# Exploring the Benefits of Photovoltaic Non-Optimal Orientations in Buildings
## 3 Results
### Residential PVSCS
#### 3.1.1 Energy Analysis  
As was explained in the previous section, the different alternative configurations for the PVSCS were simulated in PVSYST and compared with the real data obtained from the PVSCS. In Table 3, the size and specific yield for the original installation based on the measured data (first line) and for the simulated original installation and the alternative ones are shown. It can be seen that the difference between the simulation and the real measured data were less than 1% for the original configuration (simulated is worst). This is a fair result considering the natural variability of yearly irradiation and reported results for PVSYST simulations [37], so the original simulated configuration will be the reference for the analysis. The energy optimum configuration is 11% better than the original one. Regarding the alternative configurations placed on the facades, the results range from a 10% lesser yield for the configuration using canopies and a 30% lesser for the configurations with coplanar modules attached to the facades. The energy balances are presented in Table 4. The PV production for the original configuration (both simulated and measured) and for the canopy and facade configuration are very close. Nevertheless, the simulated PV self-consumed energy differs from the 3.4 MWh vs. 3.0 MWh measurements. This can be explained due to different hourly profiles for the irradiance in the meteorological database used for the simulation and the real irradiance in the period under study. So, in the following, the comparison between the different alternatives will be made with the original simulated configuration. In this way, the effects of different meteorological data are cancelled because the same data are used for all configurations. The canopy and the energy optimal configuration have similar PV production and self-consumption, bearing in mind that the canopy configuration has a PV power which has 20% more installation. The facade configuration has the lower PV production, which is 16% lower than the original simulated, but the self-consumed energy is only 2% lower. Considering that these data are not clear enough, the effect of the PV orientations on the self-consumption variation. For a given consumption profile, the amount of self \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Configuration** & **PV** & **Energy** & **PV** & **Surplus** & **Energy from** & \\  & **Production 1** & **Consumption 1** & **Self-Consumption 1** & **Energy 1** & **the Grid 1** & **SCD 2** & **SSD 3** \\ \hline Original (Real & & & & & & \\ Data) & 6.1 & 13.5 & 3.0 & 3.1 & 10.5 & 49\% & 22\% \\ Original & 6.0 & 13.5 & 3.4 & 2.6 & 10.1 & 56\% & 25\% \\ Energy optimal & 6.6 & 13.5 & 3.6 & 3.1 & 9.9 & 54\% & 26\% \\ Canopy (SE \& SW) & 6.4 & 13.5 & 3.6 & 2.8 & 9.9 & 56\% & 27\% \\ Facade (SE \& SW) & 5.1 & 13.5 & 3.3 & 1.7 & 10.2 & 66\% & 25\% \\ Canopy \& Facade & & & & & & \\ (SE) \& (SW) & 6.1 & 13.5 & 3.5 & 2.6 & 9.9 & 58\% & 26\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* All energies are expressed in MWh, 2 SCD—Self Consumption Degree; 3 SSD—Self Sufficiency Degree.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Energy performance with the building and the grid of the different configurations for the PVSCS. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Configuration** & **\# Modules** & **PV Power (W)** & **Yield** & **\(\Delta\)Yield 1** \\ \hline Original (Measured Data) & 10 & 3850 & 1582 & 1\% \\ Original & 10 & 3850 & 1560 & 0\% \\ Energy optimum & 10 & 3850 & 1725 & 11\% \\ Canopy (SE \& SW) & 12 & 4620 & 1375 & \(-\)12\% \\ Coplanar on facade (SE \& SW) & 12 & 4620 & 1097 & \(-\)30\% \\ Canopy \& Facade (SE) \& (SW) & 12 & 4620 & 1325 & \(-\)15\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* All results except the first line are simulated.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Energy yield of the different configurations simulated for the PVSCS compared with the original measured data.