Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System
Final
report:
project
results
and
lessons
learnt
Lead
organisation:
Commonwealth
Scientific
and
Industrial
Research
Organisation
(CSIRO)
Project
commencement
date:
7th
January
2013
Date
published:
Contact
name:
John Ward
Title:
Dr
Email:
John.K.Ward@csiro.com
Website:
http://arena.gov.au/project/australian-solar-energy-forecasting-system-asefs-phase-1/
Table
of
Contents
Table
of
Contents
..................................................................................................................................
2
Executive
Summary
...............................................................................................................................
3
Project
Overview
...................................................................................................................................
5
Project
summary
............................................................................................................................
5
Project
scope
.................................................................................................................................
9
Outcomes
....................................................................................................................................
13
Transferability
..............................................................................................................................
39
Conclusion
and
next
steps
...........................................................................................................
39
References
...................................................................................................................................
41
Lessons
Learnt
.....................................................................................................................................
42
Lessons
Learnt
Report:
Delays
with
Solar
Flagship
program
.......................................................
42
Lessons
Learnt
Report:
Unexpected
rapid
increase
in
rooftop
solar
installations
......................
43
Lessons
Learnt
Report:
Lack
of
solar
forecast
data
thorough
the
Researcher
Access
.................
44
Lessons
Learnt
Report:
Delays
in
signing
the
agreement
between
CSIRO
and
NREL
..................
45
Executive
Summary
The
30-month,
7.6
million,
project
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System
(ASEFS)
addressed
the
issue
of
solar
power
integration
into
the
grid
by
means
of
a
two-pronged
approach:
1. The
development
of
an
operational
infrastructure
component,
also
referred
to
as
ASEFS,
and
to
be
installed
at,
and
operated
by,
the
Australian
Energy
Market
Operator
(AEMO)
2. The
development
of
an
advanced
forecasting
research
program,
via
the
production
of
world
leading
solar
forecasting
techniques
and
tools
aimed
at
improving
the
forecasts
produced
by
the
operational
system
and
at
creating
national
capability
in
the
area
of
solar
irradiance
and
power
forecasting
Solar
generating
capacity
in
the
National
Energy
Market
(NEM)
has
been
growing
to
an
estimated
installed
capacity
exceeding
4,000
MW,
particularly
with
the
proliferation
of
grid-connected
roof-top
PV,
as
well
as
the
more
recent
large
scale
solar
installation
at
Nyngam,
Broken
Hill
and
Royalla
(with
other
MW-scale
plants
due
to
become
operational
in
the
near
term).
Solar
forecasting
is
therefore
essential
to
assist
with
the
provision
of
accurate
supply
and
demand
forecast
models
necessary
to
increase
commercial
viability
and
ensure
stability
of
the
electricity
grid.
The
project,
co-funded
by
the
Australian
Renewable
Energy
Agency
(ARENA),
was
coordinated
by
the
Commonwealth
Scientific
and
Industrial
Research
Organisation
(CSIRO).
The
development
of
the
operational
infrastructure
component
was
undertaken
by
Overspeed
GmbH,
a
company
involved
in
development
of
Australian
Wind
Energy
Forecasting
System
(AWEFS),
and
AEMOs
Information
Management
and
Technology
(IMT)
department.
The
development
of
an
advanced
solar
forecasting
research
program
was
contributed
by
the
Bureau
of
Meteorology
(BoM),
the
University
of
New
South
Wales
(UNSW),
the
University
of
South
Australia
(UniSA),
the
US
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory
(NREL)
and
CSIRO
in
close
consultation
with
AEMO.
The
state
of
solar
energy
forecasting
development
is
such
that
only
basic
techniques,
mostly
developed
overseas,
were
ready
for
implementation
in
an
operational
ASEFS.
Developed
around
such
basic
techniques,
the
ASEFS
project
successfully
installed
a
solar
forecasting
system,
also
called
ASEFS,
at
AEMO,
manager
of
the
NEM.
This
is
enabling
the
enhanced
integration
of
solar
energy
generation
at
all
time
scales,
from
5
mins
to
2
years,
into
the
national
grid
and
is
allowing
operators
of
larger
systems
to
participate
in
the
NEM.
This
system
has
been
configured
as
an
extension
to
AWEFS,
which
has
been
successfully
operating
within
AEMO
market
systems
since
2008.
Without
such
forecasting
systems
wind
and
solar
renewable
energy
generation
would
be
subject
to
increasing
levels
of
curtailment,
undermining
both
their
viability
and
their
significant
contribution
to
greenhouse
gas
reduction.
Up
to
a
few
months
before
the
end
of
ASEFS,
June
2015,
none
of
the
large-scale
solar
farms
(larger
than
30
MW)
were
actually
commissioned,
meaning
that
they
were
not
reporting
their
SCADA
data
and
as
a
consequence
no
solar
forecasting
was
available
for
such
planned
farms.
In
the
absence
of
registered
large-scale
solar
generators
in
ASEFS,
the
solution
was
to
run
the
solar
forecasts
in
a
non-
production
environment
using
two
small-scale
test
solar
farms
to
exercise
the
forecasting
models.
The
Black
Mountain
(Canberra)
and
the
Norwest
(Sydney)
test
solar
farms
replicated
(scaled)
fixed,
non-tracking
solar
generators
with
scaled
energy
conversion
models,
providing
scaled
MW
output
and
onsite
weather
data
to
ASEFS.
The
normalised
mean
accuracy
error
for
the
different
time
horizons
were
tested
against
the
required
system
specifications
and
the
results
were
within
the
ASEFS
agreed
accuracy
targets.
One
of
the
key
outcomes
of
the
ASEFS
project
is
that
it
has
allowed
to
advance,
and
in
some
cases
to
create,
a
solid
knowledge
in
solar
forecasting
for
Australian
Institutions
as
well
as
NREL.
Strengthening
of
expertise
in
the
very
active
area
of
solar
forecasting
requires
further
long-term
investments
without
which
Australia
will
not
be
competitive
in
supporting
the
solar
industry.
In
a
way,
this
has
happened
already
with
the
reliance
of
AEMO
on
the
services
of
Overspeed.
However,
there
are
many
other
commercial
applications
and
opportunities
which
the
Australian
research
community
could
tap
into
(e.g.
interactions
between
battery
storage
and
PV
panels)
and
for
which
the
acquired
expertise
could
be
gainfully
applied.
At
the
same
time,
large
gaps
in
funding
opportunities
could
lead
to
a
migration
of
expertise
into
other
areas
of
research/industry,
something
that
has
already
happened.
Conversations
have
already
started
around
extending
the
R&D
work
developed
under
ASEFS
by
combining
the
various
techniques
which
have
thus
far
been
developed
in
isolation.
For
instance,
tracking
of
clouds
from
sky
cameras
and
satellite
could
be
merged
to
provide
a
more
comprehensive
picture
of
cloud
evolution.
Work
on
a
proposal
to
provide
advanced
solar
forecasting
solutions
to
the
solar
and
battery
storage
industries
is
underway.
A
cost-benefit
analysis
for
the
implementation
of
new
forecasting
improvements
in
AEMO
operational
system
could
not
be
carried
out
to
lack
of
solar
forecasting
data
produced
by
AEMOs
ASEFS.
Despite
several
iterations
with
the
technical
people
involved
in
the
access
to
the
forecasting
data,
these
were
still
unavailable
at
the
time
of
completion
of
the
project.
To
the
best
of
our
knowledge,
this
difficulty
arose
from
the
fact
that
until
very
recently
no
solar
power
plant
larger
than
30
MW
was
operating.
And
although
ASEFS
has
been
implemented,
the
fact
that
it
has
been
tested
only
on
the
two
small
test
solar
farms
has
meant
that
ASEFS
could
not
run
on
the
AEMOs
operational
machines.
Since
the
researchers
access
is
part
of
AEMOs
ASEFS,
our
understanding
is
that
the
issue
of
making
solar
forecasting
data
available
will
continue
to
be
pursued
until
resolved.
Project
Overview
Project
summary
The
30-month,
7.6
million,
project
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System
(ASEFS)
addressed
the
issue
of
solar
power
integration
into
the
grid
by
means
of
a
two-pronged
approach:
The
project,
co-funded
by
the
Australian
Renewable
Energy
Agency
(ARENA),
was
coordinated
by
the
Commonwealth
Scientific
and
Industrial
Research
Organisation
(CSIRO).
The
development
of
the
operational
infrastructure
component
was
undertaken
by
Overspeed
GmbH,
a
company
involved
in
development
of
Australian
Wind
Energy
Forecasting
System
(AWEFS),
and
AEMOs
Information
Management
and
Technology
(IMT)
department.
The
development
of
an
advanced
solar
forecasting
research
program
was
contributed
by
the
Bureau
of
Meteorology
(BoM),
the
University
of
New
South
Wales
(UNSW),
the
University
of
South
Australia
(UniSA),
the
US
Renewable
Energy
Laboratory
(NREL)
and
CSIRO
in
close
consultation
with
AEMO.
The
project
structure
along
with
the
partners
specific
tasks
are
illustrated
in
Figure
1.
Figure
1
ASEFS
project
structure.
NWP
stands
for
Numerical
Weather
Prediction,
PV
for
PhotoVoltaic,
ECM
for
energy
conversion
model,
and
CSP
for
Concentrating
Solar
Power.
5
The
ASEFS
project
commenced
on
7th
January
2013.
Since
then
there
had
been
some
delays,
particularly
with
the
signing
of
the
agreement
between
CSIRO
and
NREL.
As
of
June
2014,
however,
NREL
consistently
contributed
to
ASEFS,
as
have
all
other
partners.
Due
to
these
delays,
the
project
finished
in
June
2015,
hence
six
months
later
than
originally
planned.
ASEFS
successfully
installed
an
operational
system
to
predict
solar
power
at
the
AEMO.
ASEFS
is
enabling
the
enhanced
integration
of
solar
energy
generation
at
all
scales
into
the
national
grid
and
allows
operators
of
larger
systems
to
participate
in
the
National
Energy
Market
(NEM).
This
system
has
been
configured
as
an
extension
to
the
Australian
Wind
Energy
Forecasting
System
(AWEFS),
which
has
been
successfully
operating
within
AEMO
market
systems
since
2008.
Without
such
forecasting
systems
wind
and
solar
renewable
energy
generation
will
be
subject
to
increasing
levels
of
curtailment,
undermining
both
their
viability
and
their
significant
contribution
to
greenhouse
gas
reduction.
This
ASEFS
operational
system
provides
an
operational
system
that
uses
basic
forecasting
techniques
to
cover
all
the
AEMO-required
forecasting
timeframes,
which
range
from
five
minutes
to
two
years.
Also,
the
system
was
intended
to
cater
for
large-scale
photovoltaic
and
solar-thermal
plants
as
well
as
distributed
small-scale
photovoltaic
systems.
In
the
lead-up
to
the
AEMO
ASEFS
go-live
in
May
2014,
AEMO
continuously
monitored
all
intending
large-scale
solar
generators.
There
were
a
number
of
intending
solar
generators
that
were
due
to
be
commissioned
around
June
2014
(hence
the
planned
May
2014
go-live),
but
the
change
in
policies
around
renewables
resulted
in
a
number
of
intending
solar
generators
to
be
delayed,
and
some
withdrawn.
Even
up
to
a
few
months
before
the
end
of
ASEFS
in
June
2015,
none
of
the
large-scale
solar
farms
(larger
than
30
MW)
were
actually
commissioned,
meaning
that
they
were
not
reporting
their
SCADA
data
and
as
a
consequence
no
solar
forecasting
was
available
for
such
planned
farms.
In
the
absence
of
registered
large-scale
solar
generators
in
ASEFS,
the
solution
was
to
run
the
solar
forecasts
in
a
non-production
environment
using
two
small-scale
test
solar
farms
to
exercise
the
forecasting
models.
The
Black
Mountain
(Canberra)
and
the
Norwest
(Sydney)
test
solar
farms
replicated
(scaled)
fixed,
non-tracking
solar
generators
with
scaled
energy
conversion
models,
providing
scaled
MW
output
and
onsite
weather
data
to
ASEFS.
The
normalised
mean
accuracy
error
for
the
different
time
horizons
were
tested
against
the
required
system
specifications
and
the
results
were
within
the
ASEFS
agreed
accuracy
targets.
However
from
an
operational
point
of
view,
without
any
registered
semi-scheduled
generators
in
the
ASEFS,
the
system
is
restricted
in
the
following:
Ability to monitor the live forecasting performance of ASEFS against accuracy targets
Availability of live, large scale solar generators data for researcher access
AEMO
have
also
been
working
with
intending
solar
generators
to
see
if
there
is
interest
to
register
as
a
non-scheduled
solar
generator
(i.e.
less
than
30MW
rating),
for
proof
of
concept
and
readiness
purposes.
The
state
of
solar
energy
forecasting
development
is
such
that
only
basic
techniques,
mostly
developed
overseas,
are
ready
for
implementation
in
an
operational
ASEFS.
This
is
why
R&D
is
required
on
a
range
of
forecast
approaches
necessary
to
improve
on
these
basic
techniques
and
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
6
satisfy
AEMOs
(as
well
as
other
users)
full
requirements
for
such
a
system
in
the
longer
term.
Thus,
through
the
advanced
forecasting
research
program,
ASEFS
has
been
instrumental
in
advancing
the
development
of
leading-edge
forecasting
technologies.
