You are on page 1of 61

PERFORMANCE MODELING AND ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS FOR INDIAN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ANIRUDH B

(11MN01)

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING ENERGY ENGINEERING


Of Anna University

May 2013

SCHOOL OF ENERGY

PSG COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY


(Autonomous Institution)

COIMBATORE 641 004

PSG COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY


(Autonomous Institution)

COIMBATORE 641 004

PERFORMANCE MODELING AND ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS FOR INDIAN CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Bonafide record of work done by

ANIRUDH B
(11MN02) Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING ENERGY ENGINEERING


of Anna University

MAY 2013

...

...

Dr. R. Velavan
Faculty guide

Dr. S. Balachandran
Head of the Department

Certified that the candidate was examined in the viva-voce examination held on .

.. (Internal Examiner)

.. (External Examiner)

ALL PRAISE AND GLORY TO GOD

Acknowledgement

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
There are many people to thank who have contributed in various ways for successful completion of this work.

I would like to thank the management of PSG College of Technology and our Principal Dr. R. Rudramoorthy for providing me the opportunity to pursue my masters in Energy Engineering and to carry out my internship in Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions India Ltd.

I express my sincere thanks to the Head of the Department of School of Energy Dr. S. Balachandran for his constant support and advice during the project. I express my sincere gratitude to my mentor Dr.R.Velavan, Associate professor in School of Energy, for his unconditional support and technical guidance he provided for the project.

I have been fortunate to carry out my internship in Robert Bosch Engineering and Business Solutions India Ltd. I would like to thank the management and the Department Head of Mechanical Simulation, Design and NVH testing, Mr. Ramalingam Vijaykumar for their constant support and technical guidance. I thank Mr. Arun Pansare, Dr. H.V.Sridhar and Mr. Abhishek Srivastava for having faith in me to award the internship for a period of 6 months and for extending their technical expertise for successful completion of the project.

I express my special thanks to my friends for their never ending support and fun we had together during the course.

I express my sincere gratitude to my mother Mrs. Latha Bhaskaran and my father Mr. R. Bhaskaran for their eternal love and support.

Finally, I thank God for giving me strength and courage for all the good work I carried out in my life.

Synopsis

1. SYNOPSIS
The need for utilizing alternative sources of energy has increased in the recent past due to the diminishing supplies of fossil fuels and increasing CO 2 emission. Out of all the renewable energy sources, solar energy stands out to be the most ubiquitous and abundant source of energy. Solar power offers a wide array of advantages over fossil fuels from renewability and cleanliness to reliability and independence. To augment the usage of solar PV in both residential and commercial utilities, the expected performance of the PV arrays at various locations and climatic conditions must be made available to the user. In designing photovoltaic power generating systems, there is a basic requirement to accurately estimate the power output from the proposed PV array under operating conditions. In this study, a simple and reliable closed form mathematical model has been developed with suitable assumptions to estimate the power output from the following photo voltaic arrays of three different technologies installed in Bangalore namely: Mono-crystalline technology, Poly-crystalline technology and Micro-morph technology.

The developed PVIND (PhotoVoltaic INDian model) model is tested for three different analyses namely: Model validation analysis, model comparative analysis and model compatibility analysis. In the first set of study, the estimated power output is validated with the experimental data from the existing plant to ensure its reliability and accuracy. In the second set of study, the PVIND model is compared with the existing power output estimation performance tools like PVSYST to ensure the qualitativeness and to determine the complexities involved in the model to get acceptable results. In the last set of study, PVIND model is tested for its compatibility with other regions of similar climatic conditions to Bangalore.

