developer_mh

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

Hi Ricardo, I understand the uncertainties that these difference may cause. The fact is that there is no single "truth" for climate data for a given location, but different use cases and data sources. MeteoNorm tries to compile long term typical meteorological years for any location around the world, usually comprising 20 to 30 years of ground based or satellite measurement. That means the climate data you get from MeteoNorm is very typical for a location when looking at the last 20 or 30 years. This kind of data is generally accepted as valid input data for photovoltaic system analysis. In some countries however there are published standards with predefined climate dataset of varying provenience. Some projects or investors in these countries require PV simulations to use these data as input in order to introduce some kind of comparability between the simulations. This might be reasonable when there are a lot of climate data providers that offer climate data of very incosistent quality. To be honest, I don't know how the authors of UNE EN 94003 2006 had their data from. Given that the process of standardisation usually takes several years, these data were likely recorded well before 2006, I guess around 1990. MeteoNorm uses data from 1991 - 2010, so perhaps this is the reason for the difference in the annual irradiation sum. But we would have to know the source of the 94003 2006 data to really understand the differences. If you plan PV systems in Spain, and no one is asking you or your company to use the UNE data, I would personally go with the more up-to-date data of MeteoNorm. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Ricardo, the model chain of PV*SOL is quite complex, I would recommend our help sites as a start: https://help.valentin-software.com/pvsol/2018/calculation/ As you can see, there a really a lot of input data, parameters and algorithms that all play their part in the simulation of a PV plant. The complete comparison of the PV*SOL and the SolarGIS model chain could easily make up a Master thesis Just to name a few key questions that strongly affect the PV output: What meteorological input data do you use for irradiance and temperature? Do you simulate in 1h or 1min resolution? What models do you use for diffuse irradiance and transposition to the module plane? What models for reflection, soiling etc? How do you model the temperature and weak light behaviour of the PV module? How is the circuitry and the interconnection as well as ohmic losses accounted for? How detailed is the DC/AC inverter model? But from the history of our two companies you could perhaps conclude that SolarGIS is very strong in providing meteorological input data, while we have a strong expertise in modelling the electrical behaviour of PV systems and rely on meteo data provider MeteoNorm (as you already know from a previous blog post). Kind regards, Martin

Hi Ricardo, another interesting question you ask there! The shading frequency in the 3D environment that is shown on every module (what your image is displaying) is the percentage of the annual reduction of the direct irradiance on the module under clear sky conditions. You can interpret this as the lowest possible loss that will occur due to the shadows on this module. In the simulation there are a number of additional effects that will lessen the energy output, i.e. diffuse shading, mismatch of the electrical behaviour (as you described it) and so on. The percentage you get in the report is really the annual energy loss due to shading. There we compare the energy output of the PV plant without any shadows with the real one, so we include all various effects. Hope that clarifies the matter, please let me know if not. Kind regards, Martin

Dear Ricardo, thanks for your question. In PV*SOL we use the climate data provider MeteoNorm that also takes care of the climate data interpolation. For some countries, we additionally provide extra climate files. This is the case in Spain as well, where the climate files that you can select correspond to the UNE EN 94003:2006 "Datos climáticos para el dimensionado de instalaciones solares térmicas." These climate data files might differ from what you get out of MeteoNorm. In your investigation, the locations of Barcelona and Girona show climate data from the UNE standard, while the interpolated location of Santa Eugenia de Berga shows MeteoNorm climate data. You will also see that when you create your own climate data location near Girona or Barcelona, you will have values of around1610 kWh/m² as well. When I use MeteoNorm directly, i.e. the stand-alone version, and create the location of Santa Eugenia de Berga, I get the information that it is 100% satellite data that is used for the interpolation. Micro-climate features like fog are not considered, no. But there are some interesting specialities of the MeteoNorm interpolation algorithm that is worth a read: http://www.meteonorm.com/images/uploads/downloads/mn72_theory7.2.pdf Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi Anders, thanks for getting back to us. To be honest, I am having a bit touble to fully understand what happens on your machine. Could you provide a step by step description of what you are doing and what is happening? I am asking, because in the first place, you cescribed your "second problem" to be caused by using 3D planning after not using it in the first place. Now it seems more to be related to using the map section of the 3D planning. Also, it is not possible to swap the map section after you already worked with it, so I am not sure I understand your second problem description. Concerning the help: I just tested it in all possible variations but I can't get the help to not show up. What happens if you hit F1 to show the help? Perhaps you can record a short screen video to demonstrate your problems? you could send them to me by private messages. Thanks a lot and kind regards, Martin