Such
technologies
range
from:
Improved radiative-transfer modelling for NWP including cloud schemes and aerosols
Short
term
satellite-based
schemes
using
locally
available
real-time
data,
combined
with
NWP
Short-term schemes based on on-site and peripheral met data and sky camera imaging
Basic
forecasting
schemes
based
on
more
complex
NWP
fields
(cloud
character,
synoptic
class)
A
number
of
research
institutions
BoM,
UNSW,
UniSA,
NREL
and
CSIRO,
have
provided
technical
input
and
undertaken
research
and
development
on
enhancements
to
the
system.
Specifically,
the
involvement
of
NREL
has
helped
strengthened
collaboration
between
the
worlds
leading
Australian
and
US
researchers
in
the
solar
forecasting
area.
It
should
be
noted
that
forecasting
solar
irradiance
and
solar
power
is
a
relatively
recent
research
area
and
one
which
is
receiving
a
lot
of
attention
internationally.
Furthermore,
solar
forecasting
is
a
very
challenging
area
of
research
and
application.
Specifically
the
representation
and
the
forecasting
of
cloud
movements
and
aerosols
concentrations,
which
are
key
to
the
proper
estimation
of
solar
irradiance
on
the
ground,
are
amongst
the
most
difficult
scientific
aspects
of
meteorology.
Nonetheless,
with
ASEFS
it
has
been
demonstrated
that
the
project
partnership
has
produced
very
promising
advances
in
this
area
of
science,
while
also
targeting
industry
requirements
and
applications.
Specific
findings
and
advances
are
documented
in
the
Outcomes
section.
Those
techniques
developed
under
ASEFS
which
will
prove
to
provide
better
forecasts
than
the
current
basic
techniques
in
the
operational
ASEFS
system
could
be
incorporated
into
the
operational
system.
ASEFS
should
have
also
provided
researcher
access
to
allow
for
the
benchmarking,
by
Australian
institutions,
of
such
advanced
solar
forecasting
techniques
against
the
current
ASEFS
system.
However,
the
lack
of
operational
ASEFS
data
in
turn
due
to
the
lack
of
large-scale
solar
generators
implied
that
researchers
could
not
access
the
ASEFS
system
directly
(as
done
with
AWEFS).
To
alleviate
the
lack
of
direct
connectivity,
AEMO
attempted
to
extract
solar
forecasting
data
from
the
test
system
so
that
ASEFS
partners
could
assess
their
developments
against
these
forecast
data.
This
task
however
proved
more
difficult
than
planned
and
ASEFS
data
had
not
be
released
at
the
time
of
completion
of
this
project.
Lack
of
ASEFS
data
also
implied
that
a
proper
cost-
benefit
analysis
for
the
implementation
of
new
forecasting
improvements
in
the
ASEFS
system
could
not
be
carried
out.
An
important
component
of
ASEFS
has
also
been
that
of
stakeholder
engagement
as
a
way
to
ensure
relevance
and
quality
of
project
outputs.
One
such
mechanism
has
been
the
establishment
of
an
Industry
Advisory
Committee
whose
role
was
to:
Advise
on
requirements
and
issues
for
forecasting
of
solar
output
for
large
scale
solar
systems
for
both
short
(5
minutes
ahead)
and
long
term
(2
years
ahead)
time
scales
Establish
technical
standards
relating
to
solar
farms
Agree
on
a
governance
for
release
of
data
to
research
organisations
Discuss
the
progress
and
testing
of
ASEFS,
in
particular
the
testing
and
tuning
of
the
energy
conversion
model
for
accuracy.
The
committee,
chaired
by
AEMO,
met
on
two
occasions
and
was
participated
by
Clean
Energy
Council,
Sunpower
Corporation,
Energy
Network
Association,
Grid
Australia,
AEMO,
ARENA
and
CSIRO.
In
addition,
in
collaboration
with
the
ARENA
co-funded
project
Integrated
Solar
Radiation
Data
Sources
over
Australia,
ASEFS
organised
a
Solar
Resource
Assessment
&
Forecasting
Science
Day
in
Sydney
in
February
2014
to
discuss
progress
is
solar
resource
assessment
and
forecasting
both
from
an
academic
and
industry
perspectives.
The
event
was
very
well
received
by
the
over
fifty
attendees.
Last
but
not
least,
ASEFS
partners
have
produced
more
than
10
scientific
publications
for
peer-
reviewed
journals
and
gave
over
50
presentations
at
various
public
events,
from
conferences
to
industry
meetings,
to
summer
schools,
to
ARENA
staff
meetings.
Details
of
publications
and
select
presentations
are
available
through
the
technical
milestone
reports.
Project
scope
Electricity
supply
systems
attempt
to
balance
supply
and
demand
requirements
at
time
scales
from
seconds
to
years.
Scheduling
of
generation
assets
is
made
against
forecast
demand.
Increasing
levels
of
non-forecast
variable
renewable
generation
increases
the
uncertainty
in
supply
forecasts
leading
to
inefficient
generator
scheduling
and
potentially
resulting
in
system
contingency
services
failing
to
cope.
Recent
developments
in
solar
power
generation
technology
and
costs,
renewable
energy
targets,
carbon
pricing
and
government
incentives
have
made
utility-scale
solar
power
generation
a
credible
alternative
to
thermal
and
wind
generation
currently
deployed
in
the
NEM.
Subsidies
associated
with
programs
such
as
the
Solar
Flagships
are
expected
to
drive
investment
in
large-scale
solar
generation
in
the
near
term.
Indeed,
the
main
driver
for
the
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System
(ASEFS)
project
was
the
need
to
have
a
forecasting
system
in
place
in
time
for
the
commissioning
of
large-scale
solar
farms.
At
the
time
of
planning
ASEFS
two
large-scale
solar
plants,
supported
by
the
federal
Solar
Flagship
program,
were
due
to
be
commissioned
within
the
timeframe
of
development
of
ASFES.
Subsequently,
solar
generating
capacity
in
the
National
Energy
Market
(NEM)
has
been
largely-unexpectedly
growing
to
an
estimated
installed
capacity
exceeding
4,000
MW,
particularly
with
the
proliferation
of
grid-connected
roof-top
PV
(see
Figure
2).
Solar
forecasting
is
therefore
essential
to
assist
with
the
balancing
of
supply
and
demand.
Australia
has
a
system
where
the
market
system
is
coupled
to
the
physical
network
operation
at
the
5
minute
level.
The
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
Extension
to
AEMO
Australian
Wind
Energy
Forecasting
System
(AWEFS)
was
needed
for
the
same
reason
the
original
wind
forecasting
system
was
introduced,
namely
because
power
plants
larger
than
30
MW
are
required
to
participate
in
the
NEM.
Increasing
amounts
of
variable
renewable
energy
eventually
requires
unsustainable
amounts
of
expensive
spinning
reserve
and
frequency
control
services
as
well
as
threatening
system
security.
Accurate
forecasting
can
minimise
these
costs
and
maximise
the
amount
of
renewable
energy
which
can
be
hosted
in
the
electricity
system.
The
importance
of
this
issue
was
recognised
by
the
incorporation
of
a
forecasting
requirement
into
the
rules
for
the
connection
of
intermittent
renewable
generators
>30MW
nameplate
capacity
in
the
NEM.
Figure
2
Australian
PV
Institute
(APVI)
Solar
Map
(http://pv-map.apvi.org.au
accessed
18
Jul
2015)
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
9
In
recognition
of
the
potential
growth
of
the
solar
generation
industry
the
Department
of
Resources,
Energy
and
Tourism
funded
CSIRO
in
2011
to
undertake
a
feasibility
study
to
investigate
the
extension
of
the
AWEFS
system
to
solar
power
generation.
This
study
concluded
that
it
was
feasible
in
principle
to
extend
the
AWEFS
system
to
solar
but
that
there
needed
to
be
significant
development
of
some
key
components
(see
Figure
3).
The
current
AWEFS
system
uses
two
weather
forecast
feeds
from
Numerical
Weather
Prediction
(NWP)
model
output
one
from
the
USA
and
the
other
from
Europe
to
drive
the
shorter-term
forecasts.
It
employs
up
to
6
different
wind
power
forecasting
techniques
in
a
modular
arrangement
with
a
decision
engine
to
determine
the
most
suitable
combination
for
current
conditions
based
on
historical
performance.
These
modules
have
well-established
performance
capabilities
and
most
importantly,
defined
uncertainties.
The
ASEFS
has
adopted
adopt
an
analogous
approach.
Figure
3
Proposed
solar
forecasting
system
in
addition,
and
in
parallel,
to
AWEFS
While
a
key
objective
of
the
project
was
the
development
of
an
operational
solar
forecasting
system,
it
is
was
also
recognized
that
emphasis
should
be
placed
on
the
development
of
improved
forecasting
techniques,
therefore
requiring
extensive
research
work
which
would
also
lead
to
new
skills
and
possible
important
innovations
by
the
Australian
research
community.
Given
the
requirements
of
systems
such
as
AEMOs
to
be
able
to
produce
forecasts
at
5-minute
intervals,
and
up
to
2-year
horizons
the
need
for
specialized
forecasting
tools
is
of
central
concern.
Considering
also
the
infancy
of
solar
forecasting
research,
ASEFS
provided
a
great
opportunity
for
the
Australian
research
community
to
acquire
new
skills
and
at
the
same
time
produce
some
great
innovations
with
strong
potential
for
commercialization
into
solar
industry
and
energy
markets
more
generally.
To
exemplify
the
richness
and
complexity
of
approaches
adopted
to
predict
solar
irradiance
and
power,
Figure
4
shows
the
most
common
basic
elements.
All
given
modeling
steps
may
involve
physical
or
statistical
models
or
a
combination
of
both.
Forecasting
surface
solar
irradiance
is
the
first
and
most
essential
step
in
most
PV
power
prediction
systems.
Depending
on
the
application
and
the
corresponding
requirements
with
respect
to
forecast
horizon
and
temporal
and
spatial
resolution,
different
models
and
data
sources
are
used
(see
Figure
5).
NWP
models
are
applied
to
derive
forecasts
of
several
days
ahead.
For
very
short-term
horizons,
irradiance
forecasts
may
be
obtained
by
detection
and
extrapolation
of
cloud
motion,
based
on
satellite
images
for
forecasts
of
several
hours
ahead
and
on
ground-based
sky
imagers
for
sub-hourly
forecasts
with
a
very
high
spatial
and
temporal
resolution.
Measured
irradiance
data,
forming
the
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
10
basic
input
to
time
series
models,
are
another
valuable
data
source
for
very
short-term
forecasting
in
the
range
of
minutes
to
hours.
Furthermore,
measured
data
are
required
for
any
statistical
post-
processing
procedure,
applied
to
optimize
forecasts
derived
with
a
physical
model
for
a
given
location
(Lorenz
et
al.
2015).
To
derive
PV
power
forecasts
from
the
predicted
global
horizontal
irradiance
different
approaches
may
be
applied.
Explicit
physical
modeling
involves
con-
version
of
the
irradiance
from
the
horizontal
to
the
angle
of
tilt
of
the
module
plane,
followed
by
the
application
of
a
PV
simulation
model.
Here,
characteristics
of
the
PV
system
configuration
are
required
in
addition
to
the
meteorological
input
data,
implying
information
on
nominal
power,
tilt
and
orientation
of
a
PV
system
as
well
as
a
characterization
of
the
module
efficiency
in
dependence
of
irradiance
and
temperature.
Alternatively,
the
relation
between
PV
power
output
and
irradiance
forecasts
and
other
input
variables
may
be
established
on
the
basis
of
historical
datasets
of
measured
PV
power
with
statistical
or
learning
approaches.
In
practice,
often
both
approaches
are
combined
and
statistical
post-processing
using
measured
PV
power
data
is
applied
to
improve
predictions
with
a
physical
model
(Lorenz
et
al.
2015).
Although
the
conversion
from
solar
irradiance
into
solar
power
for
PV
systems
is
relatively
straightforward,
there
are
some
technical
aspects,
which
require
close
attention.
In
fact,
normally
measurements
and
predictions
of
solar
irradiance
are
given
on
a
plane
parallel
to
the
ground
the
global
horizontal
irradiance
(GHI)
in
practice
PV
systems
are
on
planes
other
than
the
horizontal
one.
So
unless
the
global
irradiance
on
the
PV
planed
is
directly
measured,
a
rotation
of
the
irradiance
signal
is
normally
required:
this
is
a
non-trivial
transformation.
Moreover,
given
the
dependency
of
PV
panels
on
other
physical
variables,
particularly
temperature
but
also
dust,
these
quantities
need
to
be
measured
and
appropriately
modeled
in
the
solar
forecast
system.
While
the
major
focus
of
the
ASEFS
project
is
on
providing
power
forecasts
for
PV
systems,
the
prediction
of
the
direct
beam
(or
direct
normal
irradiance,
DNI)
which
is
critical
for
Concentrating
Solar
Power
(CSP)
also
referred
to
as
Concentrated
Solar
Thermal
(CST)
systems
will
also
be
assessed.
In
fact,
DNI
is
also
an
essential
element
in
deriving
the
global
irradiance
component
on
PV
planes
when
only
GHI
is
available.
The
power
conversion
from
irradiance
(specifically
DNI)
to
electricity
in
the
case
of
CSP
is
much
more
complex
than
that
for
PV,
due
to
intermediate
conversion
steps
from
radiation
to
thermal
energy
to
electricity,
and
to
storage
mechanisms.
