forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

Here animated map of France irradiation (DNI Direct Normal Irradiation = France) actual solar (based on satellite observations) in Fance for 2006:

Each map below represents the direct component of the monthly radiation received on a plane always facing the sun for 2006 year in kWh / m². There is one card per month as well as a map for the annual irradiation and animation for the year.

a) Average solar radiation in France on 2006 year in kWh / m².year:


b) Solar radiation month by month in kWh / m².mois:


2ieme loading the card is a bit long because it is near 2 Mo.

The maps were calculated from observations made by meteorological satellites according to Heliosat-2 method. The original data is stored in the HelioClim-2 database. Shading was added to maps to represent the relief.

Source: Copyright Ecole des Mines de Paris / Armines 2007

ps: the satellite method should give the IR radiation from the ground, notice the radiative forcage of the Parisian metropolis ...

Finally, I think this method identified by the IR satellite ground is interesting but questionable (requires correction) to estimate the solar potential for 2 reasons (at least):

a) It takes into account the irradiation of ground to the sky and not the reverse.
There is a size of shade.

b) The urban heat islands is considered: a part of this heat comes from transport losses: this is very clear for the Paris region.

c) Pollution brings 2 time errors in these statements:

- Urban island: increased ground irradiation (average temperature of cities increased concrete, transportation, pollution). This gives an impression (distorted) that more of sunlight in cities while the reverse is true, see following indent.

- Downtown solar radiation is filtered by pollutants (soot and particle including boilers, sulfur is an excellent solar absorber).

So in the big cities and the sky, the sunlight appears more significant when in reality it is lower.

What do you think?

We noticed this in Paris last week: if it is hotter there (at least + 5 ° C!), The direct sun "hits" (impression on the skin) much less than at home in the Ardennes (400 m d 'altitude). Would this show that part of the solar irradiation would therefore be absorbed by pollutants and various fumes and soot?

2 paradox with these remarks: IR measured by satellite should also be absorbed, a 2 th time (from ground to sky) ... the card would therefore tend to minimize this? Good ca makes it right!

ps: I put the card in Article Site https://www.econologie.com/carte-solair ... ni-france/

Remote sensing measurements are often lined with ground measurements to develop models and validate the digital signal processing.

It is assumed that in various parts of the territory, particularly in areas where weather stations are located, irradiation measures have allowed to validate the satellite data that was used to draw the map.

We can estimate that the card must be relatively correct, otherwise the work was done wrong.

Not necessarily hurt since the method is clearly stated by the Ecole des Mines, which does not mean that this card is valid 100% for the solar ...

By cons, geo-physically there is no reason, a priori, that the Paris region suffers more solar radiation than the rest of France to the same attitude ... There is thus necessarily a correction that has not been made on this card.

Me I'm wrong?

Christophe beautiful cards, thank you!

Hello ;
Here is a link to calculate the solar radiation: http://www.pedagogie.ac-nantes.fr/1214223614078/0/fiche___ressourcepedagogique/&RH=1160729734281

I think it helps complete more precisely map.

And for hours of sunshine in France by region:



All equal he said the other?

Found here: solar-photovoltaic / photovoltaic panels-from-a-de-1 4-the-watt-crete-t14708.html
A very nice solar simulator (it concerns the PV but for hot water is multiplied by about 5 figures in kWh)

izentrop wrote:A damn good simulator: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/ ... map=europe