developer_mh

Hi Christian, du kannst ganz einfach Text-Dateien importieren, schau mal hier: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/navigationsseiten/verbrauch/ Viele Grüße, Martin

Ja, aber auch Polysun kann derzeit nur die Daten von Meteonorm 7.2 haben, nur um das nochmal klarzustellen. Der Unterschied in den Erträgen rührt dann von der Verwendung unterschiedlicher Datenquellen her, also DWD vs Meteonorm 7.2. Um auch in PV*SOL die Daten von Meteonorm 7.2 für deutsche Standorte zu verwenden, sollten sie in Meteosyn interpoliert werden. Grüße! Martin

Hallo Sonnenpower, Messwerte liegen natürlich beim DWD in aktuelleren Zeiträumen vor. Was wir in PV*SOL verwenden, sind aber ja typische meteorologische Jahre, die aus mehreren Messjahren kompiliert werden. Dazu wird auch nochmal mehr erklärt in den Hilfeseiten: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/berechnungsgrundlagen/einstrahlung/klimadaten/#was-sind-klimadatens%C3%A4tze-was-bedeutet-typical-mean-year Bei der Interpolation neuer Standorte werden immer die Meteonorm-Datensätze verwendet! Das heißt, wenn du jetzt einen neuen Standort durch Interpolation erzeugst, werden nicht die sonst sichtbaren DWD-Daten verwendet, weswegen sich die Globalstrahlungssummen dann auch unterscheiden können. Ein Spanier hatte neulich schon mal eine ähnliche Frage, vielleicht hilft dir das auch nochmal weiter: Viele Grüße! Martin

Hallo sonnenpower! Die Daten, die wir momentan in PV*SOL integriert haben, stammen aus MeteoNorm 7.2, sind also bis zum Erscheinen der neuen Version 7.3 die aktuellsten. Wir haben zusätzlich für einige Länder noch weitere Daten hinzugefügt, die nich aus MeteoNorm stammen, siehe hier: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/berechnungsgrundlagen/einstrahlung/klimadaten/ Für Deutschland sind das die Daten vom DWD, wie du ja auch geschrieben hattest. Diese liegen uns nur für den Mittelungszeitraum 1981 bis 2010 vor. Wenn Sie aktuellere Daten haben, würden wir uns sehr über einen Hinweis freuen! Neue Standorte können Sie ganz einfach selbst erzeugen, entweder aus interpolierten MeteoNorm-Daten (die dann wahrscheinlich ähnliche Strahlungswerte wie in Polysun aufweisen), oder aus eigenen Messwerten, z.B. aktuelleren DWD-Daten. Mehr dazu hier: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/navigationsseiten/anlagenartklimaundnetz/meteosyn/ Viel Erfolg und beste Grüße, Martin

Hi Cesar, we had several customers with this bug. Unfortunately we still haven't identied the real source of the problem. But in PV*SOL premium 2018 R10 we added some UI enhancements that should minimize the impact of this bug. Which version are you using. And when you say " Few weeks ago everithing was working fine. " could you tell us what happened in the meanwhile? Did you update PV*SOL, oder Windows? Or some graphics drivers perhaps? Every information is helpful! Thanks a lot, kind regards, Martin

Hi Kamil, I think the problem here is that the one module under the roof which has 100% direct shading perhaps isn't considered correctly regarding the diffuse shading, which should also be 100%. Could you send me the project file? But in general, what happens if you have a string connection like the above is that all modules are forced down to the i v curve from the diffuse irradiance, which is not 0. This is why you don't get 0 kWh output. All bypass diodes of the shaded module would be active so that you loose a bit additional energy (current from the other modules * diode voltage), but you'll still get energy out of the string. You can also have a look here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/calculation/pv-field/ Hope that helps, kind regards. Martin

Hello Anders, good point. We will contact the manufacturer and see if they can provide us with the technological details that we need to simulate these batteries. Thanks for the input! Martin

Hi Dmytro, please contact our sales team at sales@valentin-software.com, with your customer number and serial number. They will be able to help you out. To avoid that situation in future, it would be good if you deregister your PV*SOL before reinstalling windows. Kind regards, Martin