In
addition,
the
solar
receiver
can
be
highly
non-linear,
and
this
relation
is
also
dependent
on
the
type
of
CSP
technology.
It
is
apparent
therefore
that
a
considerable
amount
of
research
needs
to
be
devoted
to
the
understanding
of
the
CSP,
and
to
a
lesser
extent
the
PV,
conversion
process
so
as
to
produce
the
most
accurate
solar
power
prediction
possible.
Figure
4
Overview
of
key
modelling
steps
in
PV
power
prediction
(from
Lorenz
et
al.
2015)
Figure
5
Solar
forecasting
techniques
for
different
timescales.
NWP
stands
for
Numerical
Weather
Predictions;
SCADA
stands
for
supervisory
control
and
data
acquisition
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
12
Outcomes
The
two
main
outcomes
of
ASEFS
are:
1. The
development
of
an
operational
system,
with
architectural
extension
to
AWEFS
system,
installed
at
AEMO
and
able
to
provide
power
forecasting
capability
for
solar
power
plants
2. A
range
of
R&D
activities
with
the
main
aim
to
improve
upon
the
basic
ASEFS
operational
system.
Such
R&D
activities
include:
a. Improved
radiative-transfer
modelling
for
NWP
including
cloud
schemes
and
aerosols
b. Short
term
satellite-based
schemes
using
locally
available
real-time
data,
combined
with
NWP
c. Short-term
schemes
based
on
on-site
and
peripheral
met
data
and
sky
camera
imaging
d. Improved
CST
power
conversion
models
e. Basic
forecasting
schemes
based
on
more
complex
NWP
fields
(cloud
character,
synoptic
class)
f. Development
of
basic
intermittency
prediction
schemes
at
all
time
scales
g. Investigation
and
testing
of
distributed
PV
generation
data
sets,
upscaling-schemes
for
distributed
PV,
testing
and
further
development
of
distributed
PV
power
prediction
techniques
this
has
been
operating
with
the
two
SCADA
feeds
one
from
AEMO
and
one
from
the
main
CSIRO
solar
research
facility
at
Black
Mountain
in
Canberra.
At
a
first
step
of
the
evaluation
process
the
performance
of
solar
generation
forecasts
have
been
evaluated
against
the
Solar
Generation
Accuracy
Targets
presented
in
Table
1.
This
Table
includes
targets
for
different
horizons
varying
from
5
min
ahead
to
6
days
ahead.
The
targets
refer
to
individual
solar
farms.
The
performance
of
the
forecasts
is
measured
by
the
Normalised
Mean
Absolute
Error
(NMAE)
measure.
If
the
performance
of
the
system
satisfies
all
the
targets
corresponding
to
a
specific
milestone
then
the
evaluation
process
is
completed.
The
ASEFS
solution
has
been
operating
online
since
the
industry
go-live
on
the
30
May
2014.
AEMO
has
been
continuously
monitoring
all
intending
large
scale
solar
generators
from
the
May
2014
go-
live
period
to
date.
There
were
a
number
of
intending
solar
generators
that
were
due
to
be
commissioned
around
June
2014
(hence
the
planned
May
2014
go-live),
but
the
change
in
policies
around
renewables
resulted
in
a
number
of
intending
solar
generators
being
delayed,
and
some
withdrawn.
As
such,
ASEFS
is
currently
operating
in
a
non-production
environment
using
two
small
scale
test
solar
farms
to
exercise
its
forecasting
models:
Both
solar
facilities
meet
the
requirements
of
the
energy
conversion
model
(ECM)
and
relay
real-
time
output
and
weather
data
to
ASEFS
for
forecasting.
The
Norwest
and
Black
Mountain
test
solar
farms
replicate
(scaled)
fixed,
non-tracking
solar
generators
with
scaled
energy
conversion
models,
providing
scaled
MW
output
and
onsite
weather
data
to
ASEFS.
The
normalised
mean
absolute
error
for
the
different
time
horizons
can
be
found
in
Table
2
and
Figure
6
for
Black
Mountain
found
in
Table
3
and
Figure
7
for
Norwest.
The
results
are
within
the
ASEFS
agreed
accuracy
targets,
also
indicated
as
dotted
lines
in
the
two
Figures.
Table
1
ASEFS
target
specifications
in
terms
of
Normalised
Mean
Absolute
Error
(NMAE)
Timeframe
GoLive+6months
GoLive+11m
5 minutes ahead
18.5%
17.6%
1 hour ahead
19.3%
18.3%
4 hours ahead
20.7%
19.7%
12 hours ahead
22.4%
21.3%
24 hours ahead
23.5%
22.3%
40 hours ahead
24.4%
23.2%
6 days ahead
27.2%
25.7%
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
14
Table
2
Accuracy
in
terms
of
NMAE
for
the
Black
Mountain
Test
Systems
5
minutes
ahead
1
hour
ahead
(60
min)
4
hours
ahead
(240
min)
12
hours
ahead
(720
min)
24
hours
ahead
(1440
min)
40
hours
ahead
(2400
min)
6
days
ahead
(8640
min)
Mar-14
5.62%
6.45%
7.72%
8.34%
8.69%
9.19%
13.28%
Apr-14
5.13%
8.13%
10.00%
10.07%
10.42%
10.70%
13.56%
May-14
4.13%
6.36%
7.67%
7.68%
8.14%
8.28%
11.96%
Jun-14
4.65%
7.95%
9.80%
9.88%
10.14%
11.37%
13.66%
Jul-14
4.38%
7.10%
9.37%
9.19%
9.41%
9.44%
11.46%
Aug-14
5.74%
14.15%
15.84%
15.95%
15.70%
15.91%
16.26%
Sep-14
5.43%
9.49%
11.06%
11.37%
11.97%
12.04%
14.87%
Oct-14
3.91%
6.06%
7.65%
7.84%
8.15%
7.89%
9.92%
Nov-14
4.20%
4.76%
5.27%
5.37%
5.62%
5.66%
7.60%
Dec-14
5.59%
5.69%
6.42%
6.63%
6.73%
7.48%
8.38%
Jan-15
6.02%
5.45%
6.11%
5.92%
6.01%
6.14%
8.75%
Feb-15
6.40%
6.86%
7.99%
8.19%
8.20%
8.70%
9.97%
Mar-15
4.73%
5.25%
6.52%
6.77%
6.92%
6.89%
9.05%
Table
3
Accuracy
in
terms
of
NMAE
for
the
Norwest
Test
Systems
5
minutes
ahead
1
hour
ahead
(60
min)
4
hours
ahead
(240
min)
12
hours
ahead
(720
min)
24
hours
ahead
(1440
min)
40
hours
ahead
(2400
min)
6
days
ahead
(8640
min)
Mar-14
5.99%
8.17%
9.32%
9.19%
9.38%
9.89%
15.02%
Apr-14
6.12%
6.85%
7.70%
8.22%
8.54%
9.17%
12.30%
May-14
5.32%
7.76%
8.50%
8.32%
8.45%
9.91%
11.11%
Jun-14
4.39%
7.03%
7.75%
7.53%
7.51%
8.49%
11.17%
Jul-14
3.44%
5.99%
6.41%
6.79%
7.24%
7.65%
9.75%
Aug-14
7.01%
7.87%
8.93%
9.37%
10.46%
10.30%
12.75%
Sep-14
7.69%
7.96%
8.87%
9.11%
9.27%
9.34%
13.73%
Oct-14
5.00%
7.24%
8.40%
8.60%
8.33%
9.03%
11.48%
Nov-14
5.83%
6.81%
8.46%
8.42%
8.54%
8.73%
11.17%
Dec-14
6.83%
7.15%
9.03%
9.07%
8.80%
9.00%
11.67%
Jan-15
5.75%
5.75%
6.84%
6.67%
7.28%
7.76%
12.22%
Feb-15
8.87%
9.35%
10.73%
10.79%
10.94%
11.04%
11.96%
Mar-15
6.66%
7.39%
8.31%
8.58%
8.90%
9.21%
12.14%
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
15
Figure
6
Black
Mountain
test
farm
forecast
performance
(in
terms
of
Normalized
Mean
Absolute
Error).
The
dotted
lines
are
the
corresponding
target
specifications
for
each
horizon
time.
Figure
7
As
in
Figure
6
but
for
the
Norwest
test
farm.
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
16
Physical
approach
Statistical
approach
Forecast
Horizons
Methods
Description / Comment
NWP models
6
hours
to
days
ahead
Total
Sky
Imagery
(TSI)
0
to
2
hours
ahead
Statistical
methods
0
to
6
hours
ahead
Persistence
forecasts
0
to
4
hours
ahead
Forecast
metrics
An
assessment
of
various
forecast
metrics
was
also
carried
out.
These
can
be
broadly
divided
into
four
categories:
1.
Statistical
metrics
for
different
time
and
geographic
scales,
including
distributions
of
forecast
errors,
Pearsons
correlation
coefficient,
(normalized)
root
mean
square
error
(RMSE),
(normalized)
fourth
root
mean
quartic
error
(4RMQE),
maximum
absolute
error
(MaxAE),
mean
absolute
error
(MAE),
mean
absolute
percentage
error
(MAPE),
mean
bias
error
(MBE),
KolmogorovSmirnov
test
integral
(KSI),
OVER,
skewness,
and
kurtosis
2.
3.
4.
A
brief
description
of
each
metric
is
summarized
in
Table
5.
A
standardized
set
of
forecasting
metrics
was
established
based
on
multiple
discussions
with
various
system
operators
and
utilities
that
are
participating
in
the
solar
forecasting
research
effort
at
NREL.
The
Australian
Energy
Market
Operator
(AEMO)
is
procuring
solar
forecasts
from
commercial
vendors.
It
is
expected
that
such
standardized
metrics
that
are
considered
valuable
to
U.S.
operators
will
also
be
beneficial
to
AEMO
to
evaluate
the
value
of
solar
forecasting
in
its
operations.
Assessment
of
GFS
solar
forecasts
The
GFS,
one
of
the
two
weather
feeds
for
the
ASEFS
operational
model,
was
developed
by
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA)
and
provides
operational
global
weather
forecasts
up
to
196
hours
at
6
hourly
intervals.
The
model
is
initialized
every
6
hours,
so
a
new
set
of
forecasts
is
available
four
times
per
day:
0
UTC,
6
UTC,
12
UTC,
and
18
UTC.
The
Global
Data
Assimilation
System
(GDAS)
is
used
by
the
GFS
model
to
place
observations
into
a
gridded
model
space
for
the
purpose
of
initializing
weather
forecasts
with
observed
data.
GDAS
adds
the
following
types
of
observations
to
a
gridded,
3D,
model
space:
surface
observations,
balloon
data,
wind
profiler
data,
aircraft
reports,
buoy
observations,
radar
observations,
and
satellite
observations.
Gridded
GDAS
output
data
can
be
used
to
start
the
GFS
model.
The
GDAS
model
output
is
also
available
four
times
per
day
and
contains
forecasts
for
3
hours,
6
hours,
and
9
hours.
As
part
of
ASEFS,
a
forecast
validation
for
solar
radiation
using
output
data
from
the
GFS
and
GDAS
model
forecasts
has
been
carried
out.
These
forecasts
are
compared
to
high-quality
solar
radiation
data
available
every
minute
from
NOAAs
Surface
Radiation
Budget
Network
(SURFRAD)
network
and
ground
data
from
nine
stations
maintained
by
the
Australian
Bureau
of
Meteorology
(BOM).
The
verification
of
the
forecasts
was
conducted
using
ground
data
from
the
BOM
at
nine
sites
for
which
2011
data
was
avaialable:
Adelaide,
Alice
Springs,
Cocos
Island,
Darwin,
Melbourne,
Rockhampton,
Wagga
Wagga,
Broome,
and
Cape
Grim.
Scatter
plots
of
the
average
ground
station
data
and
the
GFS
forecast
are
shown
in
Figure
8
for
the
24-hour
forecasts.
The
GFS
data
is
plotted
on
the
vertical
axis,
and
the
ground
station
data
is
plotted
along
the
horizontal
axis.
Notice
that
the
data
is
well
correlated
over
the
time
period
covered.
For
nearly
all
the
sites,
with
the
possible
exception
of
Cocos
Island,
the
data
appears
to
have
correlated
well,
also
regardless
of
the
forecast
hour
(i.e.,
12-hour,
24-hour,
or
36-hour
forecast;
only
24-hour
forecast
is
shown).
Table
5
Proposed
Metrics
for
Solar
Forecasting
Metric
Description/Comment
Distribution
of
forecast
errors
Pearsons
correlation
coefficient
MaxAE
MBE
KSI or KSIPer
OVER or OVERPer
Skewness
Excess kurtosis
Rnyi entropy
Standard deviation
Ramp
Characterization
Metrics
Swinging
door
algorithm
Economic
Metrics
95th
percentile
of
forecast
errors
Statistical
Metrics
Uncertainty
Quantification
Metrics
Figure
8
Twenty-four-hour
GFS
forecast
compared
to
station
data.
Improved
radiative-transfer
modelling
for
NWP
A
number
of
model
development
projects
have
been
conducted
under
this
task.
The
first
is
an
implementation
of
the
fast
surface
solar
radiation
scheme
(SUNFLUX)
into
the
ACCESS
NWP
model.
The
second
involved
testing
several
changes
to
the
model
physical
parameterization
schemes
in
the
ACCESS
NWP
models
to
evaluate
their
impact
on
the
surface
solar
radiation.
The
third
consisted
of
some
trials
testing
a
number
of
different
approximations
of
the
two-stream
radiative
transport
scheme
at
the
heart
of
the
radiation
parameterization.
These
are
essentially
variants
of
the
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
20
approximations
used
to
calculate
the
angular
mean
over
all
incident
and
scattering
angles
in
each
layer
of
the
atmosphere.
In
the
process
of
checking
the
results
of
the
two-stream
variants
an
erroneous
assumption
in
the
formulation
used
to
derive
the
direct
solar
radiation
in
the
parameterization
scheme
was
uncovered
which
was
consistent
with
too
much
direct
beam
radiation.
A
new
version
of
the
ACCESS-C
model
was
developed
with
this
assumption
corrected
and
a
number
of
monthly
forecasts
run
to
assess
whether
the
surface
radiation
verification
scores
improved
and
to
verify
the
standard
NWP
forecast
elements
to
ensure
no
degradation
in
the
results.
This
version
has
recently
been
applied
to
the
global
and
regional
models
for
short
test
periods
as
well
but
complete
results
are
not
yet
available.
The
verification
of
the
ACCESS-R
surface
solar
radiation
suggests
that
the
model
tends
to
over-
estimate
the
direct
component
and
underestimate
the
diffuse
component.
One
possible
cause
for
this
is
the
assumptions
built
into
the
radiative
transport
two-stream
approximation.
There
are
a
large
number
of
possible
different
two
stream
schemes
available,
differentiated
by
their
different
assumptions
about
the
approximations
for
the
angular
integrations
required
for
a
full
(and
computationally
expensive)
radiative
transfer
calculation.
The
variant
selected
for
the
ACCESS
system
was
chosen
to
give
accurate
global
surface
and
top
of
atmosphere
radiative
fluxes
and
atmospheric
heating
rates.
The
Unified
Model
(UM)
on
which
ACCESS
is
based
has
a
number
of
two
stream
schemes
already
coded
in.
Figure
9
shows
a
comparison
of
the
diffuse
surface
radiation
from
a
number
of
these
for
clear
sky
and
ice
and
water
cloud
cases
(the
standard
UM
choice
is
the
one
on
the
far
right).
These
results
show
that
changing
the
two
stream
approximation
is
not
likely
to
increase
the
diffuse
component
substantially.
However,
in
investigating
these
alternatives
it
was
discovered
that
there
is
a
fundamental
problem
in
all
the
schemes
as
implemented
in
the
UM
radiative
transfer
parameterization
which
led
directly
to
the
experiments
described
below.
Figure
9
A
comparison
of
the
diffuse
surface
solar
radiation
from
the
different
possible
two-stream
codes
implemented
in
the
ACCESS
system
for
a
number
of
idealised
cases
for
clear
sky
and
water
and
ice
cloud
Short
term
satellite-based
schemes
using
locally
available
real-time
data,
combined
with
NWP
Short-term
forecasting
of
GHI
is
carried
out
as
a
two-step
process.
The
first
step
uses
the
HELIOSAT
approach
to
pre-calculate
the
clear
sky
irradiance.
This
depends
on
Linke
Turbidity
values
used
in
the
clear
sky
model.
The
Linke
turbidity
factor
has
no
unit.
It
typically
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
21
ranges
between
3
(clear
skies)
to
7
(heavily
polluted
skies).
The
Linke
turbidity
factor
refers
to
the
whole
solar
spectrum,
that
is,
spectrally
integrated
attenuation,
which
includes
presence
of
gaseous
water
vapour
and
aerosols.
The
second
step
makes
use
of
MTSAT
images
to
calculate
the
ground
albedo
and
the
cloud
motion
vectors
(CMVs).
CMVs
are
turned
into
forecasts
by
advection
of
present
clouds
using
the
derived
CMVs
to
form
a
future
cloud
image.
The
forecasted
image
is
transformed
into
cloud
index
using
ground
albedo
determined
from
multiple
MTSAT
images.
The
cloud
transmission
attenuation
coefficient
(k*T)
is
approximated
from
the
cloud
index.
It
is
then
used
to
scale
the
pre-calculated
clear
sky
irradiance
to
produce
GHI.
The
derivation
process
of
CMVs
(shown
in
Figure
10)
involves
pre-processing
3
successive
images
and
then
tracking
(maximum
cross
correlation)
the
tracers
(distinct
features)
both
forward
and
backward
in
time.
A
2D
field
(Latitude,
Longitude)
of
parameters
including
u
wind,
v
wind
and
quality
index
is
currently
produced
(Local
CMV
product).
The
CMV
algorithm
was
used
to
derive
displacement
vectors
using
special
case
study
data
obtained
from
BOM
at
10-minute
intervals
over
Mildura
and
Mount
Gambier.
A
shorter
time
scale
reduces
errors
in
CMV
produced
from
changing
cloud
properties.
The
errors
in
observed
(MISR
mapped)
and
estimated
CMVs
for
the
two
sites
are
shown
in
the
Table
6.
Figure
10
Derivation
process
of
CMVs
RMSE (m s-1)
MBE (m s-1)
MAE (m s-1)
u-component
15.8
-0.2
10.7
v-component
12.6
0.7
7.7
Speed
12.5
-7.3
9.2
u-component
14.8
1.7
10.7
v-component
12.6
1.3
7.7
Speed
11.3
-5.1
9.2
Mildura
Mount
Gambier
RMSE-Aerosol ON (Wm-2)
143.50
108.42
113.41
74.82
380.51
398.48
162.92
164.80
275.18
311.64
197.86
151.55
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
23
Short-term
schemes
based
on
on-site
and
peripheral
met
data
and
sky
camera
imaging
Research
into
short-term
ground
based
solar
forecasting
as
part
of
the
ASEFS
project
has
developed:
a) An
advanced
cloud
classification
model,
able
to
distinguish
between
areas
of
cloud
and
sky
in
a
sky-image
using
inexpensive
off
the
shelf
camera
hardware
(skycams);
b) Algorithms
for
projecting
cloud
motion
vectors
across
a
calibrated
fisheye
lens
distortion
model
estimate
future
cloud
positions
and;
c)
a
model
that
can
warn
of
large
solar
ramp
events
up
to
30
minutes
in
the
future,
allowing
pre-emptive
mitigating
actions
to
be
taken
CSIRO
Energy
has
been
investigating
the
use
of
low-cost
fisheye
sky
cameras
for
cloud
tracking,
ramp
prediction
and
solar
forecasting
for
several
years.
This
technology
has
been
improved
and
adapted
in
the
ASEFS
project
for
use
as
a
smart
sensor
which
can
be
deployed
to
key
locations,
such
as
large
solar
farms,
to
provide
signals
to
assist
with
very
short-term
solar
forecasting.
The
aim
of
this
research
was
to
develop
software
that
can
use
whole-sky
images
to
provide
a
forecast
signal
to
assist
in
prediction
of
solar
power
generation
at
5
minute
intervals,
up
to
20
minutes
ahead,
updated
every
30
seconds.
A
new
cloud
classification
model
which
is
able
to
classify
each
pixel
of
a
sky
image
as
cloud
or
sky
has
been
developed.
This
model
employs
a
new
hybrid
approach
which
uses
Random
Forests,
a
supervised
machine
learning
technique,
alongside
a
traditional
red-blue
ratio
thresholding
approach.
This
combination
allows
for
much
improved
classification
in
dark
and
uniform
areas
where
there
is
little
texture
information,
and
better
performance
in
bright
areas
near
the
sun
A
new
cloud
motion
vector
projection
algorithm
using
a
dense
optical
flow
technique
was
developed
for
ASEFS.
Cloud
motion
vectors
are
extracted
from
a
sequence
of
sky
images
taken
at
10-second
intervals
and
a
calibrated
fisheye
lens
distortion
model
is
used
to
simulate
the
future
position
of
each
cloud
at
every
time-step
into
the
future,
assuming
the
current
velocity
remains
constant.
The
three
figures
below
show
typical
examples
of
this
process,
forecasting
the
timing
of
a
shade
event
with
approaching
clouds.
These
examples
were
chosen
to
show
the
performance
of
the
system
in
several
typical
cloud
conditions
which
cause
intermittent
solar
generation
high
cirrus
cloud,
relatively
stable
/
low
advection
cumulus,
and
high
advection
(dissolution)
cumulus
clouds.
The
system
was
able
to
detect
the
upcoming
shade
events
more
than
10
minutes
in
advances
in
all
cases,
and
shade-event
forecasts
were
all
forecast
on
or
prior
to
the
actual
event.
For
the
case
of
relatively
stable
/
low
advection
cumulus
Figure
11
shows
the
timing
of
a
forecast
cumulus
cloud
shading
event.
This
cloud
is
detected
9
minutes
in
advance.
In
this
example,
the
forecast
time
to
shading
is
lower
than
the
perfect
forecast
this
is
caused
by
a
small
cloud
that
preceded
the
main
cloud
bank
but
disappeared
2
minutes
before
the
actual
shade
event.
While
there
was
a
small
underestimate
of
the
event
time,
a
warning
of
the
event
was
still
given
9-10
minutes
before
the
event.
Overall,
research
highlights
for
the
sky
camera
imaging
work
include:
Development
of
a
novel
cloud
image
classification
system
that,
using
inexpensive
off
the
shelf
camera
hardware,
was
used
to
classify
a
1-million
pixel
test
set
as
cloud
or
sky
correctly
for
97%
of
the
samples.
Tests
of
the
shade
event
timing
prediction
algorithms
found
them
to
accurately
forecast
future
events
for
periods
of
up
to
30
minutes
in
advance
for
slow
high
cloud
conditions,
while
giving
more
than
5
minutes
of
warning
for
fast
low
clouds.
Over
a
30
day
validation
period
of
highly
intermittent
cloud
conditions,
the
irradiance
ramp
warning
system
was
found
to
correctly
predict
99.96%
of
shading
events.
This
is
the
equivalent
of,
on
average,
only
missing
a
shade
event
once
every
42
days
of
operation.
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
24
Figure
11
Timing
of
a
forecast
cumulus
cloud
shading
event.
Further
research
is
planned
that
will
extend
this
system
to
provide
probabilistic
ramp
magnitude
(as
well
as
timing)
forecasts
by
incorporating
additional
data
streams
about
cloud
opacity
from
satellite
and
LIDAR
data.
The
skycam
forecasting
system
developed
in
this
project
is
currently
being
trialled
by
CSIRO
in
the
lab
and
in
small
scale
in
the
field
in
conjunction
with
commercial
partners,
and
is
at
a
sufficient
readiness
level
that
the
system
could
be
quickly
made
operational
at
key
locations
on
the
national
energy
grid,
such
as
in
large
solar
fields;
helping
to
mitigate
the
effects
of
solar
intermittency
in
Australias
renewable
generation
mix
Options
for
integration
of
skycam-based
forecast
into
the
operational
ASEFS
system
include:
1. Cloud
presence
warnings.
Providing
a
consistent
real-time
measurement
of
current
and
historical
whole-sky
cloud
amount
(in
oktas
or
percentage
of
sky)
as
an
additional
input
parameter
to
the
existing
statistical
short-term
solar
forecasting
models
in
ASEFS
to
improve
their
performance.
This
would
require
a
skycam
and
embedded
PC
with
data
connection
to
be
installed
at
participating
solar
farms.
2. Ramp
event
warnings.
Providing
forecasts/warnings
of
when
ramp
events
will
occur.
This
would
employ
the
ramp-event
forecast
described
earlier
to
provide
advance
warning
of
large
ramp
events
in
solar
power
output
from
a
farm
to
be
provided
up
to
15
minutes
in
advance
of
the
event,
allowing
the
5-minute
power
forecasts
to
be
adjusted
accordingly.
This
would
provide
timing
information
on
when
these
events
would
occur,
but
not
the
magnitude
of
the
decrease
in
power
output.
This
option
would
require
a
skycam
and
embedded
PC
with
data
connection
to
be
installed
at
participating
solar
farms.
3. Ramp
event
and
magnitude
warnings.
Providing
forecasts/warnings
of
when
ramp
events
and
their
magnitude.
This
will
provide
the
forecast
data
as
in
option
2,
but
also
supplying
a
probabilistic
bound
of
the
magnitude
of
the
change
in
global
horizontal
irradiance,
which
can
be
used
to
estimate
the
level
of
generated
solar
power.
Further
research
into
forecasting
ramp
magnitude
in
addition
to
the
ramp
timing
forecast
system
developed
to
date
will
be
needed
to
supply
these
forecasts
The
algorithms
and
software
to
realise
options
1
and
2
exist,
and
could
be
deployed
as
part
of
a
trial
in
a
follow
up
of
ASEFS.
The
software
for
these
options
is
currently
being
trialled
by
CSIRO
and
is
estimated
to
be
at
a
Technology
Readiness
Level
(TRL)
of
5-6
at
the
time
of
writing.
Option
3
needs
further
research
into
forecasting
local
cloud
optical
depth
metrics,
which
will
allow
predictions
of
cloud
opacity
and
therefore
irradiance
decrease
from
particular
cloud
layers
during
a
ramp
event.
Currently,
cloud
optical
depth
information
is
difficult
to
determine
using
ground-based
cameras
alone,
because
cloud
brightness
is
dependent
on
cloud
composition
and
thickness,
which
is
not
easily
measureable
using
a
single
sky
camera.
