revisiting the model parameters of an existing system using the photovoltaic system analysis toolbox...
TRANSCRIPT
Kenneth J. Sauer, Ian C. Tse, and Ryan A. Desharnais
42nd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference | June 17, 2015
Revisiting the model parameters of an existing system using the Photovoltaic System Analysis Toolbox (PVSAT)
Area 9. #579
2
Pro Forma Weather
Data Energy Simulation Software (PVsyst,
PVWatts, SAM)
Pro Forma Energy
Production Forecast Pro Forma
Model Parameters
Procurement Phase
Pro forma Energy Production Forecasts
Pro forma parameters come from: • Original design plans / drawings • Manufacturer datasheets • 3rd party test reports • Industry rules of thumb • Default parameters from PVsyst, etc.
Q: How well do the pro forma parameters represent a PV system as built?
3
• Photovoltaic System Analysis Toolbox (PVSAT)
• Precision of PVSAT validated with PVsyst
• Accuracy of PVSAT checked against data from test array
• Execute a modern performance guarantee
• Three levels of model parameter true-up
• Evaluate impact of true-up on forecast accuracy
Outline
4
Photovoltaic System Analysis Toolbox (PVSAT)
Performance Metrics
Calculation
Energy Simulation
Model Validation
Data Import & Filtration
PVSAT
Sandia PV_LIB v1.2
Configured to closely match
PVsyst
SUBMODELS
• Irradiance transposition
• Heat transfer (U values) • Diode circuitry (.PAN) • Various power loss mechanisms (IAM)
ADVANTAGES
• Subhourly • Longer than 1 year
• Can model degradation rates
5
Measurement Data: Test Array at PVTL
Measurements collected on-site:
• 1-min data
• Sept. 2013 – Apr. 2015
• Global horizontal irradiance
• Diffuse horizontal irradiance
• Ambient temperature
• Wind speed
• DC current & voltage
• Filtered for shading
PV system specifications:
• Roof-mounted
• mc-Si
• 11 modules in series
• 1 inverter
6
measured weather +
high-loss parameters
PVsyst PVSAT
simulation results
simulation results
solar position algorithm error
compare residuals
Validation Test I: PVsyst vs. PVSAT
7
PVsyst
PVSAT
RMSD 1.94%
> 1.92%
MBD -0.47% -0.44%
Energy Production
Deviation
-0.72% -0.67%
simulation results
simulation results
PVsyst PVSAT
measured weather +
Ext. AB parameters
measured energy
production
Energy forecasts from PVSAT are as accurate as those from PVsyst
compare residuals
Validation Test II: Model vs. Measurement
8
Power Capacity Test
subset for regression
GpoaEff_RC
Month GpoaEff_RC Tcell_RC PmpDC_RC
Jan 519 26 1312
Feb 610 30 1518
Mar 762 37 1839
Apr 870 38 2084
May 895 38 2139
Jun 924 40 2186
Jul 918 39 2181
Aug 891 41 2105
Sept 860 40 2044
Oct 703 37 1700
Nov 534 31 1324
Dec 534 28 1342
Monthly Guarantee Table (Ext. AB)
PPI > 100% : PASS
9
from the Guarantee Table execution
GpoaEff_RC Tcell_RC PmpDC_RC PmpDC’
Sept 860 40 2044 2040
Oct 703 37 1700 1686
Nov 534 31 1324 1340
Dec 534 28 1342 1321
Jan 519 26 1312 1305
Feb 610 30 1518 1523
Mar 762 37 1839 1828
Apr 870 38 2084 2072
May 895 38 2139 2127
Jun 924 40 2186 2170
Jul 918 39 2181 2166
Aug 891 41 2105 2084
Tim
e in
Op
erat
ion
Degradation Test
Power Capacity Test (1st month)
PPI
time
RDEG < 0.7 %/yr : PASS
10
Energy Yield Test
EPI > 100% : PASS
Modeled RDEG = 0.7 %/yr
Typically run over one year period; here all 20 months is used
weather-adjusted
11
Model Sources and Attributes
Original Pro Forma • Original system design plans Tilt: 12° Azimuth: 190°
• Datasheet Power tolerances γPmp
• Default .PAN, IAM, and U values from PVsyst v6.38
Typical As-Built • On-site survey Tilt: 13.87° Azimuth: 190.8°
• Manufacturer flash test data Power tolerances
Extended As-Built • Custom .PAN, IAM, U values
Leve
l of
par
amet
er t
rue-
up
Three Models
12
Model Parameter True-up
One-diode model optimization method from: Sauer et al., IEEE J. Photovoltaics, 2015.
13
Model Parameter True-up (continued)
Ex-post derivation of thermal parameters from:
Faiman, Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl., 2008.
BOM-specific analytical modeling of IAM:
Fatehi & Sauer, Proc. 40th IEEE PVSC, 2014.
Orig. PF Ext. AB
UC [W/m2/°C] 20 19.9
UV [W/m2/°C/m/s] 0 2.4
14
Results
Orig. PF Typ. AB Ext. AB
PPI [%] 107.50 105.82 99.81
Power Capacity Test for 1st month (Target = 100%):
Degradation Test over 20 months (Target = 0.7 %/year):
Orig. PF Typ. AB Ext. AB
Rdeg [%/year] 1.27 1.14 1.15
Energy Production Test over 20 months (Target = 100%):
Orig. PF Typ. AB Ext. AB
EPI [%] 106.07 104.12 99.43
RMSD [% of nameplate] 4.53 3.57 1.10
MBD [% of nameplate] 4.15 2.87 -0.41
15
Results
16
Summary
• Fidelity of model parameters influences test results
• Degradation Test can detect long-term durability issues
• Seasonal errors introduced or masked by inaccurate parameters
• Possible to de-risk with efforts to true-up model parameters
• Setting the right bar for performance is also useful for O&M
