solarEngineering model -- array tilt and azimuth

[drdanley]

I just noticed that the "solar" object attached to feeders does not include any information on tracking, tilt or azimuth. I looked through the code (solar.cpp) and found that there are values for these variables:

orientation_type = DEFAULT; //Default = ideal tracking PT_double, "tilt_angle[deg]", PADDR(tilt_angle), PT_DESCRIPTION, "Tilt angle of PV array", PT_double, "orientation_azimuth[deg]", PADDR(orientation_azimuth), PT_DESCRIPTION, "Facing direction of the PV array",

I would suggest we add these values (as well as changing "area/efficiency" to kWp) and set the defaults as: orientation_type==FIXED_AXIS tilt_angle = latitude rounded to nearest 5 degrees orientation_azimuth = 180 /* south

[dpinney]

Fixed in 2aa87d94864b4e04685b755f8a923adc396d40fd to default to:

{
orientation FIXED_AXIS;
orientation_azimuth 180;
latitude_angle_fix TRUE;
...
}

@jcfuller1 have you guys considered making these the defaults? The current orientation DEFAULT behavior results, as far as I can tell, in tracking that's even better than 2 axis (and no one even installs even single axis trackers). Also, did GLD 3.1 allow solar objects to be give KW ratings instead of area and efficiency? I couldn't find it in the code but maybe I missed it.

[jcfuller1]

We try to leave the defaults to the oldest possible model, in case folks are using it that way, then it doesn't change the answers. The new orientation model also uses better "solar hour" calculations and a variety of other "improvements" to the model. I highlight "improvements" because they are all valid models...for when they were developed.

The kW ratings will be part of release 3.2, hopefully mid-summer.

[dpinney]

Not changing the defaults sounds like a good design choice. We'll definitely pop in the kW rating when it comes out. Thanks!