PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3 Intercomparison and Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation and Validation

Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review

Autoren

  • Malte Ruben Vogt
  • Stefan Riechelmann
  • Ana Maria Gracia-Amillo
  • Anton Driesse
  • Alexander Kokka
  • Kinza Maham
  • Petri Karha
  • Robert Kenny
  • Carsten Schinke
  • Karsten Bothe
  • James Blakesley
  • Esma Music
  • Fabian Plag
  • Gabi Friesen
  • Gianluca Corbellini
  • Nicholas Riedel-Lyngskar
  • Roland Valckenborg
  • Markus Schweiger
  • Werner Herrmann

Organisationseinheiten

Externe Organisationen

  • Aalto University
  • Institut für Solarenergieforschung GmbH (ISFH)
  • National Physical Laboratory
  • University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland (SUPSI)
  • Technical University of Denmark
  • Niederländische Organisation für Angewandte Naturwissenschaftliche Forschung (TNO)
  • TÜV Rheinland Consulting GmbH
  • European Commission – Joint Research Centre Ispra
  • Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB)
  • Photovoltaic Performance Labs
Forschungs-netzwerk anzeigen

Details

OriginalspracheEnglisch
Seiten (von - bis)844-852
Seitenumfang9
FachzeitschriftIEEE journal of photovoltaics
Jahrgang12
Ausgabenummer3
PublikationsstatusVeröffentlicht - 10 März 2022

Abstract

The IEC 61853 standard series aims to provide a standardized measure for photovoltaic (PV) module energy rating, namely the Climate Specific Energy Rating(CSER). For this purpose, it defines procedures for the experimental determination of input data and algorithms for calculating the CSER. However, some steps leave room for interpretation regarding the specific implementation. To analyze the impact of these ambiguities, the comparability of results, and the clarity of the algorithm for calculating the CSER in Part 3 of the standard, an intercomparison is performed among research organizations with ten different implementations of the algorithm. We share the same input data, obtained by measurement of a commercial crystalline silicon PV module, among the participating organizations. Each participant then uses their individual implementations of the algorithm to calculate the resulting CSER values. The initial blind comparison reveals differences of 0.133 (14.7%) in CSER. After several comparison phases, a best practice approach is defined, which reduces the difference by a factor of 210 to below 0.001 (0.1%) in CSER for two independent PV modules. The best practice presented in this article establishes clear guidelines for the numerical treatment of the spectral correction and power matrix extrapolation, where the methods in the standard are not clearly defined. Additionally, we provide input data and results for the PV community to test their implementations of the standard's algorithm. To identify the source of the deviations, we introduce a climate data diagnostic set. Based on our experiences, we give recommendations for the future development of the standard.

ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete

Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zitieren

PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3 Intercomparison and Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation and Validation. / Ruben Vogt, Malte; Riechelmann, Stefan; Gracia-Amillo, Ana Maria et al.
in: IEEE journal of photovoltaics, Jahrgang 12, Nr. 3, 10.03.2022, S. 844-852.

Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review

Ruben Vogt, M, Riechelmann, S, Gracia-Amillo, AM, Driesse, A, Kokka, A, Maham, K, Karha, P, Kenny, R, Schinke, C, Bothe, K, Blakesley, J, Music, E, Plag, F, Friesen, G, Corbellini, G, Riedel-Lyngskar, N, Valckenborg, R, Schweiger, M & Herrmann, W 2022, 'PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3 Intercomparison and Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation and Validation', IEEE journal of photovoltaics, Jg. 12, Nr. 3, S. 844-852. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2021.3135258
Ruben Vogt, M., Riechelmann, S., Gracia-Amillo, A. M., Driesse, A., Kokka, A., Maham, K., Karha, P., Kenny, R., Schinke, C., Bothe, K., Blakesley, J., Music, E., Plag, F., Friesen, G., Corbellini, G., Riedel-Lyngskar, N., Valckenborg, R., Schweiger, M., & Herrmann, W. (2022). PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3 Intercomparison and Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation and Validation. IEEE journal of photovoltaics, 12(3), 844-852. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2021.3135258
Ruben Vogt M, Riechelmann S, Gracia-Amillo AM, Driesse A, Kokka A, Maham K et al. PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3 Intercomparison and Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation and Validation. IEEE journal of photovoltaics. 2022 Mär 10;12(3):844-852. doi: 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2021.3135258
Ruben Vogt, Malte ; Riechelmann, Stefan ; Gracia-Amillo, Ana Maria et al. / PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3 Intercomparison and Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation and Validation. in: IEEE journal of photovoltaics. 2022 ; Jahrgang 12, Nr. 3. S. 844-852.
Download
@article{ee09628e6ff2413693a688bd0c037282,
title = "PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3 Intercomparison and Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation and Validation",
abstract = "The IEC 61853 standard series aims to provide a standardized measure for photovoltaic (PV) module energy rating, namely the Climate Specific Energy Rating(CSER). For this purpose, it defines procedures for the experimental determination of input data and algorithms for calculating the CSER. However, some steps leave room for interpretation regarding the specific implementation. To analyze the impact of these ambiguities, the comparability of results, and the clarity of the algorithm for calculating the CSER in Part 3 of the standard, an intercomparison is performed among research organizations with ten different implementations of the algorithm. We share the same input data, obtained by measurement of a commercial crystalline silicon PV module, among the participating organizations. Each participant then uses their individual implementations of the algorithm to calculate the resulting CSER values. The initial blind comparison reveals differences of 0.133 (14.7%) in CSER. After several comparison phases, a best practice approach is defined, which reduces the difference by a factor of 210 to below 0.001 (0.1%) in CSER for two independent PV modules. The best practice presented in this article establishes clear guidelines for the numerical treatment of the spectral correction and power matrix extrapolation, where the methods in the standard are not clearly defined. Additionally, we provide input data and results for the PV community to test their implementations of the standard's algorithm. To identify the source of the deviations, we introduce a climate data diagnostic set. Based on our experiences, we give recommendations for the future development of the standard.",
keywords = "Energy performance, energy rating, energy yield, photovoltaic (PV) module",
author = "{Ruben Vogt}, Malte and Stefan Riechelmann and Gracia-Amillo, {Ana Maria} and Anton Driesse and Alexander Kokka and Kinza Maham and Petri Karha and Robert Kenny and Carsten Schinke and Karsten Bothe and James Blakesley and Esma Music and Fabian Plag and Gabi Friesen and Gianluca Corbellini and Nicholas Riedel-Lyngskar and Roland Valckenborg and Markus Schweiger and Werner Herrmann",
year = "2022",
month = mar,
day = "10",
doi = "10.1109/JPHOTOV.2021.3135258",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "844--852",
journal = "IEEE journal of photovoltaics",
issn = "2156-3381",
publisher = "IEEE Electron Devices Society",
number = "3",