Additional
data
streams
from
LIDAR
ceilometers
and
satellite
measurements
have
been
investigated
as
a
means
of
providing
the
required
measurements
to
augment
the
existing
ramp
timing
forecast
system.
CSIRO
is
currently
constructing
two
city-wide
networks
of
sky
cameras
and
irradiance
monitoring
stations
around
Newcastle
and
Canberra.
The
capability
this
network
will
allow
the
forecasting
system
developed
to
be
extended
to
tackle
distributed
solar
power
forecasting
in
Australia.
There
is
an
existing
and
growing
need
to
provide
predictions
and
warnings
of
sharp
changes
in
rooftop
solar
generation
in
Australian
cities,
and
the
forecasting
techniques
developed
in
ASEFS
phase
1
are
equally
applicable
to
this
problem,
though
a
range
of
practical
and
research
challenges
remain
to
be
tackled.
In
summary,
we
have
developed
a
novel
ground-based
camera
solar
forecasting
system,
capable
of
providing
localised,
high
temporal
resolution
forecasts
and
warnings
of
cloud
shade
events
up
to
30
minutes
before
the
event.
An
accurate
cloud/sky
classification
model
was
developed
that
can
be
trained
on
a
sequence
of
sample
images
and
will
correctly
differentiate
cloud
from
sky
in
an
image
with
an
accuracy
of
97%.
A
ramp
event
warning
system
was
developed
that
detected
99.96%
of
the
ramps
in
a
30
day
validation
sequence
of
10
second
sky
images
in
a
variety
of
intermittent
conditions,
this
equates
to
a
mean
time
between
missed
ramp
forecasts
of
around
42
days.
This
system
is
currently
being
trialled
in
the
lab
and
in
the
field
in
small
scale,
and
could
be
quickly
made
operational
at
key
solar
generation
sites,
such
as
large
solar
farms,
for
detecting
ramp
events
in
time
to
take
mitigating
actions
at
the
farm
or
in
the
energy
market.
Further
research
could
adapt
these
forecasting
algorithms
to
incorporate
additional
data
streams
for
improvements
in
forecasting
the
size
of
ramp
events,
and
for
generating
wide-area
solar
forecasts
for
distributed
solar
power
application
CST
power
conversion
models
A
study
to
focus
on
the
application
of
forecasts
to
concentrated
solar
thermal
(CST)
power
plants
was
conducted.
This
study
examined
the
value
of
forecasting
CST
plant
output.
CST
power
plants
generate
electricity
by
reflecting
sunlight
over
a
wide
area
onto
a
small
absorber
to
create
a
lot
of
heat.
This
heat
is
used
to
drive
a
steam
turbine
and
generate
electricity.
An
advantage
of
CST
power
plants
over
PV
power
plants
is
that
the
heat
can
be
stored
to
generate
electricity
later,
such
as
after
sunset.
Currently,
heat
storage
is
cheaper
and
more
efficient
than
battery
storage.
The
strength
of
sunlight
changes
as
the
sun
moves
across
the
sky
and
when
clouds
cover
the
sun.
This
will
affect
the
amount
of
electricity
that
can
be
generated.
The
strength
of
sunlight,
and
hence
the
amount
of
electricity
that
can
be
generated,
can
be
predicted
by
using
forecast
methods.
There
are
different
methods
that
can
be
used
to
forecast
available
sunlight
for
generating
electricity.
The
methods
can
be
similar
or
different
to
one
another
by
how
they
forecast
sunlight,
how
often
they
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
26
can
produce
the
forecast
and
how
far
ahead
the
forecast
covers.
CST
plant
output
forecasts
would
be
of
interest
to
a
CST
plant
operator
for
financial
reasons
and
of
interest
to
the
AEMO
for
network
reliability
reasons.
Both
perspectives
were
considered
in
this
study
through
the
use
of
financial
value
metrics
and
network
reliability
metrics.
The
value
of
forecast
information
was
evaluated
by
using
a
CST
plant
model
and
a
network
model.
The
value
to
a
CST
plant
owner
was
found
by
calculating
how
much
money
would
be
earned
by
using
a
forecast
method
(Figure
12).
The
value
to
AEMO
was
found
by
calculating
numbers
that
describe
network
reliability.
The
scope
of
the
study
included
3
forecast
methods
and
5
different
sizes
for
each
of
the
CST
plant
solar
field
and
storage
components.
The
CST
plant
model
was
designed
to
resemble
Andasol-1.
The
network
model
was
created
from
a
selection
of
generators
from
the
Victoria
region
of
the
NEM.
DNI
data
measured
at
Mildura
airport
in
Victoria
and
electricity
demand
data
for
running
simulations
were
obtained
for
1
June
to
30
November
2005.
The
evaluation
was
conducted
for
a
range
of
solar
field
and
thermal
energy
storage
(TES)
sizes.
Results
showed
that
from
the
perspective
of
a
CST
plant
operator,
a
forecast
method
with
lower
mean
absolute
error
(MAE)
or
root
mean
square
error
(RMSE)
is
likely
to
be
more
valuable.
If
two
forecast
methods
have
similar
MAE
and
RMSE,
then
the
value
of
the
forecast
will
depend
on
the
mean
bias
error
(MBE)
and
the
size
of
the
solar
field
and
TES.
A
forecast
method
with
negative
MBE
is
likely
more
valuable
for
a
CST
plant
with
a
small
solar
field
or
large
TES.
In
contrast,
a
forecast
method
with
a
positive
MBE
is
likely
more
valuable
for
a
CST
plant
with
a
large
solar
field
or
small
TES.
From
the
perspective
of
AEMO,
a
forecast
method
with
lower
MAE
and
RMSE
is
also
more
valuable.
However,
if
the
MAE
and
RMSE
are
similar
then
the
forecast
method
with
the
lower
or
negative
MBE
is
likely
to
be
more
valuable
regardless
of
solar
field
and
TES
sizes.
The
central
conclusion
of
this
study
is
that
the
most
valuable
type
of
forecast
may
be
the
same
for
both
AEMO
and
the
operator
of
a
CST
plant
with
a
small
solar
multiple
or
many
hours
of
storage.
To
encourage
CST
plant
operators
to
decide
CST
plant
operation
based
on
forecasts
that
are
also
beneficial
to
network
reliability,
AEMO
may
consider
setting
requirements
for
the
design
of
CST
plants
that
want
to
connect
to
the
NEM.
Figure
12
Summary
of
method
to
calculate
financial
value
of
DNI
forecast
method.
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
27
Basic
forecasting
schemes
based
on
more
complex
NWP
fields
(cloud
character,
synoptic
class)
Short-term
forecasting
of
solar
irradiance
and
associated
PV
power
production
is
a
key
issue
for
the
effective
management
of
solar
PV
power
installations.
In
particular,
the
ability
to
accurately
forecast
the
timing
and
magnitude
of
ramp-down
events
caused
by
passing
cloud
cover
can
be
of
great
benefit
for
smoothing
the
output
to
the
grid
and
for
taking
optimum
advantage
of
energy
storage
systems.
Recent
research
into
the
use
of
sky
cameras
has
led
to
advances
in
forecasting
the
timing
of
ramp-down
or
ramp-up
events
within
the
next
20
minutes,
but
these
methods
do
not
provide
information
about
the
magnitude
of
these
events.
Forecasts
of
the
magnitude
of
ramp-down
events,
or
equivalently
the
attenuation
of
irradiance
during
these
events,
are
required
in
order
to
translate
the
forecasts
into
their
effect
on
PV
power
output.
Current
methods
employed
by
ASEFS
for
short
timescales
of
up
to
30
minutes
use
statistical
techniques
such
as
autoregressive
integrated
moving
average
(ARIMA)
models,
which
are
based
on
past
values
of
the
quantity
being
forecast.
In
the
case
of
forecasting
solar
energy,
there
is
potential
to
improve
upon
the
forecasting
skill
of
these
statistical
methods
by
incorporating
information
on
clouds.
Two
sources
of
local,
real-time
cloud
information
are
explored
in
this
work.
A
laser
ceilometer
has
the
potential
to
provide
some
information
on
the
height
and
density
of
clouds,
which
is
related
to
attenuation
of
irradiance.
The
ceilometer
returns
data
on
the
vertical
profile
of
aerosol
concentration,
based
on
the
timing
of
scattered
light
received
back
at
the
lidar
from
laser
pulses
sent
vertically
through
the
atmosphere.
The
other
available
source
of
cloud
information
is
provided
by
a
sky
camera
(skycam)
whose
images
are
processed
by
classifying
clouds
and
projecting
their
movement
in
order
to
forecast
the
fraction
of
cloud
covering
the
sun
(West
et
al,
2014).
This
study
assessed
the
potential
value
of
these
data
sources
for
forecasting
solar
irradiance,
including
predicting
the
attenuation
of
irradiance
in
ramp
events
caused
by
clouds.
Table
8
shows
the
error
statistics
for
a
selection
of
models,
and
a
range
of
lead
times
from
10
to
30
minutes.
The
results
are
compared
with
a
persistence
forecast
which
uses
past
values
of
the
clear-
sky
index
itself,
filtered
to
average
only
over
cloudy
periods
within
the
hour
up
to
the
lead
time
ahead
of
the
forecast
time.
Although
reasonably
good
predictions
were
made
using
backscatter
data,
the
results
show
that
better
results
can
be
obtained
using
the
persistence
forecast.
Analysis
of
data
from
a
ceilometer
at
CSIROs
Solar
lab
in
Canberra
has
shown
that
there
is
a
clear
and
reasonably
strong
relationship
between
backscatter
data
from
the
ceilometer
and
the
GHI
clear-
sky
index.
Knowledge
of
the
GHI
clear-sky
index
is
an
important
step
in
determining
the
reduction
in
PV
power
output
due
to
clouds.
Predictive
models
of
clear-sky
index,
using
backscatter
intensities
during
previous
cloudy
periods
and
split
into
four
height
bands,
have
been
shown
to
have
useful
skill
in
forecasting
the
attenuation
of
global
irradiance
due
to
clouds.
However,
results
have
shown
that
backscatter
data
does
not
add
forecasting
skill
to
that
which
can
be
achieved
using
past
values
of
the
predictand,
clear-sky
index.
Forecasts
of
the
fraction
of
the
sun
covered
by
cloud
obtained
through
analysis
of
skycam
images
do,
however,
add
some
skill.
These
forecasts
provide
extra
information
by
estimating
when
clouds
will
pass
over
the
sun
and
cause
potentially
rapid
ramps
in
the
solar
irradiance
and
power
output.
However,
the
uncertainty
of
these
forecasts
limits
their
usefulness,
and
model
results
showed
only
a
3%
reduction
in
error
due
to
their
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
28
introduction
as
predictors.
There
is
uncertainty
both
in
the
timing
of
cloud
passing
the
sun
estimated
by
cloud
motion
vectors,
as
well
as
the
forward
path
of
clouds.
Further
uncertainty
is
caused
by
the
inability
to
predict
clouds
when
they
develop
or
dissipate
near
to
the
sun.
Another
complicating
factor
is
that
clouds
can
sometimes
enhance
global
irradiance
by
increasing
diffuse
irradiance
due
to
reflectivity
especially
when
thin,
bright
clouds
pass
close
to
or
partially
over
the
sun.
The
skycam
forecasting
is
unable
to
distinguish
between
different
types
of
cloud.
It
has
been
noted
that
the
ceilometer
is
limited
to
providing
information
on
clouds
which
are
vertically
above
the
instrument.
The
possibility
of
incorporating
knowledge
from
the
skycam
motion
vectors
of
the
position
in
the
sky
and
direction
and
speed
of
movement
of
clouds
which
are
set
to
intersect
the
sun
could
be
investigated.
This
could
enable
ceilometer
data
for
the
most
relevant
area
of
cloud
to
be
used
for
forecasting
whenever
possible.
This
work
has
so
far
only
considered
a
co-located
ceilometer
and
irradiance
forecast
site.
An
option
for
further
work
would
be
to
investigate
remote
positioning
of
one
or
more
ceilometers
in
order
for
them
to
be
able
to
anticipate
more
frequently
the
clouds
which
are
due
to
intercept
the
sun.
This
would
consider
the
prevailing
direction
of
cloud
ramp
events,
and
would
make
use
of
other
sites
in
the
Canberra
solar
monitoring
network.
Table
8
Error
statistics
for
a
selection
of
predictive
models
of
GHI
clear-sky
index
Model
Predictors
RMSE
MAE
Bias
Correlation
Persistence
10
CI
0.158
0.119 -0.007
0.69
Decision Tree
10
Backscatter
0.194
0.157
0.001
0.40
Random Forest
10
Backscatter
0.188
0.153 -0.007
0.46
Persistence
20
CI
0.172
0.130 -0.005
0.63
Decision Tree
20
Backscatter
0.194
0.157 -0.002
0.40
Random Forest
20
Backscatter
0.191
0.154 -0.008
0.44
Persistence
30
CI
0.184
0.139 -0.002
0.58
Decision Tree
30
Backscatter
0.197
0.160 -0.001
0.37
Random Forest
30
Backscatter
0.193
0.157 -0.010
0.42
Development
of
basic
intermittency
prediction
schemes
at
all
time
scales
Solar
irradiance
received
at
or
near
ground
is
highly
variable
in
nature,
which
in
turn
leads
to
the
variability
of
the
power
out
of
solar
PV.
Given
the
trend
of
the
increasing
grid
penetration
of
solar
power,
this
has
significant
impacts
on
the
operation
of
power
systems
across
a
range
of
time
scales.
