Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Evaluation of simulation methods and optimal installation conditions for bifacial PV modules: A case study on Swedish PV installations
Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Energy Systems.
Linköping University, Department of Management and Engineering, Energy Systems.
2018 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

During the recent years the popularity of solar power have increased tremendously. With the increased interest in solar power comes a development of more efficient and different types of technology to harvest the sun rays. Monofacial panels have been on the market for a long time and have rather developed simulation models. The bifacial technology on the other hand have been researched for years but just recently found its way to the market. Simulation models for the bifacial panels are continuously being developed and they are a key aspect to increase the knowledge about the bifacial technology. Most of the research that has been conducted until today is mainly about the bifacial gain, not about the bifacial simulation models.The purpose of this thesis was to evaluate and validate simulation models of bifacial solar panels in PVsyst with comparisons to measured data from six different bifacial installations in Sweden. The installations had different system configurations and varied in: tilt, azimuth, pitch, elevation, number of rows and albedo. Furthermore, the installation configuration parameters were analyzed to see how they affect the bifacial system and what an optimal configuration would be for a bifacial installation in Sweden.The results show that the main difficulties for an accurate simulation model is to determine the proper input data. The irradiance and albedo proved to be the most difficult parameters to determine. The irradiance was accurate looking at yearly level but already during monthly distribution the error is taking effect. One of the reasons for the errors is the difficulties to determine the diffuse irradiance fraction of the light, especially during cloudy days. The albedo was found to have a linear dependency on the yield, which meant that it is possible that the inaccuracy of the model are solely dependent on albedo.For tilted installations without optimizers the yearly error of the simulation ranged between -5,2% to +3,9% where the lower limit value is suspected to be caused by a wrong albedo value. For a tilted installation with optimizers the error was +9,1%. This could be caused by two reasons; the optimizers are even more dependent on the irradiance or that the software exaggerates the benefits of optimizers. The simulations of vertical installations had an error between -5,4% to -3% and are more accurate than the tilted simulations.Different parameters effect on the specific yield were studied using a simplified simulation model and stepwise change of each parameter. The results were that four of the six studied parameters have no characteristic change on each other and the optimal conditions was to maximize the pitch, elevation and albedo and minimize the number of rows. The remaining two parameters tilt and azimuth showed a dependence on the other parameters, where the optimal azimuth only was affected by tilt while the optimum tilt was affected by all the other parameters. This revelation lead to the conclusion that tilt is the most suitable parameter for optimization of installations because of its dependence on ambient conditions. The optimum tilt was found for the studied cases and in five of the six cases it would have an increased specific yield if the tilt was optimized. Note that for four of those five would lead to an increase of less than 0,5% while for the fifth an increase by 14,2%.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. , p. 105
Keywords [en]
Bifacial PV simulation, Bifacial PVsyst simulation, Bifacial PV, PVsyst simulation
National Category
Energy Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-150517ISRN: LIU-IEI-TEK-A--18/03014—SEOAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-150517DiVA, id: diva2:1241554
External cooperation
PPAM Solkraft AB
Subject / course
Energy Systems
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2018-08-24 Created: 2018-08-23 Last updated: 2018-08-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(5671 kB)222 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 5671 kBChecksum SHA-512
81db79d4552110313436431fa50b388d47376fa2e0139cd452f58ca138c0a1e9b58dfe335e1cef3df60a8922a2b5d976a414b968ec1025ff0e88c55b158ad12a
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Peura, JohanTorssell, Jessica
By organisation
Energy Systems
Energy Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 222 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 166 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf