Productos
menu item
Prospect
Estimación rápida del potencial solar del emplazamiento fotovoltaico
menu item
Evaluate
Series temporales y datos TMY para modelización energética
menu item
Monitor
Evaluación de la producción fotovoltaica en tiempo real
menu item
Forecast
Previsión de la producción de energía solar para hasta 14 días
menu item
Analyst
Gestión de datos solares simplificada y unificada
menu item
Integraciones
Automatice la entrega de datos Solargis
Casos de uso
menu item
Selección de emplazamientos
Encuentre la ubicación adecuada para su proyecto solar
menu item
Simulación de la producción de energía
Analice los beneficios y riesgos potenciales
menu item
Optimización del diseño de plantas de generación eléctrica
Encuentre el diseño óptimo de la central eléctrica
menu item
Rendimiento real de plantas de generación eléctrica
Conozca la verdadera producción eléctrica
menu item
Predicción de generación
Obtenga predicciones de la producción de energía del proyecto solar
menu item
Verificación de datos de tierra
Verifique la calidad de las mediciones solares y meteorológicas
Evaluación de recursos solares y meteorología
Validación y evaluación detallada del recurso solar
Adaptación al sitio de modelos Solargis
Combinación de datos de satélite con mediciones de tierra
Control de calidad de mediciones solares y meteorológicas
Corrección de errores en los datos medidos en tierra
Datos SIG personalizados
Datos SIG de Solargis personalizados para sus aplicaciones
Evaluación de la producción de energía fotovoltaica
Estimación de incertidumbres de energía y datos de entrada relacionados
Evaluación del rendimiento fotovoltaico
Estimación de energía para refinanciación o adquisición de activos
Estudio de variabilidad fotovoltaica y optimización de almacenamiento
Comprensión de la variabilidad de la producción en amplias regiones geográficas
Estudio del potencial regional de energía solar
Identificación de ubicaciones para plantas de energía solar
Nuestra experiencia y conocimientos
Cómo funciona nuestra tecnología
Metodología
Cómo transformamos la ciencia en tecnología
API e integración
Cómo integrar los datos de Solargis mediante API
Guías de productos y documentación
Notas de la versión
Casos de éxito
Blog
Ebooks
Seminarios web
Publicaciones
Eventos
Mapas y datos GIS gratuitos
Mapas de rendimiento solar
Acerca de Solargis
Socios
Certificación ISO
Empleo

Esta página aún no está traducida al español. Puede verla sólo en inglés.

Overview

To validate the accuracy of the Solargis satellite model data, we compare it with high-quality ground-measured data from stations around the world. The ground-measured data undergo quality assessment before the comparison, to ensure their high quality and uncertainty within the measurement uncertainty of the instruments. The table below shows the summary of the accuracy statistics of Solargis solar radiation data compared to high-quality ground measurements at more than 300 sites across all types of climates:

 

GHI

DNI

Description

Number of validation sites

320

235

-

Mean Bias for all sites

0.5%

2.2%

Tendency to overestimate or to underestimate the measured values, on average

Standard deviation

±3.0%

±6.0%

Indicator of the range of deviation of the model estimates for the validation sites

Expected range of bias outside validation sites (P90 uncertainty)

±4% to ±8%

±9% to ±14%

Depends on specific analysis of geography and availability of ground measurements

The maps below show detailed statistics for each validation site (click on the site marker to see the values). A detailed list is also available in the annex of the Solargis validation report (PDF, 1.7 MB).

Map of public validation sites for GHI

The map below shows the sites at which the Solargis GHI time series was validated against the ground-measured data. By clicking on a site, its details can be displayed, including the basic site characteristics, and the validation statistics - bias, Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), and the number of valid data pairs.

For several of the sites, the link to the original ground-measured data, link to Solargis satellite model time series, and a report with quality control results and the validation statistics is provided. Due to rounding, there may be small differences in the data displayed in the map, and data presented in the report. All data attributions are provided in the individual data files or reports.