At
the
time
scale
of
seconds,
solar
variability
can
influence
the
resulting
power
quality
(e.g.
voltage
flicker
and
power
frequency
fluctuations);
at
minutes,
regulation
needs
to
balance
the
random
variations
in
total
power
generation;
at
the
scale
of
minutes
to
hours,
actions
need
to
be
taken
to
follow
the
changes
in
load
within
the
day;
finally
at
hours
to
days,
power
units
need
to
be
scheduled
in
advance
for
maintenance
and/or
to
meet
individual
load
requests.
To
alleviate
the
adverse
effects
of
solar
variability
on
power
stability,
developments
in
forecasting
solar
irradiance
and
solar
power
output
have
been
proliferating.
The
appropriate
forecasting
techniques
depend
on
the
forecast
horizon.
For
day
ahead
forecasts,
numerical
weather
prediction
(NWP)
is
the
best
tool
despite
there
are
significant
biases
associated
with
its
irradiance
estimates.
Despite
the
intense
research
attention
on
solar
irradiance
forecasting,
there
are
not
enough
research
efforts
devoted
directly
to
the
quantification
and
prediction
of
temporal
solar
variability.
Using
GHI
time
series,
a
simple
and
robust
metric
(called
daily
variability
index,
or
DVI)
to
quantify
the
daily
variability
of
solar
irradiance
was
adopted.
One-minute
GHI
time
series
measured
by
the
Bureau
of
Meteorology
at
Wagga-Wagga
is
used
and
the
DVI
series
is
calculated
correspondingly.
Random
forest
and
multiple
linear
regression,
which
respectively
represent
techniques
of
nonlinear
and
linear
regression,
are
used
to
build
empirical
models
between
DVI
and
large-scale
meteorological
fields,
such
as
cloud
cover,
wind
velocity
and
boundary-layer
characteristics.
And
their
corresponding
performances
are
compared
to
reveal
the
differences
of
performance
using
linear
and
nonlinear
approaches.
Sample
data
are
extracted
for
the
nearest
grid
point
of
the
Wagga
Wagga
site
for
the
two
NWP
models.
Using
the
year
of
2012
as
the
training
period
and
the
year
of
2013
as
the
test
period,
the
DVI
is
forecasted
by
the
two
NWP
models,
respectively.
The
main
results
are
demonstrated
in
Figure
13.
As
shown
in
the
left
column,
both
GFS
and
CCAM
(the
CSIROs
Conformal
Cubical
Atmospheric
Model)
forecast
the
3
hour
averaged
GHI
well
evidenced
by
the
small
value
of
MAE.
In
terms
of
DVI
forecasting
(the
middle
column),
CCAM
performs
slightly
better
than
GFS
as
reflected
by
the
comparison
of
the
metrics.
In
addition,
it
is
only
slightly
worse
to
use
CCAM
forecast
than
to
use
the
ERA-Interim
reanalysis
data.
Note
that
in
making
the
plots
in
Figure
13,
another
machine
learning
technique,
gradient
boosting,
is
used
instead
of
random
forest
as
gradient
boosting
normally
results
in
similar
or
better
performance
than
random
forests
for
regression
problems.
Regarding
the
implementation
of
the
DVI
model
(presumably
using
gradient
boosting),
it
only
requires
available
NWP
variables
at
the
nearest
grid
point
for
each
solar
farm
to
be
forecasted.
The
resulting
performance
of
the
model
will
vary
from
site
to
site
and
is
commensurate
with
the
length
of
the
available
training
data.
With
an
approximately
2
years
training
period
and
240
predictors
from
the
CCAM
model
for
a
single
site,
the
training
phase
takes
about
3
seconds
on
a
2.2GHz
Intel
i7
MacBook
Pro.
With
a
longer
training
period
and
more
sites
to
apply,
the
computing
time
will
add
up
accordingly.
As
such,
it
is
recommended
to
use
extra
computing
resource
for
the
training
phase
of
this
module.
The
computation
time
of
the
operational
phase
is
small
and
extra
computing
source
is
not
needed.
Figure
13
Performance
of
the
GFS
model
(top
row)
and
the
CCAM
model
(bottom
row)
for
3
hour
average
GHI
(left),
DVI
forecasting
(middle),
and
relative
influence
of
predictors
(right)
at
Wagga
Wagga
Probabilistic
forecasting
and
participation
in
GEFCom2014
solar
power
forecasting
Having
demonstrated
the
performance
of
using
NWP
models
to
forecast
DVI,
it
is
beneficial
to
add
the
information
of
error
distribution
to
the
deterministic
forecast.
This
is
tackled
by
identifying
similar
situations
in
the
past
and
using
them
to
form
the
error
distribution,
i.e.,
the
analogue
approach.
More
specifically,
the
basic
steps
are:
1. First
use
gradient
boosting
to
perform
the
deterministic
forecast.
2. Then
estimate
the
probabilistic
distribution
of
the
forecast
error,
i.e.
the
observed
DVI
minus
the
deterministic
forecast:
for
each
point
in
the
test
dataset,
find
the
nearest
k
points
in
the
training
dataset
based
on
the
deterministic
forecast
values,
and
use
them
to
form
the
PDF
of
the
error
for
the
point.
Figure
14
demonstrates
the
main
results
using
the
analogue
approach.
The
left
plot
illustrates
the
positive
correlation
between
the
amplitude
of
error
and
the
forecasted
DVI
value.
The
right
plot
depicts
the
range
of
the
probabilistic
forecast
of
DVI
superimposed
by
the
observation
time
series
for
January
2013.
It
is
shown
that
the
observation
time
series
falls
in
the
0.1-0.9
quantile
probabilistic
forecasts
for
most
of
the
period.
The
proposed
approach
for
solar
variability
forecasting
has
been
adapted
in
our
participation
in
the
solar
track
of
Global
Energy
Forecasting
Competition
2014
(GEFCom2014).
The
main
task
of
the
competition
is
to
forecast
the
solar
power
generation
of
three
farms
using
the
output
of
ECMWF
and
historical
training
data.
Our
team
ranked
first
among
more
than
250
participants
all
over
the
world.
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
31
Figure
14
The
relationship
between
the
amplitude
of
the
error
of
DVI
modelling
and
the
modelled
DVI
(left);
Forecasted
DVI
quantiles
(0.1,
0.2,
,0.9)
for
a
sample
period
of
one
month
(right)
Investigation
and
testing
of
distributed
PV
generation
data
sets,
upscaling-schemes
for
distributed
PV,
testing
and
further
development
of
distributed
PV
power
prediction
techniques
Installations
of
residential
solar
PV
panels
have
grown
rapidly
in
several
countries,
mainly
spurred
by
government
incentives,
increasing
energy
prices
and
reductions
in
the
cost
of
solar
power.
Latest
estimates
indicate
about
4
GW
in
installed
small
scale
PV
power
for
Australia.
With
progressively
lower
PV
production
costs
and
improving
system
quality
and
reliability,
growth
in
installations
in
the
near
future
is
projected
to
be
even
stronger.
Prediction
of
solar
radiation
and
PV-produced
power
at
the
residential
and
business
level
is
therefore
key
to
allowing
a
smoother
integration
of
power
into
the
electricity
grid.
Ideally,
one
would
collect
all
of
the
relevant
variables
from
each
individual
installation
to
accurately
describe
the
specific
system
parameters
and
hence
attempt
a
detailed
solar
power
prediction
for
each
system.
However,
this
would
clearly
be
a
very
expensive,
time
consuming
and
essentially
impractical
approach
since
PV
installations
are
characterized
by
a
variety
of
features:
i)
PV
technology,
ii)
inverter
type
and
technology,
iii)
panel
orientation
(including
accounting
for
tracking
devices),
iv)
amount
of
shading
(which
can
depend
on
variables
such
as
solar
zenith
angle,
but
also
on
the
changing
nature
of
obstructions),
v)
efficiency
of
the
PV
panels
(dependent
on
the
type
of
installations,
whether
free
standing
or
roof
integrated
systems,
as
well
as
on
weather
conditions,
such
as
air
temperature
and
wind
speed).
It
is
apparent
therefore
that
a
deterministic
approach
to
urban
or
regional
PV
power
forecasting
is
impractical.
Practical
approaches
to
predicting
solar
power
at
increasing
level
of
approximation
are
therefore
sought.
Such
approaches
by
necessity
will
have
to
consider
PV
system
aggregation
to
differing
degrees.
Sometimes
these
approaches
are
called
upscaling:
prediction
is
derived
for
a
small
sample
of
PV
systems,
which
is
then
used
to
infer
the
behavior
of
analogous
PV
systems
over
a
broader
area.
In
this
work,
we
start
from
the
underlying
assumption
that,
because
the
ultimate
driver
of
PV
systems
and
their
outputs
is
global
irradiance,
accurate
meteorological
observations
are
key
to
accurate
power
predictions.
At
the
same
time,
and
with
the
view
to
limit
the
amount
and
cost
of
instrumentation
required
for
accurate
forecasts,
we
also
assess
the
type
and
number
of
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
32
meteorological
observations
required
to
achieve
accurate
forecasts.
The
irradiance
forecasts
are
then
used
to
produce
power
forecasts
for
a
target
(generic)
system.
This
work
relies
on
a
number
of
high-frequency
monitoring
stations
installed,
and
regularly
maintained,
around
Canberra
(Figure
15).
Specifically
we
use
measurements
from
two
stations
to
produce
forecasts
for
a,
third,
target
station,
for
which
we
have
all
measurements.
Where
the
geometry
of
the
PV
system
is
known,
as
in
our
case,
we
derive
the
global
irradiance
on
the
PV
plane
by
means
of
statistical
relationship
between
the
three
irradiance
components
(global,
diffuse
and
direct).
In
the
absence
of
PV
system
specifications,
one
would
need
to
make
standard
assumptions
about
system
performance,
tilt
and
orientation
angles.
The
prediction
lead
(or
horizon)
time
extends
from
5
minute
to
3
hours
ahead.
Such
time
frames
are
particularly
useful
for
regulation
reserves,
and
enhanced
system
reliability
and
security
and,
potentially,
for
load
shifting,
at
the
high-end
of
this
horizon
time.
At
these
lead
times,
it
is
generally
accepted
that
statistical
techniques
offer
the
most
appropriate
and
practical
approach.
Figure
16
shows
the
forecast
results
of
the
PV
power
prediction.
When
local
data
are
not
used/available,
the
approach
presented
in
this
section
provides
an
improvement
with
respect
to
using
GHI
at
short
lead
times
(under
30
minutes).
This
is
valid
for
both
winter
and
summer.
In
this
study
we
used
observations
from
an
urban
solar
network
based
in
Canberra,
Australia,
with
the
aim
to
predict
both
solar
irradiance
and
solar
power
at
a
(generic)
target
station.
Our
target
station,
Namadgi
School,
is
located
in
between,
and
at
a
few
tens
of
kilometres
from,
two
other
monitoring
stations,
Black
Mountain
and
Wombat
Hill.
All
three
stations,
therefore
including
Namadgi
School,
have
been
collecting
meteorological
and
power
observations:
this
allows
us
to
assess
the
predictions
performance
at
the
target
station.
The
sensitivity
of
two
statistical
methods,
random
forest
and
multi-linear,
for
i)
different
meteorological
and
power
variables
as
predictors,
ii)
different
combinations
of
stations,
iii)
winter
and
summer
seasons
and
iv)
different
sky
conditions,
is
an
integral
part
of
this
work.
A
number
of
variables
observed
at
our
monitoring
stations
were
selected
as
our
predictors
for
the
GHI
predictors
two
global
irradiances
(GHI
and
on
the
plane
of
the
PV
panels),
temperature,
pressure
and
humidity.
Clear
sky
radiation
was
also
used
as
an
additional
predictor.
Aside
from
the
importance
of
historical
values
of
GHI,
the
other
important
predictors
are
air
temperature
and
humidity
in
summer
and
pressure
and
humidity
in
winter.
As
a
benchmark
for
the
GHI
prediction,
a
modified
(or
gap)
persistence,
whereby
GHI
values
were
simply
modified
by
adding
the
next
time
step
increment
provided
by
the
diurnal
cycle
(clear
sky
radiation),
was
used.
Compared
to
when
only
data
from
the
two
stations,
Black
Mountain
and
Wombat
Hill,
are
used
for
GHI
prediction,
gap
persistence
yields
better
results
up
to
about
15
minutes
ahead
in
summer.
However,
this
clearly
implies
availability
of
data
at
the
target
station.
Of
the
two
statistical
models,
random
forest
is
more
skilful
than
the
linear
method
in
summer.
In
winter,
the
performance
of
the
two
statistical
methods
is
reversed
compared
to
summer,
with
the
multi-linear
method
superior
to
random
forest.
The
fact
that
the
performance
of
these
two
methods
displays
a
strong
seasonality
is
a
reflection
of
the
prevalent
climate
conditions
in
Canberra
in
the
two
seasons.
In
winter,
when
clear
sky
conditions
dominate,
solar
irradiance
is
better
predicted
by
a
less
elaborate
multi-linear
method,
whereas
in
variable,
non-linear,
summer
conditions
the
random
forest
method
captures
better
the
GHI
variability.
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
33
Figure
15
Map
of
Canberra
with
the
position
and
names
of
our
five
monitoring
stations.
Highlighted
with
circles
are
the
three
stations
used
for
our
solar
forecasting
algorithms,
with
Namadgi
School
taken
as
the
target
station.
