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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add function to fit Sandia inverter model #1011
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
Add function to fit Sandia inverter model #1011
Changes from 9 commits
7de7a77
31f0407
4426306
0391eb0
e7c1594
c38679f
b67766d
c0f96dd
3b37893
ae4380f
ecce111
303ab1c
768d39d
e8662fb
a9bd4bf
de6916c
3d38e6c
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.
Is
fraction_of_rated_power
actually required? I don't see it getting used anywhere.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 values are not used explicitly, but I think it would be confusing to describe the needed input without
fraction_of_rated_power
. If working from a datasheet, efficiency in usually given in terms offraction_of_rated_power
rather thanac_power
.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.
Is it intentional that
p_ac_0
andp_nt
are spelled differently here than ininverter.sandia
? Seems like these two functions would benefit from a consistent interface.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 agree, which would you prefer?
p_ac_0
is more appealing thanPac0
as a program variable. The inertia is withPac0
, which is the column key for this parameter read from the SAM files.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.
It's not clear to me where the balance should be struck between (1) presenting a consistent interface across functions or (2) maintaining as clear a connection as possible to the original model definitions. I think I would lean towards
p_ac_0
overPac0
with the hope that existingPac0
s would be changed to match.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.
That is my preference as well. The function returns a dict ready for
pvlib.inverter.sandia
so at least in one direction the two are compatible.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.
Doesn't this modify the input DataFrame?