View the thread, titled "NEW MCS Guide on PV Performance Estimation" which is posted in Solar PV Forum | Solar Panels Forum on Electricians Forums.

Hi all I was wondering if any of you had a chance to look at the new Performance Estimation

Just done a trial and I was wondering if you agree with my calc's


A 4 Kwp system no shading, 20 degrees off south (almost South West) pitch 35 degrees we are a CO7 postcode Table 12 ( page 111 in the guide )


Annual AC output (kWh) = kWp x Kk x SF Therefore 4 x 949 x 1 = 3796 Kwp


Sap 2009 = .8 x kWp x S x ZPV Therfore .8 x 4 x 1 1027 = 3286.4 Kwp

Perhaps some one could confirm my I am correct and also that we can illustrate the estimated annual yield as 3796 Kwp in our payback cals's and be in compliance with REAL and the MCS scheme.

Look forward to your replies
 
Hi all I was wondering if any of you had a chance to look at the new Performance Estimation

Just done a trial and I was wondering if you agree with my calc's


A 4 Kwp system no shading, 20 degrees off south (almost South West) pitch 35 degrees we are a CO7 postcode Table 12 ( page 111 in the guide )


Annual AC output (kWh) = kWp x Kk x SF Therefore 4 x 949 x 1 = 3796 Kwp


Sap 2009 = .8 x kWp x S x ZPV Therfore .8 x 4 x 1 1027 = 3286.4 Kwp

Perhaps some one could confirm my I am correct and also that we can illustrate the estimated annual yield as 3796 Kwp in our payback cals's and be in compliance with REAL and the MCS scheme.

Look forward to your replies

3796 kWh you mean not kWp. If you state kWp not kWh then I don't think you'll be in compliance with REAL and MCS. Other than that it sounds like the right kind of figure the CO postcode should get.
 
That PV paper clip still has inverter losses at 20 % which is why the output is low. Its basic calculation of the irradiation times the kWp of panels x the shading factor is it not?
 
3796 kWh you mean not kWp. If you state kWp not kWh then I don't think you'll be in compliance with REAL and MCS. Other than that it sounds like the right kind of figure the CO postcode should get.


Sorry your totally correct it was a mad moment I was having should have been 3796 kWh.

Thanks Ian, the point I was trying to make as well under the new MCS Guide as soon as we all start using it the whole thing looks a lot better for the doubtful customer , but within the REAL rules
 
That PV paper clip still has inverter losses at 20 % which is why the output is low. Its basic calculation of the irradiation times the kWp of panels x the shading factor is it not?

That would explain the discrepancy. I can't see inverter losses mentioned in the small print and 20% seems like a pretty serious mis-match! Hope they can rectify it soon to be more accurate.
 

Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Yearly average
Total for year

[TD="align: left"]
PVGIS estimates of solar electricity generation
Location: 51�54'41" North, 0�59'7" East, Elevation: 36 m a.s.l.,
[/TD]

[TD="align: left"] Solar radiation database used: PVGIS-CMSAF
Nominal power of the PV system: 4.0 kW (crystalline silicon)
Estimated losses due to temperature and low irradiance: 11.7% (using local ambient temperature)
Estimated loss due to angular reflectance effects: 3.0%
Other losses (cables, inverter etc.): 14.0%
Combined PV system losses: 26.3%
[/TD]

[TD="align: left"]
[/TD]

[TD="align: left"] [TABLE="class: data_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 5"] Fixed system: inclination=35�, orientation=20� [/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Month[/TH]
[TH="width: 40"]E[SUB]d[/SUB] [/TH]
[TH="width: 40"] E[SUB]m[/SUB] [/TH]
[TH="width: 40"]H[SUB]d[/SUB][/TH]
[TH="width: 40"] H[SUB]m[/SUB] [/TH]

[TD="align: right"]4.37[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]136[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.37[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]42.3[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]6.96[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]195[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.22[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]62.2[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]10.50[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]324[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.44[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]107[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]15.30[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]458[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.20[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]156[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]15.80[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]490[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.49[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]170[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]16.10[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]483[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.67[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]170[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]15.40[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]477[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.46[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]169[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]13.80[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]428[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.88[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]151[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]12.10[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]362[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.16[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]125[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]8.56[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]265[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]88.3[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]5.80[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]174[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]55.4[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]3.94[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]122[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.22[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]38.0[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 5"]
[/TD]

[TD="align: right"] 10.7 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 326 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 3.65 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 111 [/TD]

[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] 3920 [/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] 1330 [/TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Last edited:
E[SUB]d[/SUB] E[SUB]m[/SUB]H[SUB]d[/SUB]
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Yearly average
Total for year

[TD="align: left"]
PVGIS estimates of solar electricity generation​
Location: 51�54'41" North, 0�59'7" East, Elevation: 36 m a.s.l.,[/TD]

[TD="align: left"] Solar radiation database used: PVGIS-CMSAF
Nominal power of the PV system: 4.0 kW (crystalline silicon)
Estimated losses due to temperature and low irradiance: 7.4% (using local ambient temperature)
Estimated loss due to angular reflectance effects: 3.0%
Other losses (cables, inverter etc.): 14.0%
Combined PV system losses: 22.7%[/TD]

[TD="align: left"][/TD]

[TD="align: left"] [TABLE="class: data_table"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 5"] Fixed system: inclination=35�, orientation=20� [/TD]

[TH="align: left"]Month[/TH]

[TH="width: 40"] H[SUB]m[/SUB][/TH]

[TD="align: right"]4.53[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]140[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.37[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]42.3[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]7.25[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]203[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.22[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]62.2[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]11.00[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]340[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3.44[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]107[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]16.10[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]484[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.20[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]156[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]16.70[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]517[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.49[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]170[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]17.00[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]509[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.67[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]170[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]16.20[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]503[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]5.46[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]169[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]14.50[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]451[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.88[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]151[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]12.70[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]381[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.16[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]125[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]8.95[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]278[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]88.3[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]6.01[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]180[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]55.4[/TD]

[TD="align: right"]4.07[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]126[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1.22[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]38.0[/TD]

[TD="colspan: 5"][/TD]

[TD="align: right"] 11.3 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 343 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 3.65 [/TD]
[TD="align: right"] 111 [/TD]

[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] 4110 [/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: right"] 1330 [/TD]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] E[SUB]d[/SUB]: Average daily electricity production from the given system (kWh)
E[SUB]m[/SUB]: Average monthly electricity production from the given system (kWh)
H[SUB]d[/SUB]: Average daily sum of global irradiation per square meter received by the modules of the given system (kWh/m[SUP]2[/SUP])
H[SUB]m[/SUB]: Average sum of global irradiation per square meter received by the modules of the given system (kWh/m[SUP]2[/SUP])[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Pretty sure you have forgot to change it to building integrated rather than free standing, so it will overestimate production. Unless the system is free standing of course!
 

Reply to the thread, titled "NEW MCS Guide on PV Performance Estimation" which is posted in Solar PV Forum | Solar Panels Forum on Electricians Forums.

Best EV Chargers by Electrical2Go! The official electric vehicle charger supplier.

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Advert

YOUR Unread Posts

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Thread starter

Joined
Location
Essex

Thread Information

Title
NEW MCS Guide on PV Performance Estimation
Prefix
N/A
Forum
Solar PV Forum | Solar Panels Forum
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
8

Thread Tags

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
snoopdog,
Last reply from
Ian-LS,
Replies
8
Views
3,892

Advert

Back
Top