Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Added irradiance_loss_pvsyst function to pvsystem #1000
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
Added irradiance_loss_pvsyst function to pvsystem #1000
Changes from 9 commits
693e60d
ad09984
896e71f
430ab3d
06efce1
43ac80e
1bd866b
7969ce5
8b617b7
2361db2
e0e168c
b7169bd
607bdb9
6c408f5
4b33177
29cccdd
25fc424
5d488e7
6f2f976
3a90af3
6c5e5a9
49a7f04
50590d3
48fd3b4
7107119
0b6ae04
ce50282
62e9af3
0d1e95c
d8abcfe
4391540
1af4854
70f2fa8
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The function would return the same thing if the user permuted the loss arguments. We could consider
*losses
for a more general and extensible approach.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like this idea. I believe calling out the losses explicitly helps guide new users, but I think an in-depth tutorial can serve that purpose better while allowing for more flexibility here.
If we make this update, I don't think the function name "irradiance_loss_pvsyst" is apt anymore. The point of the function is that it allows a convenient way to compound any irradiance losses that should be applied to the total POA (not specific to beam, diffuse, or ground POA). Maybe that means it should be called "compound_effective_irradiance_losses?" Maybe "combine_effective_irradiance_losses?"
A future implementation more inline with PVSyst should be a "pvsyst_effective_irradiance" function.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
+1 to
combine_loss_factors
or similar for a general purpose function, since the PVWatts model does the same calculation on a different set of inputs.I think it's helpful to also have a function named
irradiance_loss_pvsyst
or similar, with arguments that are easily recognized by someone used to using the PVsyst loss model. If we keep a _pvsyst function, it should return effective_irradiance with losses applied, instead of the loss factor.effective_irradiance_pvsyst
implies that the function also calculates and applies reflection and spectral mismatch modifiers, which is a larger scope that this PR.