0.4
0.4
0.5
(b)
0.5
(a)
0.3
r MAE
0.3
r MAE
0.2
0.1
50
100
Lead time (minutes)
BM, NS & WH
BM & WH
WH & NS
WH
BM & NS
BM
150
0.1
0.2
50
100
Lead time (minutes)
150
Figure
16
rMAE
of
modified
Power
predictions
based
on
the
conversion
presented
in
Section
5
and
using
data
from
different
stations
(a)
in
summer
(Method:
Random
Forest;
Predictors:
SP-Solar,
PV
panel
temperature,
Absolute
Humidity);
(b)
in
winter
(Method:
Multi-Linear;
Predictors:
SP-Solar,
PV
panel
temperature,
Absolute
Humidity).
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
34
For
power
output
prediction,
geometry
and
other
specifications
of
the
PV
systems
also
play
important
roles,
particularly
at
short
lead
times.
This
is
because
the
local
real-time
tilted
solar
irradiance
is
roughly
proportional
to
the
real-time
power
output
from
solar
panels
(regardless
of
the
negative
efficiency
effect
due
to
increasing
solar
panel
temperature).
However,
as
the
lead-time
becomes
longer,
the
positive
effect
of
tilted
solar
irradiance
as
a
predictor
diminishes.
Thus
choosing
GHI
as
a
predictor
instead
of
the
solar
irradiance
on
tilted
surface
when
local
data
is
not
used
seems
to
be
acceptable
as
GHI
is
less
site-specific.
As
for
other
variables
such
as
solar
panels
temperature,
which
in
principle
is
an
important
variable
as
it
influences
the
solar
panels
efficiency,
in
practice
it
did
not
make
a
marked
impact
in
the
power
prediction
skill.
In
terms
of
the
relative
importance
of
stations,
Black
Mountain
typically
has
a
larger
impact
on
the
skill
of
GHI
than
Wombat
Hill.
However,
for
power
prediction
in
summer
the
reverse
seems
to
be
true.
In
general,
using
both
stations
yields
better
results
than
using
either.
In
terms
of
predicting
power
output
for
a
single
site,
global
irradiance
on
tilted
surface
should
be
selected
as
a
predictor
if
available.
However,
as
this
variable
is
site-specific,
we
demonstrated
that
by
deriving
it
via
a
GHI
conversion,
with
GHI
observations
at
remote
sites,
a
satisfactory
prediction
skill
is
obtained.
Also,
the
prediction
skill
is
higher
under
high
clear-sky
index
conditions.
This
is
especially
the
case
in
winter.
Possible
future
developments
of
this
work,
aimed
at
improving
the
prediction
skill,
may
be:
The
use
of
a
predictor
obtained
from
sky
camera
images;
this
would
be
most
useful
to
improve
predictions
at
the
short
range,
up
to
about
20-30
minutes;
The
use
of
a
number
of
predictors
from
Numerical
Weather
Prediction
output;
these
would
be
useful
to
improve
the
longer
range,
say
2-3
hours
(and
beyond),
prediction
skill.
Skill
of
direct
solar
radiation
predicted
by
the
ECMWF
global
atmospheric
model
over
Australia
The
need
for
deriving
or
predicting
direct
solar
radiation
is
a
burgeoning
topic
of
research.
For
instance,
electricity
production
from
CSP,
for
which
direct
solar
radiation
is
a
critical
input,
is
steadily
increasing.
However,
to
date
most
studies
have
targeted
global
solar
irradiance,
namely
the
sum
of
the
two
separate
components:
direct
solar
radiation
(or
direct
beam,
or,
more
formally,
direct
irradiance)
and
diffuse
radiation.
Deficiencies
in
the
representation
of
cloud
cover,
a
notoriously
difficult
variable
to
simulate,
are
present
at
varying
degrees
in
all
weather
models.
Uncertainty
in
the
modelled
cloud
cover
is
what
makes
solar
radiation
difficult
to
predict
even
a
few
hours
ahead.
Under
clear
sky
conditions,
however,
NWP
models
can
simulate
solar
radiation
reasonably
well.
The
direct
solar
radiation
component
produced
by
the
ECMWF
model
is
the
focus
of
our
investigation,
including
its
dependency
on
different
cloud
cover
conditions.
Even
when
direct
beam
forecast
is
considered
this
variable
is
derived
from
the
global
irradiance
rather
than
being
directly
computed
by
the
meteorological
model.
The
reason
direct
beam
has
not
been
readily
available
is
possibly
due
to
the
fact
that
only
recently
has
the
CSP
industry
started
to
advocate
for
improved
direct
beam
products.
As
a
consequence
meteorological
models
were
not
programmed
to
output
this
variable,
even
if
it
is
routinely
internally
computed.
With
this
study
direct
beam
predicted
by
two
versions
of
the
ECMWF
model
is
compared
to
solar
observations
collected
at
four
ground
stations
in
Australia.
The
stations
were
chosen
for
their
different
climatic
conditions.
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
35
In
this
study
the
performance
of
direct
irradiance
forecast
by
a
widely
used
NWP
model,
the
ECMWF
model,
has
been
assessed
against
high-quality
ground
station
observations
over
Australia.
Three-
hourly
average
forecasts
out
to
five
days
(120
hours)
have
been
evaluated
using
standard
statistical
measures,
the
relative
mean
absolute
error
(rMAE)
and
the
linear
correlation
coefficient,
averaged
over
all
sky
conditions
as
well
as
separated
into
a
number
of
clear
sky
index
categories.
Two
versions
of
the
model,
developed
a
few
years
apart,
have
been
assessed.
Both
versions
represent
reasonably
well
the
monthly
mean
value
of
DHI
and
GHI.
By
applying
a
relatively
simple
bias
correction
approach,
based
on
average
errors
over
a
limited
numbers
of
clear
sky
index
and
solar
zenith
angle
categories,
their
performance
can
be
markedly
enhanced.
The
improvement
in
rMAE
and
correlation
coefficient
due
to
the
bias
correction
is
at
least
an
order
of
magnitude
larger
than
the
difference
between
the
two
model
versions.
Specifically,
rMAEs
for
DHI
are
reduced
by
at
least
10%
for
most
of
the
lead
times
after
bias
correction,
reaching
values
of
around
10-15%
on
average.
Improvements
in
correlation
are
even
more
marked,
with
increases
of
up
to
0.5
after
bias
correction,
reaching
average
values
of
around
0.9
for
all
four
stations.
It
is
worth
noting
that
while
aerosols
are
likely
to
be
responsible
for
a
portion
of
the
surface
radiation
errors,
the
fact
that
the
two
model
versions
adopt
the
same
monthly
mean
aerosol
climatology,
and
that
the
removal
of
the
bias
is
essentially
independent
of
the
aerosols,
indicate
that
other
factors,
particularly
cloud
cover,
are
likely
to
play
a
dominant
role
in
the
model
bias.
There
appears
to
be
a
distinct
dependency
of
the
forecast
performance
on
their
background
climatic
conditions.
In
particular,
Wagga
Wagga
and
Broome,
which
are
characterized
by
predominantly
low-
cloud
cover
to
clear-sky
conditions,
also
reasonably
well
captured
by
the
model,
are
the
locations
displaying
the
overall
best
performance.
For
Adelaide
and
Rockhampton
where
cloudier
conditions
are
more
prevalent,
and
for
which
the
model
is
less
skilful
at
capturing
these
varying
conditions,
there
is
more
room
for
model
improvement.
The
ECMWF
forecast
has
also
been
tested
in
an
operational-type
setting,
by
targeting
three
quantiles,
forecast
smaller
than
the
25%
of
its
distribution,
larger
than
50%
and
larger
than
75%
(Figure
17).
While
the
bias
correction
applied
to
half
of
the
data
set
improves
the
scores
only
marginally
over
the
remaining
half,
the
forecast
especially
for
the
higher
two
quantiles
(>
50%
and
>
75%)
display
values
which
could
potentially
be
considered
for
operational
use.
Moreover,
it
was
shown
that
by
applying
the
bias
correction
to
the
whole
period,
so
as
to
mimic
a
longer
temporal
coverage,
the
score
could
potentially
be
markedly
improved.
The
results
of
our
analyses
provide
an
indication
of
the
potential
practical
use
of
direct
irradiance
forecast
for
solar
power
operations,
especially
for
concentrating
solar
power
farms
for
which
direct
irradiance
is
crucial.
Our
quantification
of
error
growth
for
direct
irradiance,
also
in
relation
to
global
irradiance,
should
allow
solar
power
plant
operators
to
take
better
informed
decisions
about
the
use
of
direct
irradiance
forecast.
It
may
also
assist
forecast
model
developers
to
better
target
future
model
improvements.
However,
if
improvements
continue
to
be
gradual,
as
was
the
case
with
the
two
versions
assessed
in
this
work,
refined
bias
correction
approaches
will
provide
a
more
effective
short-term
solution
to
delivering
improved
direct
radiation
forecasts
out
to
several
days.
One
of
the
reason
for
the
gradual
improvement
in
the
NWP
forecast
skill
for
surface
solar
radiation
is
that,
up
to
until
very
recently,
comparison
with
detailed
surface
radiation
measurements
on
a
daily
basis
has
not
been
the
main
focus
of
NWP
development
evaluations.
Particularly
with
the
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
36
growing
interest
coming
from
the
solar
power
industry,
who
would
benefit
from
a
much
better
representation
of
the
solar
radiation
components,
the
situation
is
now
changing.
This
paper
has
provided
an
indication
of
the
skill
achievable
with
a
renowned
NWP
model
and,
via
the
bias
correction,
what
would
be
some
areas
of
focus
for
model
development.
Given
the
impact
of
different
model
versions
on
surface
solar
radiation
over
Australia,
analogous
evaluations
could
now
be
part
of
the
acceptance
tests
to
upgrade
experimental
versions
of
NWP
models
to
operational
status
(Troccoli
and
Morcrette
2014).
60
40
20
100
60
80
100
120
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
40
80
60
60
40
100
80
40
20
20
80
100
120
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
20
40
80
100
60
80
60
60
40
100
40
100
20
80
60
40
80
20
100
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure
17
Three-hourly
forecast
scores
expressed
as
percentage
of
correct
forecasts
for
GHI
(left
panels)
and
DHI
(right)
for
three
different
distribution
quantiles:
forecast
<
25%
(top
panels),
>50%
(middle)
and
>75%
(bottom)
at
Adelaide.
The
target
period
is
the
second
half
of
2006.
The
black
lines
are
for
non-corrected
model
output,
the
green
lines
for
bias
corrected
model
output
over
the
entire
2006
and
the
red
lines
mimic
a
practical
forecasting
situation,
whereby
the
first
half
of
2006
has
been
used
to
compute
the
bias
which
is
then
applied
to
the
second
half
of
2006.
The
cyan
lines
show
the
persistence
forecast
(using
same
time-of-day,
one
to
5
days
ahead),
whereas
the
grey
lines
provide
another
reference
score,
based
on
the
null-hypothesis
of
random
forecasts.
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
37
Transferability
The
ASEFS
operational
system
provides
an
opportunity,
as
it
was
for
AWEFS,
to
showcase
the
reliability
of
the
system
and
its
effectiveness
at
enabling
the
smooth
integration
of
solar
power
into
the
national
grid.
In
this
sense,
the
expertise
gained
in
developing
and
installing
ASEFS
could
be
transferred
to
other
energy
markets,
including
Western
Australia,
as
well
as
overseas.
In
terms
of
ASEFS
R&D
activities,
although
these
were
mainly
aimed
at
improving
the
forecasting
produced
by
the
operational
ASEFS,
they
have
yielded
notable
advances
in
several
areas,
as
illustrated
in
the
previous
section
and
in
the
technical
milestone
reports.
As
such,
these
techniques
could
also
be
applied
as
a
stand-alone
(namely
not
linked
to
the
AEMO
ASEFS)
modular
prediction
system.
The
techniques
developed
with
ASEFS
R&D
should
also
be
further
developed,
including
through
a
blending
of
multiple
data
sources
for
solar
forecasting
of
distributed
photovoltaic
power
generation
on
a
city-wide
scale.
Indeed,
the
rapid
expansion
of
rooftop
solar
PV,
which
has
reached
a
overall
capacity
of
over
4
GW
in
Australia,
is
demanding
immediate
attention
in
regards
to
its
forecasting
(AEMO
has
already
commissioned
a
system
to
complement
the
current
ASEFS
operational
system
to
deal
with
rooftop
solar
PV
generation).
Other
applications,
that
have
started
to
be
explored,
are
the
combination
of
solar
forecast
with
control
algorithms
with
a
view
to
optimise
use
of
batteries/electricity
generation/GHG
emission/cost
of
electricity.
Yet
another
area
which
would
benefit
from
the
ASEFS
R&D
outputs
is
the
development
of
advanced
ways
to
generate
and
communicate
probabilistic
forecasts.
Indeed,
being
highly
variable,
solar
power
prediction
would
best
be
expressed
by
probabilistic
information,
which
could
be
generated
by
combining
the
various
techniques
developed
by
ASEFS
R&D.
Scientific
advances
in
solar
forecasting
through
ASEFS
have
also
allowed
Australian
scientists
to
strengthen
their
knowledge
and
skills
in
the
burgeoning
solar
forecasting
area.
