Hello-
Thank you for maintaining this excellent forum.
I've recently been trying to evaluate new First Solar Series 6 bifacial modules using preliminary pan files and several PySAM modules. I've been using the IEC61853 module model to do this. I've been taking the following steps:
1. Parse the pan file and isolate key module parameters (Voc, Isc, RSerie, RShunt, etc.)
2. Run the module parameters through the `SixParSolve` module to get the parameters I need to run the `pvlib` single diode model, which I understand is the SAM/CEC model.
3. Run the SAM/CEC model across IEC61853 test conditions.
4. Use the results from 3 to run the `IEC61853par` module to derive Rshunt and Rseries fitting coefficients (D1-D3, C1-C3)
5. Finally run a full energy simulation with `pvsamv1` and the IEC61853 module model with a mishmash of parameters that partially come from the pan file and partially from various steps in the modeling process.
As I've done this, I've learned that my results only make sense when I use the reverse saturation current value (RDiode in panfile, Io in single diode equation nomenclature) from the `SixParSolve` module and NOT the current from the PAN file. These two values end up being quite different (1e-11 vs. 2.8e-12). Furthermore, after running the `Iec61853par` module, I get an Egref (band gap) of 1.0958, fairly different from the 1.45 I understand to be the empirically accepted band gap for CdTe tech.
Could you please give me some guidance on if the procedure (above) I've come up with for running the `IEC61853` module model starting with a PAN file makes sense?
Thanks!
