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 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 10 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 paper 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.

Representativeness of Energy Rating acc. to IEC 61853 for Different Locations in Middle and South Europe

“…For the ER calculation, this study adopts the methodology presented in Ref. [17], which has been validated through a Round Robin study to reduce ambiguities in certain steps of the standard procedure. The implementation tools from Ref.…”

Developing an energy rating for bifacial photovoltaic modules

“…To be consistent and thus comparable with monofacial IEC 61853-3 standard, we keep the four main calculation steps. We follow the best practice guidelines 19 established for the front side, except where the bifacial nature of the module requires us to make the adjustments discussed in the following.…”

“…To analyze the differences between these definitions, we use the open source data for the monofacial c-Si "module 1" as published by Vogt et al 19 As no such data are available for bifacial modules, we assume for the purpose of calculating the bifacial energy rating that this module has rear side with the same angular loss coefficient and spectral response as the front side. This completes the PV module input data for our calculation procedure.…”

Blind photovoltaic modeling intercomparison: A multidimensional data analysis and lessons learned

“…It took five rounds of calculations—and discussions among the participants—for the nine participants' calculations to agree within 0.1%. Ultimately, Vogt et al 12 demonstrated how user‐induced variability can be reduced when modelers have clear procedures for implementing key steps of the PV model chain.…”

“…11 These modelers were required to independently obtain meteorological data for their simulations, which, for the Italian site, led to 6% differences in global horizontal irradiance (GHI), 20% differences in Gpoa, and ultimately nearly 30% differences in AC energy. And most recently, Vogt et al 12 conducted an intercomparison of energy rating calculations per IEC 61853-3 13 with nine European institutes. Energy rating differences of 14% were found in the first blind comparison round.…”