interesting point about using PVGIS directly rather than the tables that have been drawn from it - I really don't get why they felt the need to painstakingly make up tables for this when PVGIS is available for free to all and gives very precise geographic figures, but I guess it could be a useful back up for if PVGIS ever went down.
incidentally, what losses were you using in PVGIS for heathrow when you tested it against the MCS spreadsheets?
I'd suspect they're used the standard 14% losses, but maybe with the free standing setting on it - we adjust the losses to reflect the actual inverter efficiency for that configuration, cable losses, shading losses etc. but then do the calc as if it's in roof mounted to give us a little margin for error.
That really is all they needed to say, was work out the inverter losses, cable losses, shading losses, any other losses then input this figure into PVGIS - it's actually far simpler than trying to mess about with the spreadsheets IMO, and as PVGIS is an EU funded project, it would actually make this into a bit of joined up thinking between MCS and the EU rather than MCS attempting to come up with a paper based format of their own.
incidentally, what losses were you using in PVGIS for heathrow when you tested it against the MCS spreadsheets?
I'd suspect they're used the standard 14% losses, but maybe with the free standing setting on it - we adjust the losses to reflect the actual inverter efficiency for that configuration, cable losses, shading losses etc. but then do the calc as if it's in roof mounted to give us a little margin for error.
That really is all they needed to say, was work out the inverter losses, cable losses, shading losses, any other losses then input this figure into PVGIS - it's actually far simpler than trying to mess about with the spreadsheets IMO, and as PVGIS is an EU funded project, it would actually make this into a bit of joined up thinking between MCS and the EU rather than MCS attempting to come up with a paper based format of their own.
