4.8 Article

Impact of simulation time-resolution on the matching of PV production and household electric demand

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 128, 期 -, 页码 192-208

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.075

关键词

Resolution; Time-step Energy matching; Averaging effect; On-site PV; Building

资金

  1. Aalto University
  2. TEKES RYM-SY
  3. Aalto University SAGA projects
  4. K.V. Lindholms Stiftelse

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In certain applications of building energy simulation, the normally used time-step of one hour (1 h) can be a source of significant error. One such application is the matching of PV production and household energy demand. Short-time peaks in PV generation and demand load produce errors in the matching results. The goal of the investigation is to show the reasons for these errors and to find out how large the errors are. The approach is partly theoretical and partly based on simulation exercises with TRNSYS using a time-resolution ranging from 1 min to 1 h. The amount of matching is expressed using the on-site energy fraction index (OEF) and the on-site energy matching index (OEM). Detailed parametric analyses are conducted with the focused parameters on the size of the generation system and the error of daily matching results with coarser resolutions compared to 1-min resolution. The results show that the shape of the demand curve as well as the production curve, and the interconnection of these curves, is a crucial factor explaining the formation of errors. When the high-resolution generation curve frequently crosses the intermittent long spikes or the continuous saw teeth of the demand curve, noticeable errors (in some cases higher than 60%) are generated with 1-h resolution compared to 1-min resolution. Moreover, for the on-site PV during the summer-time, noticeable errors (in some cases 15% or higher with 1-h resolution) are more likely to happen under scattered cloud conditions compared with clear or overcast skies. (C) 2014 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

4.8
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