Map of public validation sites for DNI

The map below shows the sites at which the Solargis DNI time series was validated against the ground-measured data. By clicking on a site, its details can be displayed, including the basic site characteristics, and the validation statistics - bias, Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), and the number of valid data pairs.

Simplified characterization of bias distribution

For practical use, the statistical measures of accuracy had to be converted into uncertainty, which better characterizes probabilistic nature of a possible error of the model estimate.

To characterize the bias at the validation sites in general we can make the simplifying assumption that the deviations between the model and the measured values follow a normal distribution. When describing the normal distribution curve the following facts can be observed:

  • Average of biases is close to zero. This means that there is no systematic tendency either to overestimate or underestimate (distribution is symmetrically centered).
  • Standard deviation of bias is relatively low. This will be represented by a narrow probability distribution, i.e. the P90 value (value exceeded in the 90% of the cases) will be closer to the P50 (most expected value).

As with any other measuring approaches, users cannot expect zero uncertainty for satellite-based solar models. However, if the physics represented by the algorithms is correctly implemented, one can expect robust and uniform behavior of the model for the geographical conditions, for which it has been calibrated and validated.

Positive vs. negative values of bias in GHI and DNI

In regions with low model uncertainty of yearly estimates, where it ranges from ±4% for GHI and ±8% for DNI (e.g. Australia) at 80% of occurrence, the sign of bias is very site-specific and may be random, although it is within the margins of typical model uncertainty. It is affected by:

  • local geography and seasonal patterns (can be visible in the monthly statistics)
  • length, quality and structure of ground measurements.

In some regions (e.g. India, China, SE Asia, Middle East, West Africa, and equatorial tropics in general), the expectation for bias is higher, but it has a more systematic nature (i.e., the model deviation may be systematically positive or negative). These regions are typically affected by:

  • high occurrence of fast variability clouds
  • high aerosols
  • occurrence of snow
  • higher latitude (above 40 degrees)
  • mountains
  • close proximity to large water (lakes, sea).

These factors may also drive strong seasonal patterns in the model deviation (e.g., bias is higher in winter or in a season with high aerosols or a high occurrence of scattered clouds). However, these factors may mix in a contradicting way, which results in the bias sign being more stochastic. All the aspects, together with higher latitude (i.e. occurrence of low sun angles in winter) contribute also to the increase of RMSD and MAD statistics.

Description of accuracy indicators

The performance of satellite-based models for a given site is characterized by validation statistics, which are calculated for each site for which comparisons with good quality ground measurements are available:

  • Bias or Mean Bias Deviation (MBD) characterizes systematic model deviation at a given site, i.e. systematic over- or underestimation. Bias values will be above zero when satellite-modeled values are overestimating and below zero when underestimating (in comparison to ground measurements).
  • Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) and Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD) are used to indicate the spread of error for instantaneous values. RMSD indicates discrepancies between the short-term modeled values (sub-hourly, hourly, daily, monthly) and ground measurements.

Typically, bias is considered as the first indicator of the model accuracy, however, the interpretation of the model accuracy should be done by analyzing all measures. While knowing bias helps to understand a possible error of the long-term estimate, MAD and RMSD are important for estimating the accuracy of energy simulation and operational calculations (monitoring, forecasting). Usually, validation statistics are normalized and expressed in percentage (e.g. rMBD is used for relative Mean Bias Deviation).

Other indicators can be calculated as well, like Kolmogorov-Smirnoff Index (KSI), which characterizes the representativeness of the distribution of values. It may indicate issues in the model’s ability to represent various solar radiation conditions. KSI is important for accurate CSP modeling, as the response of these systems is non-linear to irradiance levels. Even if the bias of different satellite-based models is similar, other accuracy characteristics (RMSD, MAD, and KSI) may indicate substantial differences in their performance. 

Representativeness of validation sites

Validation statistics for one site do not provide a representative picture of the model performance in the given geographical conditions. This can be explained by the fact that such site may be affected by a local microclimate or by hidden issues in the ground-measured data.

