Skip to content
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 FAQ entries for CEC vs Sandia module dbs and multi-inverter systems #1662

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 17, 2023
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
34 changes: 34 additions & 0 deletions docs/sphinx/source/user_guide/faq.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -138,3 +138,37 @@ so you can check the tables there for more up-to-date tables.
For modules, if even the SAM files don't include the module you're looking for
either, you can calculate CEC module model parameters from
datasheet information using :py:func:`pvlib.ivtools.sdm.fit_cec_sam`.


Which should I use, the CEC or the Sandia PV Module database?
-------------------------------------------------------------

The CEC PV module database contains parameters for significantly more
modules, and is more up to date, than the Sandia PV module database.
Therefore, the CEC PV module database is probably the more useful option
in most cases. However, finding parameters for the specific module
being used is usually more important than which database they came from.

Besides which modules each database includes, another consideration is the
different modeling capabilities each parameter set provides. The CEC model
produces a continuous IV curve while the Sandia model calculates only a few
specific points of interest on the curve. For typical simulations where
only the maximum power point is of interest, either model will suffice.


How do I model a system with multiple inverters?
------------------------------------------------

Currently, pvlib's :ref:`modelchaindoc` and :ref:`pvsystemdoc` only support
simulating one inverter at a time. To calculate total power for multiple inverters,
there are two options:

If the modules, mounting, stringing, and inverters are all identical for each
inverter, then you may simply simulate one inverter and multiply the
``ModelChainResult.ac`` by the number of inverters to get the total system output.

If the inverters or their arrays are not all identical,
define one ``PVSystem`` and ``ModelChain`` per inverter and
run the simulation for each of them individually. From there you
can add up the inverter-level outputs to get the total system output.
kandersolar marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

9 changes: 2 additions & 7 deletions docs/sphinx/source/whatsnew/v0.9.5.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,18 +18,14 @@ Enhancements
~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Added the optional `string_factor` parameter to
:py:func:`pvlib.snow.loss_townsend` (:issue:`1636`, :pull:`1653`)
* Added optional ``n_ar`` parameter to :py:func:`pvlib.iam.physical` to
support an anti-reflective coating. (:issue:`1501`, :pull:`1616`)

Bug fixes
~~~~~~~~~
* Added a limit to :py:func:`pvlib.snow.loss_townsend` to guard against
incorrect loss results for systems that are near the ground (:issue:`1636`,
:pull:`1653`)

* Added optional ``n_ar`` parameter to :py:func:`pvlib.iam.physical` to
support an anti-reflective coating. (:issue:`1501`, :pull:`1616`)

Bug fixes
~~~~~~~~~
* Fixed incorrect mapping of requested parameters names when using the ``get_psm3``
function. Also fixed the random reordering of the dataframe columns.
(:issue:`1629`, :issue:`1647`, :pull:`1648`)
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -67,5 +63,4 @@ Contributors
* Karel De Brabandere (:ghuser:`kdebrab`)
* Mark Mikofski (:ghuser:`mikofski`)
* Anton Driesse (:ghuser:`adriesse`)
* Adam R. Jensen (:ghuser:`AdamRJensen`)
* Michael Deceglie (:ghuser:`mdeceglie`)