Interactive quick screen
PV Feasibility Quick Screen
What could a PV system do for this load?
Enter a system size and how much electricity you use. The screen returns what a system that size would generate at your reference location, how much of it you could use on site, and what that is worth in year one. Nothing is stored and nothing is asked of you — no account, no email.
Annual PV generation
26 311kWh/year
Specific yield 1 316 kWh/kWp/year · Prishtina reference · 30° south, free-standing · 14% system losses (PVGIS)
Computed live from the values in the form. Those start as worked examples, not your figures — change them to see your own case.
Self-consumption
46%
of what the system generates is used on site
Self-sufficiency
40%
of your electricity use is covered by the system
Year-1 energy value
€2 012
at the prices you entered
Where the year-1 value comes from
- Self-consumed 12 000 kWh, avoiding purchase
- €1 440
- Exported 14 311 kWh, at the value you entered
- €572
This is the value of the energy, not a bill forecast. A bill also carries fixed charges, network and metering components and settlement rules that differ by arrangement, and none of those are modelled here.
Production and use through the year
The use line is flat because you entered an annual total, which this screen spreads evenly across the days of each month. It is not a claim about how your consumption actually moves through the year — enter twelve monthly values to see your own shape.
Generation peaks in summer. Electricity use usually does not follow the same shape, which is why the bars and the line diverge — and why the split between what is used on site and what is exported matters more than the annual total. A large share of this system's output leaves the site, so what the whole thing is worth depends heavily on the export arrangement rather than on the electricity price you avoid paying. Shifting use into daylight hours, or a smaller system, would change that balance.
Monthly figures
| Month | Use | Generation | Self-consumed | Exported | Grid import |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 2 548 | 1 249 | 1 019 | 230 | 1 529 |
| Feb | 2 301 | 1 592 | 921 | 671 | 1 381 |
| Mar | 2 548 | 2 176 | 1 019 | 1 157 | 1 529 |
| Apr | 2 466 | 2 431 | 986 | 1 444 | 1 479 |
| May | 2 548 | 2 671 | 1 019 | 1 652 | 1 529 |
| Jun | 2 466 | 2 825 | 986 | 1 839 | 1 479 |
| Jul | 2 548 | 3 150 | 1 019 | 2 131 | 1 529 |
| Aug | 2 548 | 3 033 | 1 019 | 2 014 | 1 529 |
| Sep | 2 466 | 2 416 | 986 | 1 430 | 1 479 |
| Oct | 2 548 | 2 109 | 1 019 | 1 090 | 1 529 |
| Nov | 2 466 | 1 489 | 986 | 503 | 1 479 |
| Dec | 2 548 | 1 170 | 1 019 | 150 | 1 529 |
| Year | 30 000 | 26 311 | 12 000 | 14 311 | 18 000 |
What this screen cannot tell you
A screen answers whether a system is worth looking at. It does not answer whether this one can be built, connected and financed. Renewable Project Readiness is the work that does — on your site, with your numbers.
- Technical screening
- PV / storage analysis
- Grid and connection risk assessment
- Structural and electrical feasibility, where relevant
- Project economics
- Permitting and implementation pathway
What this calculation is
PV production uses city-level PVGIS reference output under the assumptions shown alongside. Self-consumption is estimated from monthly electricity use and the daytime-use share — an indicative monthly-balance figure, not an hourly simulation. A month whose totals match can still mismatch hour by hour, and this method cannot see that. This is a screening result, not a site-specific design.
- It does not replace a site-specific solar simulation. Production is computed for a standardized reference configuration. Your actual tilt, orientation, mounting, shading and system availability will change the result, and none of them are inputs here.
- It does not replace a structural assessment. Whether the roof carries the array is a separate question with a separate answer.
- It does not replace electrical design or an interconnection analysis. What the network will accept at your connection point is decided by the operator, not by a yield figure.
- It carries no financial verdict. There is no payback, no NPV and no internal rate of return here, because those depend on capital cost, financing, degradation and escalation that this screen never asked you for.
Where the solar resource comes from
European Commission, Joint Research Centre — Photovoltaic Geographical Information System (PVGIS). Retrieved once, validated and frozen, so the screen keeps working when PVGIS is unavailable and gives the same answer to the same question twice.
Reference configuration: 30° tilt · south-facing · free-standing · 14% PVGIS system losses. A city-level screening reference, not a site-specific solar assessment.
The exact PVGIS query
- PVGIS version
- 5.3
- Radiation database
- PVGIS-SARAH3
- Meteorological data
- ERA5
- Years covered
- 2005-2023
- Horizon
- DEM-calculated terrain horizon applied
- Module technology
- Crystalline silicon
- Mounting
- Fixed, free-standing
- Slope
- 30°
- Azimuth
- 0° (0 = due south)
- System losses
- 14% — PVGIS default
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-19
PVGIS energy output is the final figure — the JRC user manual describes it as the energy a system delivers with system losses already included — so this screen multiplies capacity by that output and applies no performance ratio of its own. And the system-loss percentage is PVGIS's own published default for overall system losses (cables, inverter, soiling, snow): a documented reference assumption, not a FlowOps measurement and not a figure for your site.
Quick Screen methodology v1.0
This is not the professional model
FlowOps runs a full PV feasibility model in project work: hourly dispatch, connection and hosting-capacity constraints, procurement and lifecycle, and a financial model calibrated against real installed systems. That model stays private and is applied inside an engagement. What you have used here is one bounded piece of its energy logic, published because a screening answer is more useful in your hands than in ours.
The professional model →