Hallo Felix, ja, das wäre momentan die einzige Möglichkeit, auch wenn sie etwas unsauber ist. Die 20% für die Modul-Verschmutzung bewirken, dass die Einstrahlung im gesamten Januar zu jedem Zeitpunkt um 20% gemindert wird. Was man eigentlich bräuchte, wäre ja eine Möglichkeit, die Einstrahlung an 6 der 31 Tagen um 100% zu mindern. Aber das geht leider derzeit nicht auf komfortable Weise. Die umständlichere Variante wäre, die Klimadaten zu exportieren, dann z.B. in Excel die Einstrahlung an 6 Tagen auf 0 zu setzen, daraus wieder eine importierbare Klimadatei zu erzeugen und sie dann in MeteoSyn zu importieren. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hi Dennis, This is a tricky project you have there! Unfortunately you can't rotate the modules directly, you can just rotate buildings with modules on them. So in this case you would have to create small segments of the outer circle, place a module there and then copy and rotate until you get the full circle. Here's a quick sketch: of course the segments must be more precise. Does this help? I know it is a bit cumbersome, but at least it is possible Good luck and kind regards, Martin

Hi Stuart, Then you could copy the values from the diagram perhaps. But the numbers there represent full calendar years, so there might be differences if your start of operation is not January 01. Additionally there is the difference between the grid feed-in and the PV energy (AC) even when you don't have electrical appliances as the inverters have some own consumption during night. Also consider that you don't start with 97% module power if you enter a degradation of 97% for the first year. You start with 100% and the module power will reduce to 97% in the first year as displayed in the diagram as well: Perhaps I should give an example. I have a standard PV system with consumer, module degradation is shown as above, start of operation is January 01. From the Energy balance: PV energy (AC) as simulated without module degradation is 3537.69 kWh Grid feed-in (i.e. minus the standby consumption of -0.79 kWh), also without module degradation is 3538.48 kWh From the simulation results: Grid feed-in in the first year is 3479 kWh note that 3479 / 3538 = 0.983, which is more than the 97% because you only reach the 97% in the end of the first year From the diagram 'PV energy during observation period' PV energy AC in the first year is 3477.9 kWh (taken from the first bar in that bar chart) this is slightly less due to the standby consumption of the inverter So, I guess what you want are the numbers from the bar chart 'PV energy during observation period', right? You could copy them by right clicking on the chart. If you have any further questions, please let me know! Kind regards, Martin

Hi Dennis, If you use a 3-phase inverter, we consider the electrical appliances to be equally distributed over the three phases, so in this case yu don't have to do anything special. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Mehdi, the installation type is important for the thermal behaviour of the PV module. Please have a look here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/pages/pv-modules/#installation-situation https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/calculation/pv-modules/module-temperature/ Kind regards, Martin

Hi Dennis, another good question Unfortunately, you can't draw modules on parapet walls, since these are regarded as obstacles. What you would have to do is to either model this biulding in another 3D software, e.g. sketchup, that offers more modelling options, and import that model afterwards. Or you extrude the segments of the building one after another. Personally I would recommend the first option, but if you'd like to do it in PV*SOL, here is what you would have to do: Sketch a 3D polygon of one half of the outer raised ring (the former parapet) and extrude it to its final height, i.e. 2m above the height of the inner area Go back to the map section and extrude the other half of the ring The go back to the map and extrude the center ring, but with less height. Like this, you'll get a building where you can place modules in the inner area as well as on the outer wall. I just did it quickly to demonstrate that it is possible, I am sure you can get better results: Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi Dennis, good question! Since we don't assign the electrical appliances to specific phases (L1, L2 or L3) in a 3-phase grid, we simply assume that all consumption takes place on the same phase as the PV inverter is feeding in. If you want to show your customers the differences in the self consumption rate when using 3- or 1-phase inverters (that certainly exists, as you correctly pointed out), you should identify the appliances that are connected to L2 and L3 and subtract their consumption from the load profile, so that you only consider the load on L1 when using a 1-phase inverter. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Stuart, sorry, my information wasn't complete. On that page you will see this number only if you don't have electrical appliances in your system. If you have, you can still see it under 'Financial Analysis' further down. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Stuart, in the simulation of the first year of energy production, the module degradation is not accounted for. It is applied only to the economic calculations and displayed in the diagram 'PV energy during observation period'. This diagram is also included in the project report. On the results page, under 'Simulation', you'll see also the reduced grid feed-in due to degradation in the first year: Unfortunately we do not provide the average over the observation period in the results. You would have to copy the data table of the diagram above to the clipboard, paste it in Excel and calculate it there yourself. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi Jaroslaw, one important thing first: The climate data we use in PV*SOL are no real-time weather data of the current year! The data is a compilation of the past 20 or 30 years, this is an important difference, please have a look here: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/calculation/irradiation/climate-data/#what-are-climate-data-sets-what-does-typical-mean-year-mean But nevertheless, you can of course have a detailed look at the instantaneous power of the system in the diagram editor on the page 'Results', under 'Simulation'. Choose 'Select data series' to select the series 'PV energy AC minus standby use': There you see the AC power in Watts. And your electrician actually gave you a good advice. Your installed power on the DC side is 9920 W, the max output on the AC side is 9000 W, so you have a dimensioning factor of 110 % (9920 / 9000). This is a very reasonable system design, as you very rarely reach the full 9920 W with your system. It is better to choose a slightly smaller inverter, that saves you money and the amount of energy that you loose is negligible. Hope that helps! Kind regards, Martin

