Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'energy balance'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • [English] Photovoltaics
    • FAQ (Read only)
    • PV*SOL
    • Tutorials (Read only)
  • [English] Solarthermal / Geothermal
    • FAQ (Read only)
    • T*SOL
    • GeoT*SOL
  • [Deutsch] Photovoltaik
    • FAQ (Nur lesen)
    • PV*SOL
    • Tutorials (Nur lesen)
  • [Deutsch] Solarthermie / Geothermie
    • FAQ (Nur lesen)
    • T*SOL
    • GeoT*SOL

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 2 results

  1. Dear developer team, I hope my message finds you very well, I have an question which is so urgent please. This simulation I have been doing is critical to the point that many decisions will be taken on for this already running PV system. I'm acting as a consultant for this system hence results and its explanation is important. My question is why for this project (project file and PDF simulation report are attached) the losses due to down regulation on the account of mpp voltage is so high? it represents almost 9% of the annual losses? I can see that the operating voltage is operating normally and within the range of the MPP voltage of the inverter, however there are lots of self-shading as you can see in the 3D design and the energy balance. Could this be the reason? and what's the physical explanation to these down regulation losses? does it mean for example that there are many times during the year that the operating voltage will fall behind or beyond the MPP tracking range? I don't get it. Will a minutely simulation will be useful in this case? could the inverter be the reason? Please advise as the situation is critical and thank you for your usual great support! Sharm Bride Hotel - Actual - 9 Sept R02.pvprj Sharm Bride Hotel design & simulation - as built - 13 Sept R02.pdf
  2. Hi, When simulating a particular project and reading the EB, I can see that the module independent shading, which I normally assume to be due to the horizon (far) shading is just below 6%. Looking to the module dependent shading, I can see that this is at around 16%. Two aspects are interesting when it comes to this: The total shading loss over the year, presented in the summary, is 23.2%. Removing the horizon from the 3D model reduces the module dependent shading almost entirely. Knowing how the help file defines independent and dependent shading, I am a little confused by these two contradicting aspects. Regarding (1), what is the logic inferred here? Shouldn't the loss presented in module dependent shading be a share of the incoming radiation converted at STC into a certain available energy quantity? How can the relative loss before and after STC conversion be added together, when the loss on module level would be much smaller if corrected for the conversion efficiency? Regarding (2), what is the relation between horizon (module independent) shading and near (module dependent) shading? It is reasonable to expect that removing the horizon would remove the module independent shading loss. However, as it seems, it actually also removes the module specific shading. How can this be? I would expect these two losses to be distinguishable and non-interactive. Appreciate any explanation, as I haven't been able to find an elaborate explanation elsewhere.
×
×
  • Create New...