Hallo Felix, ein richtiges Schnee-Modell ist in PV*SOL leider noch nicht hinterlegt, da hast du recht. Abgesehen von der Information, wann wo wieviel Schnee fällt (was schon nicht einfach zu ermitteln ist), braucht es ja dann auch noch gute Modelle, die in Abhängigkeit von Außentemperatur, Sonneneinstrahlung, Windgeschwindigkeit und Modulneigung ausrechnen, wie lange der Schnee auf den Modulen liegen bleibt. Also keine triviale Sache Aber wenn man die Schneeliegedauer kennt, und aus Erfahrung sagen kann, an wieviel Tagen zB im Januar die Module eingeschneit sind, kann man diesen monatlichen Prozentualwert bei den monatlichen Verlusten durch Modul-Verschmutzung eintragen. Auf der Seite PV-Module, unter Weitere Parameter, Punkt Simulation, ganz unten. Ich hoffe, das hilft weiter. Beste Grüße, Martin

Hallo Jay, nach welcher Vorgabe soll denn die Anlage verschaltet werden? Bist du frei in der Wahl der Wechselrichter? Dann würde ich zur Reduktion der Anzahl empfehlen, Wechselrichter mit einer größeren Leistung einzusetzen. Du kannst auch Modulflächen mit gleicher Ausrichtung und Neigung zusammenfassen, um sie dann gemeinsam zu verschalten. Viele Grüße, Martin

Hi Andreas Lundberg, we are happy that you are considering to purchase our software. And then of course, we are not happy that you experience problems while working with it. If I get your first problem right it seems that PV*SOL is sent to the background when you click on 'Start'. I would guess that there is another program/tool involved on your machine that causes this behaviour, since we can't reproduce this here and have no other customers complaining about this. Normally, the splash screen should appear after you click 'Start', and finally the software should open up in the foreground. Perhaps you can check what antivirus software you are running and allow PV*SOL there in the whitelist. Concerning the second problem: Could you describe exactly what you do to produce the crash? Is it reproducible? That a lot in advance for collaborating, I am sure we will find the solution to your problems. Kind regards, Martin

Hi M.Khalifa, I guess you refer to the sizing factor or dimensioning factor that describes the PV power installed on the DC side in comparison to the nominal AC power of the inverter? Right now it is not possible to include it in the report, I am afraid, but since we are in the progress of redesigning the report, I will forward this request to my colleague. Thanks and kind regards, Martin

Hi James, the solution in this case would be to select the Polystring option (called 'Polystring Configuration' in the software). Then you can select any inverter you want and connect the strings form different module areas as you desire. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi Mohamed Alaa, I just opened up a new thread for your question since it touches a slightly different topic, I hope this is ok for you. The message 'Bad file version' pops up if you try to open project files in older program versions. For example, when you create a project in PV*SOL premium 2018 R9, you can't open it in PV*SOL premium 2017 R9, or sometimes even in newer versions of PV*SOL premium 2018 (i.e. R8 and before). So, please ensure that you have the same software version of both of your devices. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Marius, you are right, when configuring tow module areas together you cannot see the inverters separately. In your case you would have to split your eastern module area in two smaller units (10 x 18 modules and 3 x 18 modules), so that you can connect a part of the eastern module area to inverter 1 and the other parts to inverter 2, together with the western module area. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi João, what you found it is absolutely right. The use cases where power optimizers really can help to generate significantly more energy are rare. The results you report here are realistic, in general you will have only one or two percent more energy yield. For a conference earlier this year we had a poster contribution that came to the same conclusion: https://www.valentin-software.com/sites/default/files/poster_leistungsoptimierer.pdf It is in German, but from the images and figures you will get the point. We compare different shading situations and connection schemes and present the energy surplus that you can excpet from different power optimizing techniques. Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi João, there are shortcuts to move the camera, like W (move forward), A (move left), S (move backwards), D (move right), R (move up) and F (move down), but unfortunately not for rotating objects. But I will forward your input to our 3D team. Kind regards, Martin

Hi mads, sorry for the late reply, we had a lot of colleagues on holiday and parental leave at the same time in the last weeks. Could you provide a project file so that we can better understand the problem? But in general, the electricity cost trend and all other economic parameters are overlayed by the Annual average rate of return on capital, which you can edit on the page 'Economics', then first button on the page 'Edit', and first tab: Hope that helps, kind regards, Martin

Hi João, you are absolutely right, we only designed a part of the Neuhardenberg project for the PV*SOL example project. And I guess you are also right about the estimation of the annual energy yield . 19,690,000 kWh per year would be a bit poor, I reckon they forgot a 0 there. Kind regards, Martin

Hi Jon, sorry for the late reply, we had a lot of colleagues on holiday and parental leave at the same time in the last weeks. The timestamp is local time, yes. But we do not account for the daylight time saving switch in March and October. So for Madrid it will be UTC+1. Kind regards, Martin

Hi james, sorry for the late reply, we had a lot of colleagues on holiday and parental leave at the same time in the last weeks. You can select the direction and the starting points for the automatic connection with the buttons in the bottom left corner of the 'Module Configuration' page: With these options you can achieve almost every desired connection scheme. And in addition you can also edit the connection manually if you want. Just drag and drop the modules around. Hope this helps, kind regards, Martin