Randomized trial assesses solar irradiance model accuracy in South America, indicating the best models for planning solar energy projects.
This study provides the first continental-scale, multi-model validation of solar irradiance products in South America, comparing satellite-based datasets (CAMS, LSA-SAF) and reanalysis products (ERA-5, MERRA-2) against high-quality ground measurements from eleven stations spanning tropical, subtropical, and high-altitude environments. Using 15- and 60-minute data, we quantify accuracy through relative MBE, MAE, and RMSE. Results show that CAMS and LSA-SAF consistently outperform reanalysis products, with CAMS achieving up to 18% lower rRMSE than ERA-5 in lowland tropical regions and LSA-SAF reducing rRMSE by 30–40% relative to MERRA-2 at high-altitude Andean sites. ERA-5 exhibits moderate errors (20–30%) at mid-altitude locations but larger discrepancies in complex terrain, while MERRA-2 systematically overestimates GHI with rMBE exceeding +40% at several stations. All models show pronounced degradation at large solar zenith angles (> 60°). These results fill a major gap in regional literature by establishing a unified benchmark for model performance across diverse climatic regimes in South America, providing guidance for solar resource assessment and photovoltaic project planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ledesma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: