切换
资源分类
文档管理
收藏夹
最新动态
登陆
注册
关闭
返回
下载
相似
相似资源:
分布式能源及独立微网容量配置与运行优化研究
清华AI研究院-区块链发展研究报告2020
20-07_Braid_PVPMC_sm3
Ransome_PVPMC_webinar_20_08_05
Schneider_PVPMC_Webinar_2020-08-05_Solargis
Prilliman_PVPMC_webinar_2020-08-05
UL_MultipleSatelliteModelsMCP_2020-06-18_Slides
Sengupta-NREL-NSRDB_Status-PVPMC-Webinar
GroundWork-PVPMC-2020-06-22-Slides
PVMPC-Clean-Power-Research-Data-Sources-and-Validation-24062020
PVPMC_Webinar_Martin_Herrerias
BIPV建筑光伏一体化产品与解决方案
《PVsyst 6 中文手册》2019.03.12
遮光物体对双面组件能量收益率影响的模型-朱强忠-隆基
基于人工神经网络的双面光伏系统设计研究-韩利生-苏州中来光伏新材股份有限公司
环境因素对光伏工程发电影响的研究-惠星-西北勘测设计研究院有限公司
晶体硅光伏组件在服役过程中功率损失的理论计算与数值模拟研究-董娴-中山大学
基于SCADA数据的光伏系统故障诊断与分类-赵莹莹-协合新能源集团有限公司
应用光线追踪方法建模双面电站系统 范例与验证-薄中南 Jefferson Bor-Fraunhofer ISE
光伏组件清洗机器人改善光伏电站发电性能的研究-王军-上海安轩自动化科技有限公司
光伏阵列的平面太阳能辐照度和辐射计算-王斯成-国家发改委能源研究所
资源描述:
UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2019. Proprietary Confidential. Eva Plaza Sanz – Senior Renewable Energy Analyst Peter Johnson – Senior Project Engineer Lucy Tafur-Gamarra – Renewable Energy Analyst Multiple Satellite Models for On-Site Long-Term References UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2020. Proprietary Confidential. 3 Global HQ Chicago Advisory US Offices Albany, San Diego Using multiple satellite models as long-term references for measure-correlate-predict analyses 1 improves accuracy of results and 2 mitigates prediction risk. UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2019. Proprietary Confidential. 6 Presentation Outline Measure-Correlate-Predict Approach MCP with On-Site Weather Stations MCP with Operational Energy Estimates Why Multiple References are Important UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2019. Proprietary Confidential. 7 Presentation Outline Measure-Correlate-Predict Approach MCP with On-Site Weather Stations MCP with Operational Energy Estimates Why Multiple References are Important 1. Measure collect one year of high quality irradiance/power measurements 2. Correlate to long-term reference data from multiple satellite models 3. Predict adjust modeled estimate for observed model bias 4. Uncertainty for measurements, correlation, long-term adjustment Measure-Correlate-Predict Approach On-Site Data High Accuracy Short POR 1 yr Reference Source Moderate Accuracy Long POR 20 yrs Tuned TMY High Accuracy Represents Long-Term UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2019. Proprietary Confidential. 10 Presentation Outline Measure-Correlate-Predict Approach MCP with On-Site Weather Stations MCP with Operational Energy Estimates Why Multiple References are Important Two Class A pyranometers heating/ventilation Weekly maintenance for cleaning and leveling Weekly meteorological desktop screening At least one complete year of measurements, which mitigates seasonality risk o Modeled seasonal biases may differ from annual biases in magnitude and direction o Shorter PORs result in more uncertainty than models themselves UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2018. Proprietary Confidential. 11 Solar Met Measurements UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2018. Proprietary Confidential. 12 Measure-Correlate-Predict with Satellite Models 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 I r r a d i a t i o n k W h / m 2 / y e ar Year GHI UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2018. Proprietary Confidential. 13 Measure-Correlate-Predict with Satellite Models Establish linear relationship y m*x b R-squared strength of correlation Input modeled resource Output long-term result Case study UL reviewed 8 long-term Solar Resource Assessments using on-site data o Locations across contiguous USA o Three satellite modeled reference datasets for MCP Comparisons Climate of on-site period compared to long-term Predictions from individual models vs. average of three models Risk of using one model vs. three models On-Site Solar Resource Assessment with MCP MCP with On-Site Weather Stations -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CA1 CA2 OH1 OH2 TX IL AZ NM Climate Adjustment from Individual Models Observed Low Resource Period Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 MCP with On-Site Weather Stations -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 CA1 CA2 OH1 OH2 TX IL AZ NM MCP Results from Individual Models vs. Three Models Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 All models usually show same direction of climate adjustment e.g., observed periods being high or low On average, long-term estimates ranged by 1.4 depending model selection maximum difference of 2.9 Sites in deciduous environments showed more of a range than sites in desert environments greater need for model diversity depending on environment Multiple models for MCP mitigates risk of relying on one single model MCP with On-Site Weather Stations UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2019. Proprietary Confidential. 19 Presentation Outline Measure-Correlate-Predict Approach MCP with On-Site Weather Stations MCP with Operational Energy Estimates Why Multiple References are Important Correlation between POA irradiance and monthly energy Monthly correlations less data points higher correlation uncertainty Adjust for availability, curtailment, one- off events, degradation Can be completed on individual projects or a portfolio of projects UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2018. Proprietary Confidential. 20 MCP with Operational Energy Estimates Case study UL completed OEPEs at approximately 20 projects across a large region of the world o MCP results for two separate modeled datasets o Evaluated 1 as individual projects, and 2 as a portfolio Hypotheses 1. Does one reference dataset yield stronger correlations 2. How different are results on a project-by-project basis 3. How different are results on a portfolio basis MCP with Operational Energy Estimates MCP with Operational Energy Estimates 60 70 80 90 100 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S R-Squared Comparison - Model 1 vs. Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 1. Strength of correlation Evaluating multiple reference models may result in excluding models at some sites when they have weaker correlations MCP with Operational Energy Estimates -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S MCP Energy Results from Individual Models vs. Two-Models Model 1 Model 2 2. Difference in results for individual projects For individual projects, energy accuracy is improved by multiple models max difference of 1.8. MCP with Operational Energy Estimates 0 1 2 3 4 5 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S Annual Energy Uncertainty - MCP with Individual Models vs. Two Models Model 1 Model 2 Both Models 3. Uncertainty Reduced by 1-1.5 by using two models rather than a single model. 3. Difference in results for portfolio More projects greater modeled data cost Portfolio energy differed by 0.3 within uncertainty of analysis Uncertainty already mitigated by regional variation and portfolio benefit Conclusion portfolio analyses may be able to save on cost and effort by using a single model for the entire portfolio. MCP with Operational Energy Estimates UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2019. Proprietary Confidential. 28 Presentation Outline Measure-Correlate-Predict Approach MCP with On-Site Weather Stations MCP with Operational Energy Estimates Why Multiple References are Important Using multiple satellite models as long-term references for measure-correlate-predict analyses 1 improves accuracy of results and 2 mitigates prediction risk. 31 Questions UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2019. Proprietary Confidential Eva.PlazaSanzUL.com Peter.JohnsonUL.com
点击查看更多>>
收藏
下载该资源
京ICP备10028102号-1
电信与信息服务业务许可证:京ICP证120154号
地址:北京市大兴区亦庄经济开发区经海三路
天通泰科技金融谷 C座 16层 邮编:102600