Add ability to model PV Power Electronics #44
Conversation
|
@chipbarnaby if we remove the PVWatts DLL, we can do it on this branch. |
src/CNRECS.DEF
Outdated
| *r FLOAT pv_tGrndRatio // ratio of ground-cell temperature diff. to air-cell temperature diff. | ||
| *r *hide FLOAT_GEZ pv_thermCap // thermal capacitance of the array, J/kg-m2 | ||
| *h *e FLOAT pv_poaPv // previous timestep plane of array incidence, Btu/h-ft2 | ||
| *h *e FLOAT pv_radIPv // previous timestep total radiation incident on array, Btu/h-ft2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Pv suffix (for previous value I assume?) is unfortunate given that everything is pv here. Elsewhere, we use Ls (last step) for this.
Also, is the timestep hour or subhour?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree. I think I borrowed the suffix convention from here. I'm fine changing it. Currently PV is calculated hourly, but it could change to subhour down the road I suppose.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I looked at other contexts ... sometimes PvHr (for hourly values), sometime ls for subhour. Not particularly consistent. So perhaps avoiding Pv here would be helpful? Not a big deal obviously.
chipbarnaby
left a comment
chipbarnaby
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added one comment about use of Pv suffix ... did that come through?
| } | ||
| // round to nearest thousandth to minimize pixel precision | ||
| // errors for unshaded surfaces and differences among GPUs | ||
| roundNearest(fBeam, 0.001f); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@chipbarnaby thoughts on this? I think it will eliminate hardware differences.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds OK, negligible results impact and could help with compare noise.
No description provided.