Closed drdanley closed 9 years ago
The current calculations being used are: [[0,625000],[1,687500],[2,812500],[3,875000],[4,875000],[5,875000],[6,812500],[7,875000],[8,812500],[9,750000],[10,625000],[11,556250]]
Where 0 is January, 1 is February, and so on.
Yeah, this is a problem and needs to get fixed ASAP.
The defaults have been fixed to obtain the results from PVWatts now instead of using the vector of values above. @drdanley could you please test with the updated defaults and let us know what/if you get better results.
Pretty sure this is fixed.
Used “drd solar rates test 3feb15” with Macon, GA.
The PVWatts calculations seem to be off, compared with a straight PVWatts run. (I understand that the numbers in the output table may be placeholders, but I wanted to make sure this gets addressed.) There is no space for inputting losses, tilt, tracking, etc, so we need to make sure the defaults are set up correctly. This will have a primary effect on the solar performance calculations, which are the basis for the financial calculations Please provide me with the assumptions used for the solar calculations so that I can verify.