Annual electricity production of solar panels 1600W

[phil59]

Yes, but you have to be careful with the windage all the same, it has to be a "heavy" minimum....

Then in the summer, we always have too much production, while in the winter never enough, so a minimum of 2 positions can be profitable quite easily.

Soon I should be able to do, and I plan to saddle on the ground, at least 2 of the 4 feet.

But more than 3 panels at once, I don't think that's easy to do.

For now, my 60° won't be so bad for the coming months...

[sicetaitsimple]

Yes, but you have to be careful with the windage all the same, it has to be a "heavy" minimum....

Certainly! It's not about doing anything! Correct sealing seems to me to be a minimum, adjustable panels or not.

[phil59]

For the moment, I have nothing to seal, and it has endured a good year with very strong gusts of wind, but it was temporary, I was lucky....

A few years ago, when it was starting to mature well, with this site, I had even planned, and kept "a washing machine drum", at the start, as leaving between 6-7 a.m. from home in general, returning around noon, leaving around 14 p.m., and returning around 17 p.m., to do 3 positions on an axis, to optimize at a lower cost....

For the inclination, I think I'll keep the idea that I had, at the time, to put car jacks .... I must have 5-10 of them available, and there, we can do a lot of position, but not as much as would be desirable, I would have to really see, but do not think I can do much better from 35 to 60°, whereas 20° to 65° would be optimal .... But good, if already 2 positions, at least, I will be happy ....

With this site, for my assistant, we had calculated "the cap" that he had to make to his house extension, facing south ....
And unfortunately, he didn't have permission on the building permit to make it big enough, barely 2/3 of the optimal cap length, and cheating...

My excel table, I also made it from the information of this site.

This site gives a very good idea of ​​reality, because you place your home in the right place....

[izentrop]

On the ground, there must be no obstacle to the east or west that would truncate the curve on one side or the other, being on a hill would be ideal .

On my side, I have an outbuilding with a south-facing roof. It would have been interesting, but on the east side, I have a higher barn, not the sun before 9:30 in the summer and on the west, the house which partly hides the west from me.

This is indeed the simulation but in reality you would have to do the test, over a given period, at the location, with a small report whose characteristics we know, to obtain a correction factor...
Or at least note the actual hours when the roof would be fully sunny, especially in winter.

I had already made a timelapsewith an ESP32-CAM, I would have to take it out, an image every 10 minutes, with daytime activation, should do the trick.

[Christophe]

In Marseilles no doubt!

You're going a little strong there, the pb remains the heat of the south, although, at the moment, in the north, northeast, it's also getting pretty hot.

We could be in the 1500-1600 depending on the years....

https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/

By setting 45-46°, you stay at 100 kWh of production each month, and you just exceed 1500 kWh....

According to this site, very well done, there is still a good +50 to 60% more and above all the summer winter difference is much smaller...

And it's still weird that a coefficient of 2.2 on solar irradiation (therefore the raw energy provided by solar) does not provide an identical coefficient on solar production... the effect of heat does not can't explain why it goes from 2.2 to 1.6...(i.e. 28% annual losses?)

source: Solar-thermal / card-precise du radiation-solar-en-France-dni-France-t7232.html

Any ideas for explanations?

[sicetaitsimple]

And it's still weird that a coefficient of 2.2 on solar irradiation (therefore the raw energy provided by solar) does not provide an identical coefficient on solar production... the effect of heat does not can't explain why it goes from 2.2 to 1.6...(i.e. 28% annual losses?)

source: Solar-thermal / card-precise du radiation-solar-en-France-dni-France-t7232.html

Any ideas for explanations?

The cards you offer are DNI (Direct Normal Irradiation) cards. In the case of a thermodynamic solar power plant, you should find the coefficient.
But PV also works with diffused light (not DNI), which changes the ratio.

[Christophe]

Yes ok okay but so there is no diffuse in the south??

Well ok in annual hours there are certainly more in the North than the South...

This map therefore gives a reduction in the solar potential...since it does not take into account the diffuse...but I don't think that the diffuse makes up 30% of the annual production, does it?

A PV produces its nominal power with direct radiation... with 20% efficiency, we therefore have at least (since the diffuse must be added...):

1000 * 20% = 200 kWh per m2 in the North + diffuse (20%?)
2200 * 20% = 440 kWh per m2 in the south + diffuse (10%?)

Ratio: 2.2...and not 1.5 or 1.6...

My 2.9 kWp installation produces 250-300W in the spring rain... it's not by playing on 10% of the production that you can go from 2.2 to 1.5... can you?

[sicetaitsimple]

This map therefore gives a reduction in the solar potential...since it does not take into account the diffuse...but I don't think that the diffuse makes up 30% of the annual production, does it?

I do not know. This card gives the DNI.
As far as PV production is concerned, the diffuse must indeed be taken into account, which is necessarily integrated into the PVGIS database used by the model.

[Christophe]

Well, I'm stupid, can I estimate the % of diffuse with my figures?

My panels produce 950 kWh per kWp...

They are polycrystalline with 16-17% efficiency...

I have 10 panels of 1.6 m².

1 kWp = 5.52 m²

Direct radiation is 1000 kWh/m2.year in my area...each kWp therefore receives 5520 kWh in direct radiation...and we therefore find 17.2% efficiency in direct radiation.

Diffuse production is therefore...uh negligible?

[Christophe]

This map therefore gives a reduction in the solar potential...since it does not take into account the diffuse...but I don't think that the diffuse makes up 30% of the annual production, does it?

I do not know. This card gives the DNI.
As far as PV production is concerned, the diffuse must indeed be taken into account, which is necessarily integrated into the PVGIS database used by the model.

Yes and I just redid a simulation and it fits perfectly with my production...

So why so much difference live?

Sorry to be heavy... I know others...