Skip to content

add pvwatts_dc_marion #2568

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

add pvwatts_dc_marion #2568

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+79 −0

Conversation

williamhobbs
Copy link
Contributor

  • Closes Nonlinear adjustment to pvwattsv5 dc model #2566
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines
  • Tests added
  • Updates entries in docs/sphinx/source/reference for API changes.
  • Adds description and name entries in the appropriate "what's new" file in docs/sphinx/source/whatsnew for all changes. Includes link to the GitHub Issue with :issue:`num` or this Pull Request with :pull:`num`. Includes contributor name and/or GitHub username (link with :ghuser:`user`).
  • New code is fully documented. Includes numpydoc compliant docstrings, examples, and comments where necessary.
  • Pull request is nearly complete and ready for detailed review.
  • Maintainer: Appropriate GitHub Labels (including remote-data) and Milestone are assigned to the Pull Request and linked Issue.

Still has some work to do, but I thought I would share what I've started to get feedback. Tagging @kandersolar, since we briefly discussed this.

@cwhanse
Copy link
Member

cwhanse commented Oct 6, 2025

My reaction: I think adding k as an optional input to the existing pvwatts_dc would be better. The base equation (when k is 0) is the same. Adding k as optional with default 0 sidesteps the question about a default k value.

@williamhobbs
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cwhanse, that sounds good to me.

Do you suggest I close this PR and open a new one?

And what would you think about adding an optional Boolean input parameter that lets you “cap” the Marion correction at 1000 W/m^2? It would default to False (following Marion 2008 if you pass k!=0), but if you set it True, it sets output equal to regular pvwatts above 1000. This prevents efficiency from climbing above STC at POA above 1000.

@cwhanse
Copy link
Member

cwhanse commented Oct 6, 2025

Up to you if you want to close this PR and start fresh.

The cap sounds like a good addition for the pvlib implementation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
enhancement
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Nonlinear adjustment to pvwattsv5 dc model
3 participants
@williamhobbs @cwhanse @IoannisSifnaios