Characterization and forecasting of national-scale solar power ramp events

Luca Lanzilao; Angela Meyer

cs.LGMar 27, 2026

Characterization and forecasting of national-scale solar power ramp events

Authors: Luca Lanzilao, Angela Meyer

Organizations: School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Quellgasse 21, Biel, 2501, Bern, Switzerland · Department of Geosciences and Remote Sensing, TU Delft, Stevinweg 1, Delft, 2628 CN, South-Holland, The Netherlands

Abstract

The rapid growth of solar energy is reshaping power system operations and increasing the complexity of grid management. As photovoltaic (PV) capacity expands, short-term fluctuations in PV generation introduce substantial operational uncertainty. At the same time, solar power ramp events intensify risks of grid instability and unplanned outages due to sudden large power fluctuations. Accurate identification, forecasting and mitigation of solar ramp events are therefore critical to maintaining grid stability. In this study, we analyze two years of PV power production from 6434 PV stations at 15-minute resolution. We develop quantitative metrics to define solar ramp events and systematically characterize their occurrence, frequency, and magnitude at a national scale. Furthermore, we examine the meteorological drivers of ramp events, highlighting the role of mesoscale cloud systems. In particular, we observe that ramp-up events are typically associated with cloud dissipation during the morning, while ramp-down events commonly occur when cloud cover increases in the afternoon. Additionally, we adopt a recently developed spatiotemporal forecasting framework to evaluate both deterministic and probabilistic PV power forecasts derived from deep learning and physics-based models, including SolarSTEPS, SHADECast, IrradianceNet, and IFS-ENS. The results show that SHADECast is the most reliable model, achieving a CRPS 10.8% lower than that of SolarSTEPS at a two-hour lead time. Nonetheless, state-of-the-art nowcasting models struggle to capture ramp dynamics, with forecast RMSE increasing by up to 50% compared to normal operating conditions. Overall, these results emphasize the need for improved high-resolution spatiotemporal modelling to enhance ramp prediction skill and support the reliable integration of large-scale solar generation into power systems.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: (a) Satellite-based SSI field and (b) PV power output of the 6434 PV stations, observed on 26 June 2020 at 14:00 UTC. Note that the PV power output is normalized using the station-specific 95th percentile of the power time series. (c) Elevation map showing values in meters above sea level. The black and red lines denote national borders.

Figure 2: (a) Time series of aggregated PV power production from 6434 PV stations, normalized by the maximum value observed over the displayed period, and (b) the corresponding magnitude of power variations, normalized by the ramp threshold

\Delta P_{\mathrm{tr}}

. Results are shown for the first two weeks of July 2020. The horizontal dashed red line indicates the threshold used to identify ramp events, while the vertical dashed grey lines mark midnight of each day.

Figure 3: (a) Empirical probability density of magnitude of the power variation over a time interval of 15 minutes normalized by the threshold

\Delta P_{\mathrm{tr}}

, measured over the year 2019-2020 for the aggregate PV power generation of 6434 PV stations. (b) Number of ramp events aggregated by hour of the day, with distinction between ramp-up and ramp-down events.

Figure 4: Hexagonal bin distribution of ramp magnitude normalized with the threshold $\Delta P_{\mathrm{tr}}$ as a function of hour of the day for (a) MAM, (b) JJA, (c) SON, and (d) DJF. Color shading indicates the number of samples per hexagonal bin on a logarithmic scale. The dashed white line traces the locus of maximum sample density at each hour, highlighting the most probable ramp magnitude throughout the diurnal cycle. The dashed red line marks the threshold used to identify ramp events. The bin widths are 15 minutes along the x-axis and 0.028 in normalized ramp units along the y-axis.

Figure 5: (a-c) Satellite-based SSI fields and (d-f) PV power output of the 6434 PV stations, observed on 23 May 2020 at three time stamps: 09:00 UTC, 10:00 UTC and 11:00 UTC. The black lines denote national borders. Note that the PV power output is normalized using the station-specific 95th percentile of the power time series.

Figure 6: (a,b) nRMSE and (d,e) nCRPS averaged across all PV stations and over the subsets of forecasts corresponding to (a,d) ramp events and (b,e) non-ramp events. Panels (c,f) show the relative difference in nRMSE and nCRPS, respectively, between forecasts during ramp and non-ramp conditions. The relative difference is defined as

(m_{A}-m_{B})/m_{B}

, where

m

denotes a generic metric and

A

and

B

refer to ramp and non-ramp subsets, respectively. For deterministic models, nCRPS is replaced by nMAE. Dashed–dotted lines indicate deterministic models, while dashed lines represent probabilistic models.

Figure 7: Satellite-based SSI observations and model forecasts over the area of interest at lead times ranging from 15 to 120 minutes. The forecasts are issued at 09:00 UTC on 23 May 2020. For the probabilistic models, the ensemble member chosen is the one with the lowest RMSE. Note that the IFS-ENS SSI fields represent a one-hour temporal average, whereas all other fields are instantaneous. The black lines denote national borders. The row highlighted with the red label is used as the ground truth. Missing panels reflect differences in the temporal resolution of the satellite observations and forecast models. For illustration purposes, the SolarSTEPS, SolarSTEPS-pa and IrradianceNet models are abbreviated to SolarS, SolarS-pa and IrrNet, respectively.

Figure 8: PV power measurements and model forecasts at lead times ranging from 15 to 120 minutes. The forecasts are issued at 09:00 UTC on 23 May 2020. For probabilistic models, the same ensemble member used in Figure 7 is shown. The row highlighted with the red label is used as the ground truth. Missing panels reflect differences in the temporal resolution of the satellite observations and forecast models. Note that the PV power output is normalized using the station-specific 95th percentile of the power time series.

