Extensive comparison of physical models for photovoltaic power forecasting

Forecasting the power production of grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) power plants is essential for both the profitability and the prospects of the technology. Physically inspired modelling represents a common approach in calculating the expected power output from numerical weather prediction data. The model selection has a high effect on physical PV power forecasting accuracy, as the difference between the most and least accurate model chains is 13% in mean absolute error (MAE), 12% in root mean square error (RMSE), and 23-33% in skill scores for a PV plant on average. The power forecast performance analysis performed and verified for one-year 15-min resolution production data of 16 PV plants in Hungary for day-ahead and intraday time horizons on all possible combinations of nine direct and diffuse irradiance separation, ten tilted irradiance transposition, three reflection loss, five cell temperature, four PV module performance, two shading loss, and three inverter models. The two most critical calculation steps are identified as irradiance separation and transposition modelling, while the inverter models are the least important. Absolute and squared errors are two conflicting metrics, as the more detailed models result in the lowest MAE, while the simplest ones have the lowest RMSE. Wind speed forecasts have only a marginal effect on the PV power prediction. The results of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the physical forecasting approach in the research community, while the main conclusions are also beneficial for PV plant owners in preparing their generation forecasts.

Automated summary

Physical modeling plays a crucial role in forecasting the power production of grid-connected PV power plants. Different model chains can lead to significant differences in forecast accuracy, with irradiance separation and transposition modeling identified as the most critical calculation steps. Wind speed forecasts have only a marginal effect on PV power prediction accuracy.