2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2014.07.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of errors made in solar irradiance estimation due to averaging the Angstrom turbidity coefficient

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The fluctuations are driven by cloud dynamics, atmospheric losses (Calinoiu et al, 2014), and the transport of airborne pollutants (Vindel and Polo, 2014a). Changes in irradiance that occur on the same time scale as changes in electricity demand will impact the benefits of storage and self-consumption in a domestic or community PV system (Marcos et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The fluctuations are driven by cloud dynamics, atmospheric losses (Calinoiu et al, 2014), and the transport of airborne pollutants (Vindel and Polo, 2014a). Changes in irradiance that occur on the same time scale as changes in electricity demand will impact the benefits of storage and self-consumption in a domestic or community PV system (Marcos et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To the authors' knowledge, no detailed investigation has systematically evaluated the direct impact on long-term modelled irradiance datasets of the AOD representation time scale. Nevertheless, some investigations have treated either the daily or monthly AOD time scales separately, while restricting the spatial scope to only local or regional scales (Gueymard, 2011;Calinoiu et al, 2014;Nikitidou et al, 2014). In the field of solar resource assessment, other studies have compared AOD datasets from different origins and with different time scales so that the relative importance of time scale was explicitly excluded from the discussion (Cebecauer and Šúri, 2010;Zubler et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The relative error in estimating global solar irradiance under clear-sky due to an inadequate consideration of the Ångström turbidity coefficient may be considerable. For instance, when the current value of the Ångström turbidity coefficient is replaced by the yearly average value, the relative errors in estimating global solar irradiance may be higher than 20% [12].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%