Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 466

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extensive comparison of physical models for photovoltaic power forecasting

Open access
Mayer, Martin János, Gróf, Gyula·2021·Applied Energy

Abstract

Forecasting the power production of grid-connected photovoltaic (PV) power plants is essential for both the profitability and the prospects of the technology. Physically inspired modelling represents a common approach in calculating the expected power output from numerical weather prediction data. The model selection has a high effect on physical PV power forecasting accuracy, as the difference between the most and least accurate model chains is 13% in mean absolute error (MAE), 12% in root mean square error (RMSE), and 23–33% in skill scores for a PV plant on average. The power forecast performance analysis performed and verified for one-year 15-min resolution production data of 16 PV plants in Hungary for day-ahead and intraday time horizons on all possible combinations of nine direct and diffuse irradiance separation, ten tilted irradiance transposition, three reflection loss, five cell temperature, four PV module performance, two shading loss, and three inverter models. The two most critical calculation steps are identified as irradiance separation and transposition modelling, while the inverter models are the least important. Absolute and squared errors are two conflicting metrics, as the more detailed models result in the lowest MAE, while the simplest ones have the lowest RMSE. Wind speed forecasts have only a marginal effect on the PV power prediction. The results of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the physical forecasting approach in the research community, while the main conclusions are also beneficial for PV plant owners in preparing their generation forecasts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116239

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 52 references

Cited by

See all 466

Metadata

Authors
Mayer, M. J., & Gróf, G.
Venue
Applied Energy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
283
Pages
116239
ISSN
0306-2619 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3108854659
Cited by
466
References
52
FWCI
13.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extensive comparison of physical models for photovoltaic power forecasting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116239
The paper
Mayer, M. J., & Gróf, G. (2021). Extensive comparison of physical models for photovoltaic power forecasting. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116239

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.