Documents No /

S. No.
Page No

Shuaibah 3 Independent
Water Project. PV RAM
1
STUDY REPORT. SH3-02-
WA_-EQC-8258 - Page 5

Shuaibah 3 Independent
Water Project. PV RAM
2
STUDY REPORT. SH3-02-
WA_-EQC-8259 - Page 21

Shuaibah 3 Independent
Water Project. PV RAM
3
STUDY REPORT. SH3-02-
WA_-EQC-8260
 Shuaibah 3 Independent
4 Water Project. PV SH3-02-
WAZ-CDD-8290 (FA Rev.E)

Shuaibah 3 Independent
5 Water Project. PV SH3-02-
WAZ-CDD-8290 (FA Rev.E)

Shuaibah 3 Independent
6 Water Project. PV SH3-02-
WAZ-CDD-8290 (FA Rev.E)

Shuaibah 3 Independent
7 Water Project. PV SH3-02-
WAZ-CDD-8290 (FA Rev.E)
 Shuaibah 3 Independent
8 Water Project. PV SH3-02-
WAZ-CDD-8290 (FA Rev.E)
 Description
(As per Document)
The production report for the whole life of the plant is not available.
 122

120

118 Potential power output

116
Production (GWh)

PVSyst: Energy profile

114

112

110

108

106

104

102
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Year

Shading scene:

Electrical system:
Project Name SHUAIBAH 3 IWP RO PROJECT
PV PLANT - RAM STUDY
Document Name
REVIEW REPORT.pdf
SH3-02-WA_-EQC-8259 (FC Rev.0)_PV RAM STUD
Document Number
SH3-02-WAZ-CDD-8290 (FA Rev.E) - ENERGY STU

Document Revision 0 - FOR CONSTRUCTION

SWPC OE (TYPSA) Comments - (A-01)

Status
23-Feb-2024

Availability report is based on a ENERGY yield report.

Provide the Energy yield report to review the PV production calculation
OPEN
and TS for the Pannels, Inversors, plant configuration assumptions as well
as production results cannot be verified.

Availability calculations depend on failure rate values. If these values are

not in line with reality, the final availability result will not be representative.
Be aware that the average repair time may vary significantly from project to
project, taking into account material availability, as well as
OPEN
permissions/approval of budgets, if needed.

Also, failure rates are taken from 2015 literature. Modern equipment failure
rates may be different from 9 years ago.

Results are dependent on a series of assumptions. In case, any or some of

them are not fulfilled, they may not be representative of the final result.
OPEN
As inevitably the set of failure assumptions cannot be complete, the final
availability has to be lower than shown in the results.
It is not cleat to Typsa what the difference is from the data in page 24-25
(Annual plant availability: potential power output) and page 33 (PVSyst: OPEN
Energy Profile)

In the electrical system there are 112140 modules simulated. However, in

the shading scene there are less modules: 112056. Why is there a
OPEN
discrepancy? Is there enough space to include those extra modules in the
shading scene?

How has the module quality been calculated?

It is unclear to Typsa, how value T has been obtained, as the datasheed OPEN
states 5W steps, or alternatively a 3% power tolerance.

How has soiling been calculated?

1% seems low for Saudi Arabia. Why 0.5% has been selected for the first OPEN
year and 1% for the rest of the years.
Unavailability: Why has it been taken into account in PVSyst, instead of
OPEN
directly applying it with the availability program?
259 (FC Rev.0)_PV RAM STUDY REPORT.pdf
290 (FA Rev.E) - ENERGY STUDY PRODUCTION & SHADING ANALYSIS REPORT-

STWD / EPC Response

(27-02 -2022)

PC provided the Document

SH3-02-WAZ-CDD-8290 (FA Rev.E) - ENERGY STUDY PRODUCTION &
SHADING ANALYSIS REPORT-.pdf

The reliability data comes from the latest international sources.

We've shared these sources in the RAM STUDY BASIS &
ASSUMPTIONS document and in RAM STUDY REPORT, which we
shared with you multiple times. Despite these revisions, there
haven't been any objections raised regarding the data sources. As
this facility is new and lacks its own data, relying on the latest
international data is the most suitable option.

The results provided rely on the assumptions made, which are

based on the data available at this stage. Any alteration in these
assumptions will impact the outcomes.
However, as the project advances to subsequent stages, more data
becomes available, allowing for the formulation of more accurate
assumptions to conduct a more precise analysis.
Date Received by TYPSA 27-Feb-24

Date Reviewed 5-Mar-24

OE Comments Category Reviewed with Critical Comments

Comment Sheet version A-01

SWPC OE (TYPSA) Comments (A-02) Status

Noted. CLOSED
Reviewed with No Comments
Reviewed with Minor Comments

Reviewed with Critical Comments

For Information