Forecasting is a crucial task for successfully integrating photovoltaic (PV) output power into the grid. The design of accurate photovoltaic output forecasters remains a challenging issue, particularly for multistep-ahead prediction. Accurate PV output power forecasting is critical in a number of applications, such as micro-grids (MGs), energy optimization and management, PV integrated in smart buildings, and electrical vehicle chartering. Over the last decade, a vast literature has been produced on this topic, investigating numerical and probabilistic methods, physical models, and artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. This paper aims at providing a complete and critical review on the recent applications of AI techniques; we will focus particularly on machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and hybrid methods, as these branches of AI are becoming increasingly attractive. Special attention will be paid to the recent development of the application of DL, as well as to the future trends in this topic.

We compare the 24-hour ahead forecasting performance of two methods commonly used for the prediction of the power output of photovoltaic systems. Both methods are based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), which have been trained on the same dataset, thus enabling a much-needed homogeneous comparison currently lacking in the available literature. The dataset consists of an hourly series of simultaneous climatic and PV system parameters covering an entire year, and has been clustered to distinguish sunny from cloudy days and separately train the ANN. One forecasting method feeds only on the available dataset, while the other is a hybrid method as it relies upon the daily weather forecast. For sunny days, the first method shows a very good and stable prediction performance, with an almost constant Normalized Mean Absolute Error, NMAE%, in all cases (1% < NMAE% < 2%); the hybrid method shows an even better performance (NMAE% < 1%) for two of the days considered in this analysis, but overall a less stable performance (NMAE% > 2% and up to 5.3% for all the other cases). For cloudy days, the forecasting performance of both methods typically drops; the performance is rather stable for the method that does not use weather forecasts, while for the hybrid method it varies significantly for the days considered in the analysis.