}

Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - PV Module Energy Rating Standard IEC 61853-3 Intercomparison and Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation and Validation

AU - Ruben Vogt, Malte

AU - Riechelmann, Stefan

AU - Gracia-Amillo, Ana Maria

AU - Driesse, Anton

AU - Kokka, Alexander

AU - Maham, Kinza

AU - Karha, Petri

AU - Kenny, Robert

AU - Schinke, Carsten

AU - Bothe, Karsten

AU - Blakesley, James

AU - Music, Esma

AU - Plag, Fabian

AU - Friesen, Gabi

AU - Corbellini, Gianluca

AU - Riedel-Lyngskar, Nicholas

AU - Valckenborg, Roland

AU - Schweiger, Markus

AU - Herrmann, Werner

PY - 2022/3/10

Y1 - 2022/3/10

N2 - The IEC 61853 standard series aims to provide a standardized measure for photovoltaic (PV) module energy rating, namely the Climate Specific Energy Rating(CSER). For this purpose, it defines procedures for the experimental determination of input data and algorithms for calculating the CSER. However, some steps leave room for interpretation regarding the specific implementation. To analyze the impact of these ambiguities, the comparability of results, and the clarity of the algorithm for calculating the CSER in Part 3 of the standard, an intercomparison is performed among research organizations with ten different implementations of the algorithm. We share the same input data, obtained by measurement of a commercial crystalline silicon PV module, among the participating organizations. Each participant then uses their individual implementations of the algorithm to calculate the resulting CSER values. The initial blind comparison reveals differences of 0.133 (14.7%) in CSER. After several comparison phases, a best practice approach is defined, which reduces the difference by a factor of 210 to below 0.001 (0.1%) in CSER for two independent PV modules. The best practice presented in this article establishes clear guidelines for the numerical treatment of the spectral correction and power matrix extrapolation, where the methods in the standard are not clearly defined. Additionally, we provide input data and results for the PV community to test their implementations of the standard's algorithm. To identify the source of the deviations, we introduce a climate data diagnostic set. Based on our experiences, we give recommendations for the future development of the standard.

AB - The IEC 61853 standard series aims to provide a standardized measure for photovoltaic (PV) module energy rating, namely the Climate Specific Energy Rating(CSER). For this purpose, it defines procedures for the experimental determination of input data and algorithms for calculating the CSER. However, some steps leave room for interpretation regarding the specific implementation. To analyze the impact of these ambiguities, the comparability of results, and the clarity of the algorithm for calculating the CSER in Part 3 of the standard, an intercomparison is performed among research organizations with ten different implementations of the algorithm. We share the same input data, obtained by measurement of a commercial crystalline silicon PV module, among the participating organizations. Each participant then uses their individual implementations of the algorithm to calculate the resulting CSER values. The initial blind comparison reveals differences of 0.133 (14.7%) in CSER. After several comparison phases, a best practice approach is defined, which reduces the difference by a factor of 210 to below 0.001 (0.1%) in CSER for two independent PV modules. The best practice presented in this article establishes clear guidelines for the numerical treatment of the spectral correction and power matrix extrapolation, where the methods in the standard are not clearly defined. Additionally, we provide input data and results for the PV community to test their implementations of the standard's algorithm. To identify the source of the deviations, we introduce a climate data diagnostic set. Based on our experiences, we give recommendations for the future development of the standard.

KW - Energy performance

KW - energy rating

KW - energy yield

KW - photovoltaic (PV) module

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126280895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2021.3135258

DO - 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2021.3135258

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85126280895

VL - 12

SP - 844

EP - 852

JO - IEEE journal of photovoltaics

JF - IEEE journal of photovoltaics

SN - 2156-3381

IS - 3

ER -