Modeling and Energy Generation Evaluations of Large-Scale Photovoltaic Plants Equipped With Panel-Level DC Optimizers

Wang, Qin; Le, Lingling; Li, Dahu; Ai, Xiaomeng; Yao, Wei; Wen, Jinyu

doi:10.3389/fenrg.2022.825994

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(34 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While MLPE were designed to recover the power loss from panel mismatch, the string or centralized inverter was not designed to recover the power loss from panel mismatch, so the comparison between PV systems using MPLE and PV systems using a string or centralized inverter under PSC seems unfair. Finally, Figure 8 summarizes the difference between our study and other existing studies [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…However, more studies are required to verify the ability of improving the energy harvested from PV systems under PSC. While other studies in the literature [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] have shown the advantage of using MLPE (microinverter or DC optimizer) over the string or centralized inverter under partial shading conditions and in nonshading conditions, the energy performance of a string or centralized inverter is shown to outperform MLPE (especially when the string or centralized inverter is integrated with MPPT (maximum power point tracking)), our study revealed for the first time, (while, to the extent of our knowledge, the past literature did not), that MLPE did not effectively improve the energy harvested from PVs under PSC compared with that in NSC. While MLPE were designed to recover the power loss from panel mismatch, the string or centralized inverter was not designed to recover the power loss from panel mismatch, so the comparison between PV systems using MPLE and PV systems using a string or centralized inverter under PSC seems unfair.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In addition, the cost of MLPE was higher than that of the string inverter. The MLPE mismatch study at large-scale photovoltaic plants in [18] stated that the improvement of energy production was still a consideration compared to the string or centralized PV systems equipped with MPPT. Finally, the analysis in [19] across a total of 542 Tigo Energy's DC power optimizers found a mean power loss of 8.3% due to PSC, which would have increased to 13% were the PVs not equipped with panel-level optimizers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Energy Production Analysis of Rooftop PV Systems Equipped with Module-Level Power Electronics under Partial Shading Conditions Based on Mixed-Effects Model

Truong

Asdornwised

et al. 2023

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rooftop photovoltaic (PV) system that uses a power optimization device at the module level (MLPE) has been theoretically proven to have an advantage over other types in case of reducing the effect of partial shading. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of studies about the energy production of such a system in real working conditions with the impact of partial shading conditions (PSC). In this study, we evaluated the electrical energy production of the PV systems which use two typical configurations of power optimization at the PV panel level, a DC optimizer and a microinverter, using their real datasets working under PSC. Firstly, we compared the energy utilization ratio of the monthly energy production of these systems to the reference ones generated from PVWatt software to evaluate the effect of PSC on energy production. Secondly, we conducted a linear decline model to estimate the annual degradation rate of PV systems during a 6-year period to evaluate the effect of PSC on the PV’s degradation rate. In order to perform these evaluations, we utilized a mixed-effects model, a practical approach for studying time series data. The findings showed that the energy utilization ratio of PVs with MLPE was reduced by about 14.7% (95% confidence interval: −27.3% to −2.0%) under PSC, compared to that under nonshading conditions (NSC). Another finding was that the PSC did not significantly impact the PV’s annual energy degradation rate, which was about −50 (Wh/kW) per year. Our finding could therefore be used by homeowners to help make their decision, as a recommendation to select the gained energy production under PSC or the cost of a rooftop PV system using MLPE for their investment. Our finding also suggested that in the area where partial shading rarely happened, the rooftop PV system using a string or centralized inverter configuration was a more appropriate option than MLPE. Finally, our study provides an understanding about the ability of MLPE to reduce the effect of PSC in real working conditions.

show abstract