlooked it and forgot to reply. The data that is displayed in the carpet plots is identical to the data in the time series. So you just have to select the according time series, eg. "Irradiance onto horizontal plane", choose the full year as time period and then right click and export it to Excel. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi Alisson, it seems that the picture that you attached is not there. Could you try and upload it again? Kind regards, Martin

Hi Jack, thank you for reporting this strange behaviour. Could you send us a project file so that we can reproduce the issue. You can also send it by private message here in the forum, so that it doesn't become public. Kind regards, Martin

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/2019/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 long 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 still 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/2019/pages/system-type-climate-and-grid/meteosyn/#options Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Here is the excel sheet, you can just paste your monthly values into the green fields and copy the blue fields to the clipboard PVSOL Modify Monthly Consumption Percentage Before Import.xlsx

Hi Tim, you are right, the import of the 12 monthly values in the dialog you posted in your first post are not accurate. This is a bug we know of quite some time, but this section of our software is/was a remainder from older times This is one of the reasons why we refurbished these old components now. In the next major release (which is planned for early 2020), an update of the consumption dialogs is included. In the meantime, if you work with net metering you can enter the monthly consumption values directly here: Or, if you are willing to modify the monthly consumption before importing them, you can do the following: Import the monthly energy values in kWh and calculate the monthly percentage (first two columns) Calculate the monthly modification factor with (days of month) / (365/12) Calculate the converted percentage with (real percentage) / (modification factor) then you can select the last column, copy it to the clipboard and paste it into the dialog that you showed Then click ok and enter the yearly energy consumption here Then you'll get the monthly energy consumption into PV*SOL as desired: Hope that helps, and sorry for the circumstances. Kind regards, Martin