Comparison of trend extraction methods for calculating performance loss rates of different photovoltaic technologies

Abstract

In this work, the performance loss rates of eleven grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) systems of different technologies were evaluated by applying linear regression (LR) and trend extraction methods to Performance Ratio, R <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">P</sub> , time series. In particular, model-based methods such as Classical Seasonal Decomposition (CSD), Holt-Winters (HW) exponential smoothing and Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA), as well as non-parametric filtering methods such as LOcally wEighted Scatterplot Smoothing (LOESS) were used to extract the trend from monthly R <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">P</sub> time series of the first five years of operation of each PV system. The results showed that applying LR on the time series produced the lowest performance loss rates for most systems, but with significant autocorrelations in the residuals, signifying statistical inaccuracy. The application of CSD and HW significantly reduced the residual autocorrelations as the seasonal component was extracted from the time series, resulting in comparable results for eight out of eleven PV systems, with a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 6.22 % between the performance loss rates calculated from each method. Finally, the optimal use of multiplicative ARIMA resulted in Gaussian white noise (GWN) residuals and the most accurate statistical model of the R <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">P</sub> time series. ARIMA produced higher performance loss rates than LR for all technologies, except the amorphous Silicon (a-Si) system. The LOESS non-parametric method produced directly comparable results to multiplicative ARIMA, with a MAPE of -2.04 % between the performance loss rates calculated from each method, whereas LR, CSD and HW showed higher deviation from ARIMA, with MAPE of 25.14 %, -13.71 % and -6.39 %, respectively.