This
has
led
to
international
recognitions
as
in
the
case
of
an
invitation
to
an
ASEFS
participant
to
author
a
chapter
on
solar
forecasting
in
a
book
contributed
by
international
experts
in
the
area
of
renewable
energy
forecasting.
MW
output
and
onsite
weather
data
to
ASEFS.
The
normalised
mean
accuracy
error
for
the
different
time
horizons
were
tested
against
the
required
system
specifications
and
the
results
were
within
the
ASEFS
agreed
accuracy
targets.
In
parallel
to
the
implementation
of
the
ASEFS
system,
an
advanced
and
varied
R&D
program
has
been
developed
which
has
allowed
to
develop
skills
and
techniques
in
important
future
areas
such
as
cloud
tracking
using
sky
cameras
or
satellite
images,
improvements
of
NWP
models,
better
use
of
atmospheric
models,
methods
to
derive
solar
forecasts
at
the
distributed
level.
The
R&D
developments
have
been
documented
in
international
journal
papers,
and
presented
at
many
public
forums,
thus
allowing
the
rest
of
the
Australian
and
worldwide
research
and
industry
communities
to
benefit
from
such
acquired
knowledge.
Conversations
have
already
started
around
extending
the
R&D
work
by
combining
the
various
techniques
which
have
thus
far
been
developed
in
isolation.
For
instance,
tracking
of
clouds
from
sky
cameras
and
satellite
could
be
merged
to
provide
a
more
comprehensive
picture
of
cloud
evolution.
Such
combinations
could
be
developed
into
modular
software
which
can
be
commercialised
for
large
solar
farms
as
well
as
PV
roof-top
use.
In
the
meantime
AEMO
has
already
identified
areas
of
further
developments
of
their
ASEFS
operational
system,
particularly
with
the
commissioned
expansion
of
a
system
able
to
cope
with
distributed
solar
power,
which
has
turned
out
to
be
a
source
of
substantial
aggregate
power,
much
bigger
than
the
currently
available
large-scale
solar
farms.
Indeed,
the
surge
in
uptake
of
roof-top
PV
has
been
creating
a
growing
problem
for
creating
a
growing
problem
for
the
balancing
of
supply-
demand:
forecast
errors
have
already
been
experienced
in
regions
like
South
Australia
or
South
East
Queensland,
and
these
may
increasingly
contribute
to
severe
power
quality
(frequency)
issues.
The
use
of
solar
forecasting
in
combination
of
control
algorithms
for
battery
storage
is
another
area
of
development.
Such
algorithms
would
allow
the
optimisation
of
battery
longevity/electricity
generation/GHG
emission/cost
of
electricity.
Solar
forecasting
would
provide
a
key
input
in
the
development
of
such
control
algorithms.
This
topic
was
extensively
discussed
at
the
recent
Solar
Forecasting
&
Storage
Stakeholder
Workshop
held
in
Melbourne
on
10
August
2015.
This
stakeholder
workshop,
attended
by
around
40
experts
from
industry,
government,
and
research
institutions,
aimed
to:
1. Strengthen
the
link
with
industry
around
the
issue
of
solar
forecasting
and
electrical
storage
2. Potentially
co-develop
a
proposal
for
a
feasibility
study
on
the
role
and
value
of
solar
forecasting
in
relation
to
various
electrical
storage
scenarios
We
are
already
working
on
a
proposal
for
such
a
feasibility
study.
The
proposal
development
has
been
benefiting
from
conversations
with
industry
and
research
institutions,
as
well
as
with
ARENA
staff,
including
its
CEO.
The
discussions
at
the
workshop
are
also
informing
the
way
in
which
the
feasibility
study
is
being
shaped.
Specifically,
it
is
apparent
that
the
projected
larger
use
of
storage,
particularly
combined
with
PV,
will
make
the
role
of
forecasting
both
more
important
and
more
diverse,
also
due
to
the
variety
of
battery
technologies
available.
There
are
some
useful
prospects
to
provide
supporting
information
such
as
solar
irradiance
and
forecasting
to
also
complement
e.g.
the
APVI
solar
PV
web
portal,
and
which
could
be
developed
in
collaboration
with
the
AREMI
project
(http://www.nationalmap.gov.au/renewables/).
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System|
Page
40
References
Boland
J,
Huang
J,
and
Ridley
B
(2013)
Decomposing
global
solar
radiation
into
its
direct
and
diffuse
components,
Renewable
and
Sustainable
Energy
Reviews,
28,
pp.
749-756.
Boland
J
(2015)
Spatial-temporal
forecasting
of
solar
radiation,
Renewable
Energy,
75,
pp.
607-616.
Chen,
C.,
Duan,
S.,
Cai,
T.,
Liu,
B.,
2011.
Online
24-h
solar
power
forecasting
based
on
weather
type
classification
using
artificial
neural
network.
Solar
Energy,
85(11),
28562870.
Chow,
W.
C.,
Urquhart,
B.,
Lave,
M.,
Dominguez,
A.,
Kleissl,
J.,
Shields,
J.,
Washom,
B.,
2011.
Intra-
hour
forecasting
with
a
total
sky
imager
at
the
UC
San
Diego
solar
energy
test
bed.
Solar
Energy,
85(11),
28812893.
Crispim,
E.
M.,
Ferreira,
P.
M.,
Ruano,
A.
E.,
2008.
Prediction
of
the
solar
radiation
evolution
using
computational
intelligence
techniques
and
cloudiness
indices.
Int.
J.
of
Innovative
Computing,
Information
and
Control,
4(5),
11211133.
Huang
J,
Korolkiewicz
M,
Agrawal
M
and
Boland
J,
(2013)
Forecasting
solar
radiation
on
an
hourly
time
scale
using
a
coupled
autoregressive
and
dynamical
system
(CARDS)
model,
Solar
Energy,
87,
pp.
136-149.
Huang
J,
Troccoli
A
and
Coppin
P
(2014)
An
analytical
comparison
of
four
approaches
to
modelling
the
daily
variability
of
solar
irradiance
using
meteorological
records.
Renewable
Energy,
72,
doi:
195202,
10.1016/j.renene.2014.07.015
Lorenz
E,
Khnert
J
and
Heinemann
D
(2014)
Overview
of
Irradiance
and
Photovoltaic
Power
Prediction.
In
Troccoli
A.,
Dubus
L
and
Haupt
SE
(eds.),
Weather
matters
for
energy,
Springer,
New
York,
USA,
pp
429-454,
DOI:
10.1007/978-1-4614-9221-4_21
Mathiesen,
P.,
Kleissl,
J.,
2011.
Evaluation
of
numerical
weather
prediction
for
intra-day
solar
forecasting
in
the
continental
united
states.
Solar
Energy,
85(5),
967977.
Marquez,
R.,
Coimbra,
C.
F.
M.,
2011.
Forecasting
of
global
and
direct
solar
irradiance
using
stochastic
learning
methods,
ground
experiments
and
the
NWS
database.
Solar
Energy,
85(5),
746756.
Marquez,
R.,
Coimbra,
C.
F.
M.,
2013a.
Intra-hour
DNI
forecasting
based
on
cloud
tracking
image
analysis.
Solar
Energy,
91,
327336.
Pelland,
S.,
Remund,
J.,
Kleissl,
J.,
Oozeki,
T.,
Brabandere,
K.
D.,
2013.
Photovoltaic
and
Solar
Forecasting:
State
of
the
Art.
Technical
report,
IEA
PVPS
T14-01:2013.
Perez,
R.,
Moore,
K.,
Wilcox,
S.,
Renn,
D.,
Zelenka,
A.,
2007.
Forecasting
solar
radiation
Preliminary
evaluation
of
an
approach
based
upon
the
National
Forecast
Database.
Solar
Energy,
81(6),
809812.
Pernick,
R.,
Wilder,
C.,
2008.
Utility
Solar
Assessment
Study
Reaching
Ten
Percent
Solar
by
2025.
Technical
Report.
Washington,
D.C.:
Clean
Edge,
Inc.,
and
Co-Op
America
Foundation.
Troccoli
A
and
Morcrette
J-J
(2014)
Skill
of
direct
solar
radiation
predicted
by
the
ECMWF
global
atmospheric
model
over
Australia.
J.
Applied
Meteorology
and
Climatology,
25712588,
doi:
10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0074.1
West,
S.R.,
Rowe,
D.,
Sayeef,
S.,
Berry,
A.,
2014.
Short-term
irradiance
forecasting
using
skycams:
Motivation
and
development.
Sol.
Energy
110,
188207.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2014.08.038
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.08.038)
Widiss,
R.,
Porter,
K.,
2014.
A
Review
of
Variable
Generation
Forecasting
in
the
West.
Technical
Report
NREL/SR-6A20-61035
Lessons
Learnt
Lessons
Learnt
Report:
Delays
with
Solar
Flagship
program
Project
Name:
Australian
Solar
Energy
Forecasting
System
Knowledge
Category:
Knowledge
Type:
Technology
Type:
State/Territory:
Regulatory
Planning
&
Development
approvals
Solar
PV
National
Key
learning
In
spite
of
the
Solar
Flagships
plans
and
commitments,
large-scale
solar
farms
(>
30
MW)
were
only
installed
towards
the
end
of
the
ASEFS
project.
This
externality
was
very
difficult
to
anticipate.
It
affected
the
outcome
of
the
project
only
to
the
extent
that
the
ASEFS
operational
system
could
not
be
tested
on
large-scale
solar
farms
during
the
duration
of
the
ASEFS
project.
It
will
be
however
tested
shortly
by
AEMO
(beyond
the
ASEFS
project),
if
not
done
so
already.
Knowledge
gap
None
Background
Objectives
or
project
requirements
The
ASEFS
operational
system
was
meant
to
provide
solar
forecasts
for
large-scale
generators.
Process
undertaken
Development
of
the
ASEFS
system
was
carried
out
anyway,
but
test
solar
installations
had
to
be
relatively
quickly
set
up
in
order
to
test
the
system.
Lack
of
large-scale
solar
farms
was
also
linked
to
the
unavailability
of
solar
forecasts
through
the
proposed
researcher
access.
42
Regulatory
Planning
&
Development
approvals
Solar
PV
National
Key
learning
An
unexpected
rapid
increase
in
the
uptake
of
roof-top
PV
has
been
creating
a
growing
problem
for
the
balancing
of
supply-demand:
forecast
errors
have
already
been
experienced
in
regions
like
South
Australia
or
South
East
Queensland,
and
these
may
increasingly
contribute
to
severe
power
quality
(frequency)
issues.
This
externality
was
difficult
to
anticipate.
However,
it
only
affected
the
project
to
the
extent
that
more
emphasis
could
have
been
placed
on
targeting
this
issue
during
ASEFS,
perhaps
through
a
re-planning
of
the
project.
Knowledge
gap
Better
knowledge
and
forecasting
tools
to
target
distributed
solar
power
could
be
developed.
Background
Objectives
or
project
requirements
The
development
of
forecasting
tools
for
distributed
solar
power
was
set
as
a
small
portion
of
the
project
as
at
the
time
of
the
writing
of
the
proposal
roof-top
PV
installations
were
at
a
much
lower
level
than
they
currently
are.
Process
undertaken
The
planned
work
on
forecasting
tools
for
distributed
solar
power
was
delivered
as
planned.
However,
given
the
surge
in
roof-top
PV
a
project
re-planning
to
focus
on
this
aspect
might
have
been
useful.
43
Technical
Technology
Solar
PV
National
Key
learning
Lack
of
large-scale
solar
farms
led
to
the
unavailability
of
solar
forecast
data
through
the
proposed
researcher
access.
Attempts
were
made
to
obtain
these
data
anyway,
but
unsuccessfully.
Knowledge
gap
A
cost-benefit
analysis
for
the
more
advanced
forecasting
techniques,
for
which
the
ASEFS
data
was
essential,
was
not
possible
but
should
still
be
carried
out
Background
Objectives
or
project
requirements
Solar
forecast
data
through
Researcher
Access
were
essential
for
testing
the
potential
improvements
of
the
advanced
solar
forecasting
techniques
developed
during
the
project,
by
means
of
a
cost-
benefit
analysis.
Process
undertaken
Repeated
attempts
to
obtain
the
solar
forecast
data
offline
(namely
without
going
through
the
unavailable
Researcher
Access)
were
made
but
unsuccessful
(see
also
main
text)
44
Technical
Human
Resources
Solar
PV
Non-state
specific
Key
learning
The
signing
of
the
agreement
between
CSIRO
and
NREL,
a
subcontractor
to
CSIRO
in
the
project,
took
much
longer
than
anticipated.
Such
unexpected
delay,
due
to
the
complexity
of
the
two
organisations
involved,
led
to
both
lengthy
negotiations
and
delays
in
the
execution
of
the
project.
Knowledge
gap
None
Background
Objectives
or
project
requirements
The
agreement
between
CSIRO
and
NREL,
a
subcontractor
to
CSIRO
in
the
project,
should
have
been
signed
at
the
start
of
the
project.
The
ASEFS
project
commenced
on
7th
January
2013
and
it
took
over
a
year
for
this
agreement
to
be
signed.
Process
undertaken
Many
email
and
phone
communications,
including
lengthy
negotiations
had
been
necessary
in
order
to
reach
an
agreement
between
CSIRO
and
NREL.
As
of
June
2014,
however,
NREL
consistently
contributed
to
ASEFS,
as
have
all
other
partners.
Due
to
these
delays,
the
project
finished
in
June
2015,
hence
six
months
later
than
originally
planned.
45