ii

List of Figures

1. LIST OF FIGURES
Caption Pg.no.

Figure 1.1 Global Cumulative installed PV capacity.. Figure 1.2 Cumulative installed PV capacity in India. Figure 1.3 Production steps of crystalline silicon photovoltaic system Figure 1.4 Classification of PV technologies.. Figure 1.5 Development of utility prices and PV generation costs Figure 1.6 Impact on PV competitiveness of exposure to grid costs and taxes of self consumed electricity Figure 3.1 Hierarchy of PV and hybrid system models that use PVform Figure 4.1 Grid connected PV (crystalline II technology) system in Bangalore. Figure 4.2 PV systems instrumentation block diagram Figure 5.1 Flowchart for work methodology. Figure 5.2 Solar radiation on tilted surface.. Figure 5.3 Soil collected from crystalline I, thin f ilm and crystalline II panels Figure 5.4 Panel orientation in PVSYST... Figure 5.5 System design in PVSYST.. Figure 5.6 Detailed losses in PVSYST.. Figure 5.7 Daily system output in PVSYST. Figure 5.8 Power output profile on a typ ical sunny day from PVSYST Figure 5.9 Power output profile on a typical winter day from PVSYST Figure 5.10 Loss diagram from PVSYST Figure 5.11 Monthly power ouptut from PVSYST.. Figure 5.12 Performance ratio from PVSYST Figure 6.1 Measured power output profile f or a typical sunny day. Figure 6.2 Measured power output profile f or a typical winter day Figure 6.3 Monthly estimated soiling loss for crystalline II technology ..
iii

2 2 3 3 5

10 13 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 26 26 27 28 29

List of Figures

Figure 6.4 Linear regression model relating rainfall and thickness of soil for crystalline II technology.. Figure 6.5 Linear regression model relating soil thickness and drop in panel efficiency for crystalline II technology... Figure 6.6 Effect of temperature and soiling on crystalline II technology on monthly basis Figure 6.7 Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of crystalline I technology during summer Figure 6.8 Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of thin film technology during summer.. Figure 6.9 Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of crystalline II technology during summer.. Figure 6.10 Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of crystalline I technology durin g winter Figure 6.11 Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of thin film technology during winter Figure 6.12 Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of crystalline II technology during winter Figure 6.13 Expected and measured outputs comparison for crystalline II technology for Bangalore region Figure 6.14 Expectd and actual performance ratio comparison for crystalline II technology for Bangalore region Figure 6.15 Global Horizontal Irradiance for B angalore and Mysore regions Figure 6.16 Air temperature for Bangalore and Mysore regions Figure 6.17 Expected output comparison for crystalline II technology using PVIND and PVSYST for Mysore region.. Figure 6.18 Expected Performance ratio comparison for crystalline II technology using PVIND and PVSYST for Mysore region Figure 6.19 Performance ratio comparison for crystalline I technology between actual and expected values for Bangalore region Figure 6.20 Performance ratio comparison for thin-film technology between actual and expected values for Bangalore region.. Figure.6.21 Performance ratio comparison for crystalline II technology between actual and expected value s for Bangalore region

29

30

30

31

31

32

32

33

33

34

35 35 36 36

37

38

38

39

iv

List of Figures

Figure A.1 Solar resource map of India. Figure B.1 Climatic zone map of India...

46 47

List of Tables

1. LIST OF TABLES
Caption Pg. no

Table 4.1 Average air temperature at Bangalore.. Table 4.2 Average wind speed at Bangalore. Table 4.3 Average precipitation at Bangalore Table 4.4 Global Horizontal irradiation at Bangalore Table 4.5 Specifications of PV modules under study . Table 6.1 PV array power output trends at STC for different technologies Table 6.2 Uncertainty analysis of PVIND model.. Table 6.3 Mean and standard deviation for three different technologies Table 6.4 Hourly and monthly power output range at 95% confidence level Table 6.5 Exceedance of power output at P50, P75 and P90..

