4.7 Article

Evaluation and improvement of empirical models of global solar irradiation: Case study northern Spain

期刊

RENEWABLE ENERGY
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 604-614

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.renene.2013.06.008

关键词

Solar global irradiation; Empirical models; Time series; Evapotranspiration

资金

  1. University of La Rioja
  2. Instituto de Estudios Riojanos (IER)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a new methodology to build parametric models to estimate global solar irradiation adjusted to specific on-site characteristics based on the evaluation of variable importance. Thus, those variables highly correlated to solar irradiation on a site are implemented in the model and therefore, different models might be proposed under different climates. This methodology is applied in a study case in La Rioja region (northern Spain). A new model is proposed and evaluated on stability and accuracy against a review of twenty-two already existing parametric models based on temperatures and rainfall in seventeen meteorological stations in La Rioja. The methodology of model evaluation is based on boot-strapping, which leads to achieve a high level of confidence in model calibration and validation from short time series (in this case five years, from 2007 to 2011). The model proposed improves the estimates of the other twenty-two models with average mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.195 MJ/m(2)day and average confidence interval width (95% C.I., n = 100) of 0.261 MJ/m(2)day. 41.65% of the daily residuals in the case of SIAR and 20.12% in that of SOS Rioja fall within the uncertainty tolerance of the pyranometers of the two networks (10% and 5%, respectively). Relative differences between measured and estimated irradiation on an annual cumulative basis are below 4.82%. Thus, the proposed model might be useful to estimate annual sums of global solar irradiation, reaching insignificant differences between measurements from pyranometers. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据