Therefore, the ability of the model to characterize long-term annual GHI and DNI values should be evaluated at a sufficient number of validation sites. Good satellite models are consistent in space and time, and thus the validation at several sites within one geography provides a robust indication of the model accuracy in geographically comparable regions elsewhere.

As of today Solargis model has been validated at more than 300 sites worldwide. Although the number of reference stations is increasing with time, the availability of high-quality ground measurements for comparison is limited for some regions. In this case, if a number of validation sites within a specific geography show bias and RMSD consistently within a certain range of values, one can assume that the model will behave consistently also in regions with similar geography where validation sites are not available.

The results of this validation across the major climate classes (tropical, arid, temperate, cold, and polar) are available in chapter 4 of the Solargis validation report (PDF, 1.7 MB). A summary of the results according to climate classes, for GHI and DNI validation respectively, is available here:

 

Validation GHI Solargis

 

Validation DNI Solargis

The accuracy of the model can be calculated provided that the absolute majority of the validation data have been collected using high-accuracy instruments, applying the best measurement practices and strict quality control procedures.

Uncertainty ranges expected for Solargis model

An analysis of the distribution of the bias across different geographies and situations lead us to the following conclusions (summary in the table below):

Location GHI uncertainty DNI uncertainty
80% occurrence ±4% ±9%
90% occurrence ±5% ±10%
Complex geography and extreme cases ±8% ±14%
Lower uncertainty regions
Most of Europe, North America below 50°N, South Africa, Chile, Brazil, Australia, Japan, Morocco, the Mediterranean region, the Arabian Peninsula (except the Gulf region), and regions with good availability of high-quality ground measurements
Around ±4% Around ±8%

Higher uncertainty regions

Latitudes higher than 50°N and 50°S, high mountains regions with regular snow and ice coverage and high-reflectance deserts, urbanized and industrialized areas, high and changing aerosols (India, West Africa, Gulf region, some regions in China), coastal zones (approx. up to 15 km from water) and humid tropical climate (e.g. equatorial regions of Africa, America and Pacific, Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia), regions with limited or no availability of high-quality ground measurements

Higher than

±4%

Higher than 

±8%

Based on the validation of Solargis data, a location-specific uncertainty estimate can be derived on a case-by-case basis by looking at the model performance after analyzing the local climatic and geographic features. 

More information about this can be found in chapter 5 of the Solargis validation report (PDF, 1.7 MB) and in sections 2.8 and 2.9 of this scientific book chapter.

Calculation of confidence intervals

When assuming a normal distribution, statistically one standard deviation characterizes a 68% probability of occurrence. From the standard deviation, other confidence intervals can be constructed:

 

Probability of occurrence

Formula

One standard deviation

68.3%

± STDEV

Two standard deviations

95.5%

± 2*STDEV

Three standard deviations

99.7%

± 3*STDEV

P75 uncertainty

50%

± 0.675*STDEV

P90 uncertainty

80%

± 1.282*STDEV

P95 uncertainty

90%

± 1.645*STDEV

P97.5 uncertainty

95%

± 1.960*STDEV

P99 uncertainty

98%

± 2.326*STDEV

From the confidence intervals, we can calculate different probability scenarios. The P50 value will be the most expected value (center of the probability density curve), from which various levels of confidence can be expressed. For instance, in solar resource assessment the P90 value has become a standard and it represents a number that would be exceeded in 90% of the cases.

 

Probability of exceedance

Probability of non-exceedance

Formula

P50 value

50%

50%

Mean

P75 value

75%

25%

Mean - 0.675*STDEV

P90 value

90%

10%

Mean - 1.282*STDEV

P95 value

95%

5%

Mean - 1.645*STDEV

P97.5 value

97.5%

2.5%

Mean - 1.960*STDEV

P99 value

99%

1%

Mean - 2.326*STDEV