Quantifying spectral albedo effects on bifacial photovoltaic module measurements and system model predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We provide a comprehensive analysis of the effect of spectral albedo on photovoltaic (PV) module measurements and system model predictions. We demonstrate how to account for albedo in indoor bifacial device measurements by adjusting the applied irradiance using the scaled rear irradiance method, exemplified on fabricated silicon heterojunction (SHJ) modules. System model performance is studied using a detailed 3D finite‐element model, DUET, for fixed‐tilt and horizontal single‐axis tracked (SAT) arrays between 15 and 75°N. Spectral effects cause variations in measured SHJ module short‐circuit current up to 2% and efficiency variation up to 0.3% abs. We further demonstrate that rear‐side spectral mismatch factors (SMMs) resulting from including or omitting spectral albedo in PV system modeling vary between ±13%, while total (front+rear) SMMs vary up to 3%, depending on the deployment configuration and latitude. SAT array SMMs are weakly correlated with latitude, while fixed‐tilt array SMMs increase with latitude, driven by an increasing proportion of ground‐reflected light on the front‐side of modules. Ground‐reflections can constitute between 2% and 32% of total incident module irradiance, with notably high (>10%) contributions for fixed‐tilt arrays at high latitude. Effects of spectral albedo are most significant for: (1) fixed‐tilt deployments at high latitudes, (2) wide bandgap technologies such as perovskite and cadmium telluride cells, (3) albedos which vary steeply over the technology's absorption range, and (4) high albedo ground covers. Overall, we demonstrate that omitting spectral albedo effects can result in PV measurement and system‐level modeling uncertainties on the order of several percent in these cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".