Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to REACH Solar Consultants - Presentation at Intersolar India 2013 | Learnings from India's 2GW Installations
Similar to REACH Solar Consultants - Presentation at Intersolar India 2013 | Learnings from India's 2GW Installations (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
REACH Solar Consultants - Presentation at Intersolar India 2013 | Learnings from India's 2GW Installations
- 1. PV Plant Design Optimization Learning from India's 2GW Installations www.reach-solar.com
- 2. Performance Data • For this presentation • Sample of 50 plants operational for at least one year in Gujarat • 28 with c-Si and 22 Thin Film www.reach-solar.com
- 3. This is how the data tables look like ? www.reach-solar.com
- 4. ? CUF: What do you expect? www.reach-solar.com
- 5. Frequency Distribution CUF Values 16 Highest CUF 21.3% Lowest CUF 12.2% 14 6 3 2 3 3 2 1 0 12% to 13% 13.1% to 14% 14.1% to 15% 15.1% to 16% 16.1% to 17% 17.1% to 18% 18.1% to 19% 19.1% to 20% 20.1% to 21% Above 21% The Difference: Absolute: 9.1% | Factor: 1.75 www.reach-solar.com
- 6. Frequency Distribution CUF Values 16 14 6 3 2 3 3 2 1 0 12% to 13% 13.1% to 14% 14.1% to 15% 15.1% to 16% 16.1% to 17% 17.1% to 18% 18.1% to 19% 19.1% to 20% 20.1% to 21% Above 21% Top Performers vs. All Others 94.00% 6% 92.00% 60.00% www.reach-solar.com 8% 40%
- 7. ? Is this problem specific to India? www.reach-solar.com
- 8. No, it is not! “Nevertheless, the PV systems evaluable per region showed significant deviations in their respective yields. Although located in a similar environment, the yield variation in some regions was up to 20 %. Assessment of the quartiles revealed 75 % of the plants underperforming compared to the top performing plants. Another 5 % were included in the group of outliers due to their overall yield being too low for this study. The significance test proves that, due to the sufficiently high number of evaluable PV plants, the statistical results of our study reflect the actual yields of the PV systems to a high degree.” - Source: Survey on yield of photovoltaic plants 2012 in Germany by Meteocontrol (Prof. Dr. Henirk te Heesen et al. www.reach-solar.com
- 9. ? Is it because of the panels? www.reach-solar.com
- 10. CUF vs. Technology 9 7 Note: There are 28 c-Si, but only 22 Thin Film installations in this sample! 7 7 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 12% to 13% 13.1% to 14% 14.1% to 15% 15.1% to 16% 16.1% to 17% 17.1% to 18% 18.1% to 19% 19.1% to 20% 20.1% to 21% Above 21% Thin Film www.reach-solar.com c-Si
- 11. CUF vs. Technology II 12% to 13% 13.1% to 14% 14.1% to 15% 15.1% to 16% 16.1% to 17% 17.1% to 18% 18.1% to 19% 19.1% to 20% 20.1% to 21% Above 21% Thin Film Bottom line: There are very good and not so good performing plants either with Thin Film or c-Si! www.reach-solar.com c-Si
- 12. ? Is it because of the size? www.reach-solar.com
- 13. CUF vs. Average Installed Capacity 17.55 15.40 14.59 11.73 11.67 14.14 11.67 10.22 6.67 12% to 13% 13.1% to 14% 14.1% to 15% 15.1% to 16% 16.1% to 17% 17.1% to 18% 18.1% to 19% 19.1% to 20% 20.1% to 21% Above 21% Average Installed Capacity Bottom line: Do larger / smaller plants perform better? One thing is for sure: The sample of 50 plants is too small to give an answer. www.reach-solar.com
- 14. ? So what can we learn from this? www.reach-solar.com
- 15. A Skeptical Thesis • We do not have enough information, because • Generation Data and CUF do not provide the right or enough insights www.reach-solar.com
- 16. ? Why have we done this exercise? www.reach-solar.com
- 17. Reasons • #1: To understand better the limitations of CUF and generation data • #2: To build awareness that there might be a problem & that there is room for improvement • #3: Not specific to India – happens also in Germany / Europe so it affects the whole industry www.reach-solar.com
- 18. CUF: What goes into the equation… • Units generated • Installed Capacity • Time (e.g. 1 year) www.reach-solar.com CUF Energy Measured (kWh ) Installed Capacity(kW ) 8760 h
- 19. CUF: What goes not into the equation… • Ambient Temperature • Panel Temperature • Irradiation at Project Site www.reach-solar.com • Grid related aspects • Availability • Frequency
- 20. PR: A Different Approach • Instead of asking: What was achieved without asking about the frameconditions and circumstances www.reach-solar.com • Ask: What could have been achieved considering all the frame conditions?
