Skip to content

PVWatts_loss was applied on AC calculation #696

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
yxh289 opened this issue May 1, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #704
Closed

PVWatts_loss was applied on AC calculation #696

yxh289 opened this issue May 1, 2019 · 4 comments · Fixed by #704
Labels
Milestone

Comments

@yxh289
Copy link

yxh289 commented May 1, 2019

Hi,
In the description of pvwatts_losses function, the losses are applied on DC side:
'Calculates DC power losses according the PVwatts model using pvwatts_losses() and self.losses_parameters.`'
However I found that in pvlib.modelchain.ModelChain.pvwatts_losses, PVwatts loss was applied to AC.
'def pvwatts_losses(self):
self.losses = (100 - self.system.pvwatts_losses()) / 100.
self.ac *= self.losses
return self'
When system have high DC/AC ratio, AC power output clips at a lower level as a result of these losses applied on the AC side.

@wholmgren
Copy link
Member

wholmgren commented May 2, 2019

thanks @yxh289. pull request welcome. In a rush to finish off 0.6.2 so going ahead with a PR.

@cwhanse
Copy link
Member

cwhanse commented May 3, 2019

Concur with the bug report. May have been due to coding following the older PVWatts description, rather than the v5 document. Or a simple typo.

@pasquierjb
Copy link

The post-inverter losses such as the AC wiring losses and AC Availability should in theory only apply to the AC power and not be subjected to inverter clipping.

@kandersolar
Copy link
Member

@pasquierjb conceptually that might be true, but in this case we're just sticking with the original spec: per Section 11 of the PVWatts Version 5 Manual, "Losses in the system that are not explicitly modeled are provided by the user as a percentage of DC energy."

See also #1350

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants