Energy yield prediction errors and uncertainties of different photovoltaic models

Abstract

Mathematical, empirical, and electrical models have long been implemented and used to predict the energy yield of many photovoltaic (PV) technologies. The purpose of this paper is to compare the annual DC energy yield prediction errors of four models namely the single‐point efficiency, single‐point efficiency with temperature correction, the Photovoltaic for Utility‐Scale Applications (PVUSA), and the one‐diode model, against outdoor measurements for different grid‐connected PV systems in Cyprus over a 4‐year evaluation period. The different models showed a wide variation of prediction errors, demonstrating a strong dependence between model performance and the different technologies. In particular, it was clearly shown that the application of temperature loss correction based on the manufacturer's temperature coefficients of power at maximum power point assisted in improving the energy yield prediction significantly especially for the crystalline silicon (c‐Si) technologies. In most cases, the best agreement between the modeled results and outdoor‐measured annual DC energy yield for mono‐crystalline silicon (mono‐c‐Si) and multi‐crystalline silicon (multi‐c‐Si) technologies was obtained using the one‐diode model. The energy yield for the thin‐film technologies was more accurately predicted using the PVUSA model with the exception of the copper‐indium‐gallium‐diselenide (CIGS) technology, which was best predicted using the single‐point efficiency with temperature correction and one‐diode models, thus demonstrating similar physical properties to c‐Si technologies. The paper further quantifies the combined uncertainties associated with the predicted energy yield as a function of the input parameters for the single‐point efficiency, single‐point efficiency with temperature correction, and the PVUSA models. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A simple approach to model the performance of photovoltaic solar modules in operation

“…Several approaches exist to model -starting from the instantaneous power -the energy performance of PV devices in operation. These models (mathematical, electrical, empirical) generally rely on a large number of input parameters which can be derived by outdoor or indoor characterisation (King et al, 2004;Makrides et al, 2011;Dittmann et al, 2010;Ransome, 2007;Durisch et al, 2007) or rely on simplified models which make use of manufacturer's specifications (De Soto et al, 2006;Alonso Garcia and Balenzategui, 2004).…”

Seasonal performance comparison of different photovoltaic technologies installed in Cyprus and Germany

“…The fixed-plane PV systems installed range from mono-c-Si and multi-c-Si, heterojunction technologies with intrinsic thin-layer (HIT), edgedefined film-fed growth (EFG), multi-crystalline advanced industrial (MAIN) cells to a-Si, CdTe and CIGS and other PV technologies from a range of manufacturers such as BP Solar, Atersa, Sanyo, Solon and Suntechnics (Zinsser et al 2007). Each system has a nominal capacity of approximately 1 kW p and is equipped with the same type of inverter installed behind each respective system in close proximity (SMA SB 1100) (Makrides et al 2011b). The same inverters are used in order to exclude the influence of different maximum power point tracking (MPPT) methods.…”

Investing in Photovoltaics: Timing, Plant Sizing and Smart Grids Flexibility

“…First of all we are interested in calcuating both the optimal size of the plant 1 and the selling price v that triggers the investment. Table 4 below presents the results for r = 4% 33 by varying the LCOE; the life time T , the maximum prosumed quota and adopting as starting values v 0 for each zone the average yearly zonal electricity selling prices illustrated in Table 2 34 .…”