1 / 26

PV-Catapult WP9 Performance Modelling

PV-Catapult WP9 Performance Modelling. Ralph Gottschalg , Sheryl Williams, Wlodzimierz Kolodenny, Mariusz Prorok, Tadeusz Zdanowicz, Antoine Guerin de Montgareuil, Nico van der Borg, Teun Burgers, Hugo de Moor, Gabi Friesen, Dirk Stellbogen, Hans-Dieter Mohring. Outline.

cocheta
Download Presentation

PV-Catapult WP9 Performance Modelling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PV-Catapult WP9 Performance Modelling Ralph Gottschalg,Sheryl Williams, Wlodzimierz Kolodenny, Mariusz Prorok, Tadeusz Zdanowicz, Antoine Guerin de Montgareuil, Nico van der Borg, Teun Burgers, Hugo de Moor, Gabi Friesen, Dirk Stellbogen, Hans-Dieter Mohring

  2. Outline • Overview of Aims and Objectives • Approach • Review of modelling methodologies evaluated in the RR • Results of RR1 • Results of RR2 • Conclusions

  3. Aim of this WP • Plan and execute one modelling round robin (RR) test • Evaluate State of the Art of European Photovoltaic Module Modelling • Identify measurement accuracy of European measurement methodologies – limited to modules • Demonstrate that a 5% accuracy is possible Performance also added: • Identify pitfalls for future RR • Make available knowledge and infrastructure to Performance

  4. Modelling Partners: CEA CREST ECN SUPSI WrUT Data and other input FhG-ISE JRC TTU TÜV ZSW Partners

  5. Timeline • Start of work November 2004 • Questionnaire of current methods sent out January 2005 • First RR completed June 2005 • Re-Modelling of same site/module/year (ideal case) • Modelling same module at same site, different year • Second RR completed January 2006 • Predicting same site, different module • Predicting different module, different site • Predicting same module, different site • Dissemination/discussion meeting for future work January 2006

  6. European Performance Models

  7. 1st Round Robin • How different are the different sites • How accurate are modelling approaches in ideal or close to ideal conditions

  8. Sites for testing

  9. Effect of Data Treatment Variation amongst the Different Modelling Groups

  10. Comparison of Energy Yield (measured vs modelled) Year 1

  11. Comparison of Energy Yield (measured vs modelled) Year 2

  12. Lessons Learnt RR1 • ORGANIZATIONAL • Dataset format • Database Structure • Data filter and handling • Not as conclusive as wanted because groups dropped out (budget cuts) • Late start but on time to complete all tasks • SCIENTIFIC • Temporal predict was successful, virtually all <6% • Different sites result in different accuracy • Surprisingly small problems for double junction

  13. Comparison of MethodologiesZSW Dataset Base Modules Predicted Modules CIS_6 CdTe_17 CIS_16 CdTe_20 Same Loc. CIS_17 & CIS_20 CdTe_1 & CdTe_4 Different Loc.

  14. 2nd Round Robin • How much does the module variability influence energy calculations • How well can we cope with the variability in TF devices • Are there site specific differences between the different data sets • Test: • Same site different module • Same module different site • Different module, different site

  15. Results of 2nd RR (ZSW Dataset)

  16. Results of 2nd RR (ZSW Dataset)

  17. Comparison of MethodologiesPVCatapult Meas. RR Dataset Predicted Modules Base Modules Loc.1 SolarLab CEA Loc.2 ECN CREST Loc.3

  18. Comparison of MethodologiesPVCatapult Meas. RR Dataset

  19. Results of 2nd RR( PVCatapult Dataset) Measured at ECN

  20. Lessons Learnt • Module to module production effect dominate • Modelling based on outdoor measurements needs careful cleaning • Overfiltering might result in statistically insignificant corrections which might introduce large errors • Not detecting/cleaning outliers will result in deviations also introducing large errors • Models work well for c-Si • Accuracy not as good as desirable for thin films

  21. Conclusions • Main impact is the module-to-module variation • Different environments are no problem if the module data is known accurately • Error analysis of the measurement campaign is ongoing • The work of WP9 provide a good foundation for further investigation of performance modelling

  22. Dissemination Efforts

  23. Workshop • 35 participants • Visitors from US & Japan • Presentation of results • Discussion of • Presentations in general • Further need for research

  24. Publications • EUPVSEC-20, Barcelona • Williams, S. R., et al. (2005): Evaluating the State of the Art of Photovoltaic Performance Modelling in Europe. • WCPEC-3 • Zdanowicz, T. et al (2006): Photovoltaic Performance Measurements in Europe: PV-Catapult Round Robin Tests • EuroSun 2006 • Strobel, M.B. et al (2006): Measurement Accuracy of Energy Yield of Photovoltaic Systems

  25. Publications 2 • Dresden • Gottschalg et al (2006): Round Robin Comparison of European Outdoor Measurement Systems • Gottschalg et al (2006): Variability of Electrical Parameters Determined by Using Different Solar Simulation Systems for Different PV Module Technologies • Williams et al (2006): Variability of Electrical Parameters Determined by European Research Facilities for Different PV Module Technologies

  26. Other Dissemination Efforts • Expert participation in IEA-PVPS Task 2 • Expert participation in IEA TC82-WG2 • Expert participation in CENELEC TC82-WG1 • WP 8/9 asks question, IP Performance will answer these

More Related