Successfully reported this slideshow.

Maximum Energy Case Studies - EUPVSEC

1,161 views

Published on

SolarEdge Distributed Solar Power Harvesting. Field results of comparative energy maximization case studies. Presented in EUPVSEC 2010

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Maximum Energy Case Studies - EUPVSEC

  1. 1. Field Results of Energy MaximizingDistributed DC Topology –Residential & Commercial InstallationsJohn Berdner, SolarEdgeGeneral Manager for North America8. September, 2010 1
  2. 2. Energy Loss Factors in Traditional PV SystemsSystem Energy Loss Design Energy Loss Module mismatch  Limited roof utilization due to design constraints Partial shading Undervoltage/Overvoltage Indirect Energy Loss Dynamic weather MPPT loss  No module level monitoring ©2010 SolarEdge 2
  3. 3. SolarEdge System Overview  Module level optimization  Module level monitoring  Fixed voltage - ideal installation  Enhanced safety solutionPower Optimizer Inverter Monitoring Server Internet Monitoring Portal ©2011 SolarEdge 3
  4. 4. SolarEdge Distributed Technology ASIC-based Power Optimizers achieve:  Per-module Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT)  Efficiency: 98.8% EU weighted (99.5% peak)  Conversion modes: buck, boost and buck/boost  Wide module compatibility: 5v-125v, up to 400w  Power Line Communication transceiver  Module shut-down unless connected to an operating inverter 250/300/400W 350W Thin Film 250/350W Module Module Add-on Module Add-on Embedded 4 ©2010 SolarEdge
  5. 5. Fixed String Voltage - EnablerString voltage is always fixed, regardless of temperatureand string length  Flexible design for increased roof utilization: ⁻ Parallel strings of unequal lengths ⁻ Modules on multiple roof facets ⁻ Modules with different power ratings ⁻ Modules of different technologies Longer strings lead to savings on wiring and BoS componentsString voltage is always optimal for DC/AC conversion  High inversion efficiency: VDC ≝ VAC·√2+ε  Prevention of under/over voltage situations  Inverter cost reduction ©2010 SolarEdge 5
  6. 6. Field Trials and Results 6 ©2010 SolarEdge
  7. 7. Roof Utilization Case Study – Israel Optimal roof space utilization enabled a 15kW residential installation Four facets covered Unmatched modules in each string were necessary:  Different module sizes (and rating)  Different tilt and azimuth  25 Suntech 280W modules  34 Suntech 210W modules  4 Suntech 185W modules  One power optimzier per module  3 SolarEdge SE5000 inverters  1 string per inverter: 20, 20, 23 modules ©2010 SolarEdge 7
  8. 8. Roof Utilization Case Study – Results  Module-level monitoring reveals:  No mismatch losses (module-level MPPT)  No string mismatch losses (length agnostic fixed string voltage)  Attractive 5.1 kWh/kWp per day during August (compared to 5.5 for South-only sites) 280w 280w West East210w 210wWest East 280w 280w East West 210w 210w East West 8 ©2010 SolarEdge
  9. 9. Comparative Energy Case Study Methodology Side by side energy comparisons under similar conditions:  Standard inverter compared to distributed system  Both systems subjected to:  Identical total DC capacity (otherwise comparing kWh/kWp)  Identical module tilt and orientation  Identical irradiance and temperature conditions  Identical shading scenarios Power Optimizer Power Optimizer Power Optimizer Power Optimizer Traditional system ©2010 SolarEdge Distributed system 9
  10. 10. Comparative Case Study 1 - Italy Power optimizers + SE5000 compared to four traditional inverters of various brands (5kW, 5kW, 3kW, 6kW) Comparison without shading, and with simulated shading. Experiments done by Albatech, a MetaSystem Group company, an Italian MW-scale turn-key integrator, and a technology oriented PV distributor. 10 ©2010 SolarEdge
  11. 11. Comparative Case Study 1 – Unshaded  Under unshaded conditions distributed system produced 2.3% - 6.4% more energy than the traditional inverters Energy Production 06-15 July 2010 60.00 50.00 Power Optimizers 40.00 kWh 30.00 + SE5000 20.00 10.00 0.00 11 ©2010 SolarEdge
  12. 12. Comparative Case Study 1 – Shaded A cardboard panel was used to simulate a chimney-like sliding shadow on 1-2 modules in each string with a distributed system and inverter A The best performing inverter of three other un-shaded traditional inverters was used as a reference SolarEdge Inverter A Distributed System 12 ©2010 SolarEdge