Hallo myrza, die Sunny Islands von SMA sind alles einphasige Geräte, daher braucht man in dreiphasigen Systemen immer mindestens drei Geräte, also eins pro Phase. Musst du für deine Masterarbeit wirklich ein Offgrid-System dimensionieren? Wenn nicht, wähle die Anlagenart "Netzgekoppelte PV-Anlage mit el. Verbrauchern und Batterie-System". Da hast du dann auch Speichersysteme zur Auswahl, die man direkt so kaufen kann. Ich denke, du meinst wahrscheinlich eher sowas? Beste Grüße, Martin

Thank you very much for the kind words! We are very pleased to hear that

You can place cable grommets for each inverter configuration, if this is what you mean. Just drag and drop them from the toolbar onto the roof, then right click on the inverter configuration and select 'Cable with' -> Cable Grommet 01. When right clicking the cable grommet you can also set the distance from there to the inverter. I think you can achieve what you need by placing cable bundles along that path and grommets at the end and then connect them all by following the steps above (right click, select 'cable with' option etc.) You can use the distance to the inverter option for that. Ah, yes, if you configure panels from different module areas together on one MPP tracker, they will share a cable path. That will look like this: But you cannot really edit the connection between the two roofs afterwards. You can start by reading the help pages here: http://3d-help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/en/#t=html%2Fen%2F3d%2FEinfuehrung_in_den_Kabelplan.htm And then, perhaps a look at our video tutorials might help in some specific questions: https://www.youtube.com/user/valentinsoftware/videos If you miss more help on a specific topic, please let us know! Kind regards, Martin

Hi James, you are right, in polystring configurations you can only have one inverter at the moment. If you want to configure your two module areas to three different inverters, you would have to split the module areas in advance. Just select the first 460 modules of building 04 while in the 'Module Configuration' tab, and then right click and add them to the 'Define Module Areas' dialog. Then select the remaining 46 panels of building 04 and add them two. The same you do with building 02, 69 panels first and then 575 panels. Then go to the 'Define Module Areas' dialog: When you select the two items in the middle, i.e. the 46 modules from building 04 (building 01 for me) and the 69 modules of building 02, you can click on 'Combine Selection' to get the modules together: Now you can configure them with thre different inverters, as you desired. Good luck and kind regards, Martin

Hi Pablo, thanks a lot for your kind words. Let me recommend our youtube video on Pix4D models to you, perhaps you will find some settings there that will help you out. I think especially the Processing Options of Pix4D are of importance. We also offer technical support for all of our customers, so if you decide to become our customer (which would make us really happy), you can send in your model and have it checked. No guarantee that we can fix it though, as there are a lot things that can get complicated in the world of 3D models. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Anders, just click on my username and then on "Message". Kind regards, Martin

Hi Ricardo, what you heard from your German colleague is actually true. We are known to model PV systems more on the conservative side. This prevents our customers from bad surprises That is, when you plan your PV system in PV*SOL, you can be very confident that you will reach and most likely surpass this yield in reality. In our opinion, this is a very important fact that system planners really appreciate in the long run. But we can't say for example that our simulated yields are always 2% under the real yields. If you simulate 100 systems around the world with different technology and so on, the spread will be 5 to 0 % deviation, with an average of around 2%. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin