All freely available plane-of-array (POA) transposition models and photovoltaic (PV) temperature and performance models in pvlib-python and pvpltools-python were examined against multiyear field data from Albuquerque, New Mexico. The data include different PV systems composed of crystalline silicon modules that vary in cell type, module construction, and materials. These systems have been characterized via IEC 61853-1 and 61853-2 testing, and the input data for each model were sourced from these system-specific test results, rather than considering any generic input data (e.g., manufacturer's specification [spec] sheets or generic Panneau Solaire [PAN] files). Six POA transposition models, 7 temperature models, and 12 performance models are included in this comparative analysis. These freely available models were proven effective across many different types of technologies. The POA transposition models exhibited average normalized mean bias errors (NMBEs) within ±3%. Most PV temperature models underestimated temperature exhibiting mean and median residuals ranging from −6.5°C to 2.7°C; all temperature models saw a reduction in root mean square error when using transient assumptions over steady state. The performance models demonstrated similar behavior with a first and third interquartile NMBEs within ±4.2% and an overall average NMBE within ±2.3%. Although differences among models were observed at different times of the day/year, this study shows that the availability of system-specific input data is more important than model selection. For example, using spec sheet or generic PAN file data with a complex PV performance model does not guarantee a better accuracy than a simpler PV performance model that uses system-specific data.
The Photovoltaic (PV) Performance Modeling Collaborative (PVPMC) organized a blind PV performance modeling intercomparison to allow PV modelers to blindly test their models and modeling ability against real system data. Measured weather and irradiance data were provided along with detailed descriptions of PV systems from two locations (Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, and Roskilde, Denmark). Participants were asked to simulate the plane-of-array irradiance, module temperature, and DC power output from six systems and submit their results to Sandia for processing. The results showed overall median mean bias (i.e., the average error per participant) of 0.6% in annual irradiation and −3.3% in annual energy yield. While most PV performance modeling results seem to exhibit higher precision and accuracy as compared to an earlier blind PV modeling study in 2010, human errors, modeling skills, and derates were found to still cause significant errors in the estimates.
Irradiance transposition models seem to perform well, except the Isotropic with -11.25 W/m2 underestimation. Most temperature models could not capture behavior when ΔΤ between module and ambient is negative. Uncertainties due to derate factors: modelers overbudgeted resulting in significant power underestimation; maybe ~10% is appropriate for commercial systems but not lab-scale? Most software and models cluster together showing good reproducibility among participants. Modeler’s skills seem to be more important than the PV model itself (flat efficiency with irradiance, positive power temperature coefficients, etc.). Results and best practices will be communicated in a journal article.