  13. 13. Comparative Case Study 1 – Shaded (Cont.)  In reference to the unshaded inverter: The distributed system recovered more than 50% of the energy lost by traditional inverter A due to shading (-4% vs. to -8.63%) Shaded Unshaded 6.00 5.65 5.43 5.00 5.20 5.21 5.27 4.00 Power OptimizerskWh 3.00 2.00 + SE5000 1.00 0.00 ©2010 SolarEdge 13 * Inverter B was disconnected due to a technical issue during this test
  14. 14. Comparative Case Study 2 – Czech Republic Power optimizers + SE5000 compared to 5kW inverter of a leading brand Each inverter connected to 2 strings x 12 AWS modules x 185w = 4.4kWp Three partly shaded modules in each string of each system A third system remains unshaded for reference Test performed by American Way Solar, one of CZ largest PV distributorsUnshadedreferenceShadedSE5000Shadedtraditional 14 ©2010 SolarEdge
  15. 15. Comparative Case Study 2 – Results  The distributed system produced 30.3% more energy than the traditional inverter (58.96 kWh vs. 45.25 kWh)  In reference to the unshaded inverter, the distributed system recovered 77% of the energy lost by the traditional inverter due to shading (6.5% loss vs. 28.3% loss) 14 70 Shaded Unshaded Shaded 12 60 63.12 58.96Daily energy, kWh 10 50 Total energy, kWh 8 40 45.25 6 30 4 20 2 10 0 0 1 2 3 Power Optimizers + SE5000 Traditional Inverter 15 ©2010 SolarEdge
  16. 16. Comparative Case Study 3 - Germany Power optimizers + SE5000 compared to traditional 5kW inverter with multiple MPP trackers 2 string x 12 and 13 Solon P210 modules x 210w = 5.25kWp A section inside a large scale PV field No shading 16 ©2010 SolarEdge
  17. 17. Comparative Case Study 3 - Results The distributed system produced 1.65% more energy than the traditional inverter On days with dynamic weather conditions, distributed module-level MPPT recovers energy otherwise lost due to delayed MPPT process Power Module-level MPPT energy Power Optimizers + SE5000 gain on that day: +2.9% Traditional Inverter 17 ©2010 SolarEdge
  18. 18. The Impact of Dynamic Weather Conditions As shown in comparative case study 3, moving clouds induce rapid fluctuations in irradiance level Centralized inverters are Sep 2nd 2010 more limited in their ability to track changes in Imp as fast as they occur, compared to module-level MPP trackers 10:00 – 11:00±3kW fluctuations exhibitedfor a 5kW inverter in thespan of minutes ©2010 SolarEdge 18
  19. 19. Comparative Case Study 4 – Germany Power optimizers + SE5000 compared to traditional 5kw inverter with several MPP trackers 2 strings x 9 Trina TSM220 modules x 220w = 3.96kWp Artificial shading simulating commercial layout inter-row shading covers 0.5% of the PV array ©2010 SolarEdge 19
  20. 20. Comparative Case Study 4 – Results  The distributed system produced 4% - 8% more energy than the traditional inverter on most days of the month  Distributed system production was lower on days with very low irradiance, due to sizable self consumption of the prototype DSP version of the unit, now replaced by an efficient ASIC SolarEdge Daily Energy gain vs. traditional inverter [%]Introduction 20 ©2010 SolarEdge
  21. 21. Comparative Case Study 5 – SpainLayout Power optimizers + SE5000 compared to traditional inverter of a leading brand 2 strings x 7 BP 3200N modules x 200w = 2.8kWpShading Shade from a nearby electricity cable Typical of residential sites Module-level monitoring revealed shading pattern ©2010 SolarEdge 21 ©2010 SolarEdge
  22. 22. Comparative Case Study 5 – Results Accumulated Energy comparisons shows the distributed system consistently produces 4% more energy than the traditional inverter Traditional [kWh] SolarEdge [kWh] Energy Gain in [%] Weekly Energy Gain [%] 22 ©2010 SolarEdge
  23. 23. Comparative Case Study 6 - SpainInverters Power optimziers + SE6000 compared to two traditional 3kw inverters 4 strings x 10 Isofoton IS-150P modules x 150w = 6 kWpShading Inter-row Inter-row shading shading Typical of commercial roof with dense installations Modules are shaded for 2-3 hours every morning 23 ©2010 SolarEdge
  24. 24. Comparative Case Study 6 - Results The distributed system produced 4.5% more energy on average than the traditional inverter. On sunny days the distributed system produced up to 14% more energy due to intensified partial shading On very cloudy days the distributed system produced 2% – 3% more energy. Clouds and low irradiance cast diffuse light with little or no partial shading. 24 ©2010 SolarEdge
  25. 25. Questionshow what wherewhen whyhow Questions! what where whowhen why who ©2010 SolarEdge 25
  26. 26. Thank youJohn Berdner, General Manager North America Website:Email: John.berdner@solaredge.com www.solaredge.comTwitter: www.twitter.com/SolarEdgePVBlog: www.solaredge.com/blog 26 ©2010 SolarEdge

×