- 21. Comparison of CUF and PR for a PV System in Germany (2012) 77.58% 81.54% 78.90% 78.63% 76.00% 75.90% 72.03% 74.42% 76.39% 19% 21% 78.32% 10% 14% 21% 19% February March April May June July Performance Ratio [%] www.reach-solar.com 3% 9% 4% January 70.60% 4% 25% 18% 72.80% August CUF [%] September October November December
- 22. Takeaways • #1: Great components do not automatically lead to high performing plants • #2: Design has a huge impact (but not only electrical design!) • #3: CUF is a good tool but will not provide the complete picture • #4: PR is also a tool for quality management www.reach-solar.com
- 24. Component Capacity Nos Installed Plant Capacity Lost Chance of Detection 1 Panel 250Wp 4000 0.025% “0” 1 String 5kWp 200 0.5% Not very likely 1 SCB 50kWp 20 5% Possible 1 Inverter 500kW 2 50% Likely 1 Transformer 1000kW 1 100% Most likely *1MW plant – not a real application; simplified for illustration Design for Reliability www.reach-solar.com
- 25. “Classical Approach” •#1: Panels •#2: Inverter •#3: Temperature www.reach-solar.com
- 26. “Classical Approach” •#1: Panels •#2: Inverter •#3: Temperature Price www.reach-solar.com
- 27. Min. Performance and Typical Performance of c-Si Panels vs. Time in Operation (Aging Process) 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 0 5 10 Min. Performance 15 20 Typical Performance Performance of Panels www.reach-solar.com 25
- 28. Simplified Output Power vs. Ambient Temperature 120 Standardized Output Power 100 80 60 Temperature De-Rating 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Ambient Temperature Performance of Inverter www.reach-solar.com 60 70
- 29. Is focusing on Panels and Inverters enough? www.reach-solar.com
- 30. Drainage & Civil Works www.reach-solar.com
- 32. Component Capacity Nos Installed Plant Capacity Lost Chance of Detection 1 Panel 250Wp 4000 0.025% “0” 1 String 5kWp 200 0.5% Not very likely 1 SCB 50kWp 20 5% Possible 1 Inverter 500kW 2 50% Likely 1 Transformer 1000kW 1 100% Most likely *1MW plant – not a real application; simplified for illustration SCB: Mission Critical Component www.reach-solar.com
- 35. Component Capacity Nos Installed Plant Capacity Lost Chance of Detection 1 Panel 250Wp 4000 0.025% “0” 1 String 5kWp 200 0.5% Not very likely 1 SCB 50kWp 20 5% Possible 1 Inverter 500kW 2 50% Likely 1 Transformer 1000kW 1 100% Most likely *1MW plant – not a real application; simplified for illustration Transformer: Mission Critical Component www.reach-solar.com
- 38. Component Capacity Nos Installed Plant Capacity Lost Chance of Detection 1 Panel 250Wp 4000 0.025% “0” 1 String 5kWp 200 Not very likely 1 SCB 50kWp 20 0.5% 5% 1 Inverter 500kW 2 50% Likely 1 Transformer 1000kW 1 100% Most likely Possible *1MW plant – not a real application; simplified for illustration Mounting Structures: Mission Critical Component www.reach-solar.com
- 39. No, it is not specific to India! www.reach-solar.com
- 41. Conclusion • Plant Efficiency • EPCs and Owners Engineers – educate your clients about plant efficiency (PR vs. CUF) • Quality Control • Install and use a SCADA system to monitor and document the plant performance • System Deployment • Deploy a system – focus on all design aspects (not only electrical, but also civil) • Share • Share your generation and performance data to set a benchmark www.reach-solar.com
- 42. Top Performing Plants Now 80 / 20 Top Performing Plants in Future www.reach-solar.com
- 43. Contact Us REACH Solar Consulting P Ltd. S3 Team Business Center 98 V M Street, Mylapore Chennai 600004 India c/o CHROSIS UG Hallerstrasse, 27 74549 Wolpertshausen Germany madhavan@reach-solar.com sebastian@reach-solar.com www.reach-solar.com