Figure 9: Satellite-based SSI observations and model forecasts over the area of interest at lead times ranging from 15 to 120 minutes. The forecasts are issued at 11:00 UTC on 3 October 2020. For the probabilistic models, the ensemble member chosen is the one with the lowest RMSE. Note that the IFS-ENS SSI fields represent a one-hour temporal average, whereas all other fields are instantaneous. The black lines denote national borders. The row highlighted with the red label is used as the ground truth. Missing panels reflect differences in the temporal resolution of the satellite observations and forecast models.

Figure 10: PV power measurements and model forecasts at lead times ranging from 15 to 120 minutes. The forecasts are issued at 11:00 UTC on 3 October 2020, a day with high-variability weather. For probabilistic models, the same ensemble member used in Figure 9 is shown. The black lines denote national borders. The row highlighted with the red label is used as the ground truth. Missing panels reflect differences in the temporal resolution of the satellite observations and forecast models. Note that the PV power output is normalized using the station-specific 95th percentile of the power time series.

Figure 11: Satellite-based SSI observations and model forecasts over the area of interest at lead times ranging from 15 to 120 minutes. The forecasts are issued at 08:00 UTC on 7 June 2019. For the probabilistic models, the ensemble member chosen is the one with the lowest RMSE. Note that the IFS-ENS SSI fields represent a one-hour temporal average, whereas all other fields are instantaneous. The black lines denote national borders. The row highlighted with the red label is used as the ground truth. Missing panels reflect differences in the temporal resolution of the satellite observations and forecast models.

Figure 12: PV power measurements and model forecasts at lead times ranging from 15 to 120 minutes. The forecasts are issued at 08:00 UTC on 7 June 2019. For probabilistic models, the same ensemble member used in Figure 11 is shown. The black lines denote national borders. The row highlighted with the red label is used as the ground truth. Missing panels reflect differences in the temporal resolution of the satellite observations and forecast models. Note that the PV power output is normalized using the station-specific 95th percentile of the power time series.

Appendix figures & tables1 asset

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Figure 13: Comparison of (a-c) SSI and (d-f) aggregated PV power forecasts computed for the three case studies discussed in Section 5. The SSI is spatially interpolated to each station location, averaged across all stations, and normalized by its maximum value within the corresponding 2-hour period. The PV power generated is summed over all stations and normalized by the maximum measured aggregated PV power within the same time window. The vertical dashed red line marks the occurrence time of the ramp event.

Solar Power Forecasting

Solar power forecasting predicts photovoltaic generation and irradiance from weather, imagery, plant data, and recent output to support reliable grid and energy decisions.

See all 45 papers

Meteorological data and Sky Images meets Neural Models for Photovoltaic Power Forecasting
Feb 17, 2026Ines Montoya-Espinagosa, Antonio AgudoSolar Power Forecasting Multivariate Time Series Forecasting
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. · Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial, CSIC-UPC, Barcelona, Spain.
FarSky: Task-Aware Latent-Space Coupling for Generative Intra-Hour Solar Forecasting
Aug 6, 2026Yann Fabel, Bijan Nouri, Milon Miah +4Solar Irradiance Forecasting Time Series Forecasting
1DLR, Institute of Solar Research · 2RWTH Aachen University · 3CIEMAT, Energy Department, Renewable Energy Division
Constructed regional photovoltaic generation fields improve ultra-short-term distributed solar forecasting
Oct 12, 2026Dayin Chen, Xiaodan Shi, Xin Xu +5Solar Power Forecasting Spatiotemporal Forecasting
Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Industrial Intelligence and Digital Twin, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo 315200, China. · Ningbo Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacturing Simulation, Eastern Institute of Technology, Ningbo 315200, China · Department of Building Environment and Energy Engineering, and the International Centre of Urban Energy Nexus, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China. +1

Feb 17, 2026J/K move · Enter open · S save

Meteorological data and Sky Images meets Neural Models for Photovoltaic Power Forecasting

Ines Montoya-Espinagosa, Antonio Agudo

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. · Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial, CSIC-UPC, Barcelona, Spain.

Solar Power Forecasting Multivariate Time Series Forecasting

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

Due to the rise in the use of renewable energies as an alternative to traditional ones, and especially solar energy, there is increasing interest in studying how to address photovoltaic forecasting in the face of the challenge of variability in photovoltaic energy production, using different methodologies. This work develops a hybrid approach for short and long-term forecasting based on two studies with the same purpose. A multimodal approach that combines images of the sky and photovoltaic energy history with meteorological data is proposed. The main goal is to improve the accuracy of ramp event prediction, increase the robustness of forecasts in cloudy conditions, and extend capabilities beyond nowcasting, to support more efficient operation of the power grid and better management of solar variability. Deep neural models are used for both nowcasting and forecasting solutions, incorporating individual and multiple meteorological variables, as well as an analytical solar position. The results demonstrate that the inclusion of meteorological data, particularly the surface long-wave, radiation downwards, and the combination of wind and solar position, significantly improves current predictions in both nowcasting and forecasting tasks, especially on cloudy days. This study highlights the importance of integrating diverse data sources to improve the reliability and interpretability of solar energy prediction models.

Abstract

Solar Power Forecasting

Explore similar work

Meteorological data and Sky Images meets Neural Models for Photovoltaic Power Forecasting

FarSky: Task-Aware Latent-Space Coupling for Generative Intra-Hour Solar Forecasting

Constructed regional photovoltaic generation fields improve ultra-short-term distributed solar forecasting