14 14 14 15 16 28 40 40 41 41

vi

Nomenclature

1. NOMENCLATURE
a b d Ea Eavai Emax ERY EY I Ia Iincident Imax Imodule Io Nd Nr p pd Ppk q Elevation angle in deg Tilt angle of the module in deg Day number Actual cumulative power output, kWh Solar energy available on the panel, kWh or kW Maximum capacity of the plant, kW Reference energy yield Energy yield Insolation, W/m2 Actual cumulative solar radiation, kWh/m2 Incident radiation on the module, W/m2 Maximum possible solar radiation, kW/m2 Plane of array irradiation, W/m2 Solar insolation at STC, W/m^2 = 1000 W/m2 Number of days in a month Number of rainy days in a month Experimentally determined constant = -3.56 Drop in power due to soiling, W Peak power of the panel, W Experimentally determined constant = -0.075 for crystalline technologies and = -0.113 for thin film technologies Rainfall in a month, mm Air temperature in deg C Module back panel temperature, deg C Cell temperature, deg C

Rm Ta Tm Tcell

vii

Nomenclature

td tm WS X

Thickness of soil formed in a day, m Thickness of soil formed in a month, m Wind speed, m/s Sample values Sample mean

Number of samples

Greek symbols Temperature coefficient, /K Declination angle in deg Latitude in deg Difference Standard deviation

Subscripts a avai d max pk Y Air Available Day Maximum Peak Yield

viii

Contents

CONTENTS
CHAPTER Acknowledgement... Synopsis.................. List of Figures... List of Tables............... Nomenclature Page No. (i) (ii) (iii) (vi) (vii) (1) (1) (3) (4) (5)

1. INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Background 1.2 Classification of photovoltaic technologies.. 1.3 Cost and competitiveness..
1.3.1 Impact of grid integration on PV competitiveness..

1.4 Thesis objective. (6) 2. LITERATURE REVIEW........................... (7) 3. PV PERFORMANCE MODELS FOR SYSTEM DESIGN.................. (9) 3.1 PV models developed by Sandia National Laboratories
3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 PVSS. SOLCEL.............. PVform.. PVSIM (9) (9) (9) (10) (10)

3.2 Other performance models.. (11)


3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 5 parameter array performance model. SolarPro. Polysun.. PVWatts. PVOptimize... PVSol. (11) (11) (11) (11) (12) (12) (13) (13) (15) (16)

4. GRID CONNECTED PV SYSTEM IN BANGALORE........ ...............


4.1 Site location. 4.2 PV system description 4.3 Instrumentation on existing PV plant

ix

Contents

5. MODELING OF PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS...


5.1. Solar radiation model. 5.2. Sandia thermal model 5.3. Soiling loss model.. 5.4. PVIND model 5.5. PVSYST model 5.5.1. Grid connected PV system design steps................................................... i) ii) iii) iv) Site location.. Orientation. System design.. Detailed losses.

(17) (18) (19) (19) (20) (21) (21) (21) (21) (21) (22) (22) (27) (28) (31) (34) (35) (37)

5.5.2. Simulation results.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.


6.1. Soiling loss analysis 6.2. Power output validation.. 6.3. Model comparative analysis.. . 6.4. Model compatibility analysis.. 6.5. Performance assessment of PV arrays

6.5.1 Energy Yield (37) 6.5.2 Reference Energy Yield. (37) 6.5.3 Performance Ratio. 6.6. Uncertainty analysis of PVIND model...... ........... 6.7. Probability and confidence level of PVIND model.. (37) (39) (40) (42) (43) (44) (46) (47) (48)

7. CONCLUSION. 8. FUTURE WORK


BIBLIOGRAPHY.......... APPENDIX A.. APPENDIX B.. LIST OF PUBLICATIONS...

Chapter 1

Introduction

CHAPTER 1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND
Developing countries, like India, are facing situations of dwindling energy resources, and there is an urgent need to address this constraint for social and economic development. India faces a significant gap between electricity demand and supply.

India needs to focus on developing its own sources of energy. Our major energy sources, oil and coal are imported in large quantities. Even with the development of nuclear energy, India will be dependent on other nations for fuel. To sustain economic growth, to come out of energy deficit situation and to ensure that energy is available in every town and village, India must utilize its immense potential in solar energy as she is endowed with rich solar energy resource. The average intensity of solar radiation received on India is 200MW/km2 with a geographical area of 3.287 million km2, this amounts to 657.4 million MW [1].

The Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission announced by Govt. of India in November 2009 on targeting 20000MW of cumulative installed solar power by 2022 and deployment of 20 million solar lighting systems for rural areas by 2022 have received widespread support from the world bank and Clinton initiative and also induced the industry to shift towards solar [1]. The cumulative global installed PV power capacity has grown from 1.25 GW in 2000 to 102 GW in 2012. Annual worldwide installed new capacity increased to almost 32 GW in 2012. Fig.1.1 [2] and Fig.1.2 [3] show the cumulative installed capacity of PV throughout the globe and in India. Five countries have a cumulative installed PV capacity of 5 GW or above: Germany (32.5 GW), Italy (16.98 GW), China (8.04 GW), USA (7.66 GW) and Japan (6.7 GW) [2]. These countries account for almost 68% of the total global capacity. Other countries (including Australia, France, Greece, India, Korea and Portugal) are gaining momentum due to new policies and economic support schemes.

Chapter 1

Introduction

120000

Global cumulative installed PV capacity MW

100000

80000

60000

40000

Global cumulative installed PV capacity

20000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Year

Fig.1.1. Global Cumulative installed PV capacity

Fig.1.2. Cumulative installed PV capacity in India

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.2. CLASSIFICATION OF PHOTOVOLTAIC TECHNOLOGIES


Silicon is the most common material used widely, while cells using cadmium telluride and copper indium (gallium) di-selenide are also available. Each material has unique characteristics that impact the cell performance, manufacturing method and cost. PV cells may be based on either silicon wafers as shown in Fig.1.3 [4] (manufactured by cutting wafers from a solid ingot block of silicon) or thin film technologies (in which a thin layer of a semiconductor material is deposited on low-cost substrates). A brief classification of PV modules is shown in Fig.1.4 [4].

Fig.1.3. Production steps of crystalline silicon photovoltaic system

PV technology

Crystalline silicon CdTe (Cadmium Telluride)

Thin film cells Multi junction cells

Monocrystalline

Polycrystalline

Ribbon sheets

Amorphous

CIS, CIGS (Copper Indium/ Gallium diselenide/ disulphide)

Fig.1.4. Classification of PV technologies 3

Chapter 1

Introduction

Thin-film photovoltaics is growing rapidly, and the availability of large-area deposition equipment and process technology, and the expertise of the architectural glass and the flat panel display industries, offer significant opportunities for high-volume and even lower-cost manufacturing [5]. Thin-film solar modules are produced by depositing thin films directly onto large-area substrates, such as large glass panels (larger than 1 m2) or long foils. With film thicknesses of around 1m, thin-film modules are inherently low cost because their manufacturing requires only a small amount of active materials and is suited to fully integrate processing and high throughputs [5]. Although conversion efficiencies of thin-film materials are currently lower than those of crystalline silicon, thin-film technology offers the lowest cost per watt and the shortest energy pay-back time among commercial solar products.

1.3. COST AND COMPETITIVENESS


Over the past 30 years the PV industry has achieved impressive price drop. The price of PV modules has reduced by 22% each time the cumulative installed capacity (in MW) has doubled. The price of the raw materials used in these elements (typically copper, steel and stainless steel) has been more volatile. Installation costs have decreased at different rates depending on the maturity of the market and type of application. For example, some mounting structures designed for specific types of installations (such as BIPV) can be installed in half the time it takes to install a more complex version. This of course lowers the total installation costs. Reductions in prices for materials (such as mounting structures), cables, land use and installation account for much of the decrease in BOS (Balance Of Systems) costs. Another contributor to the decrease of BOS and installation-related costs is the increase in efficiency at module level. More efficient modules imply lower costs for balance of system equipment, installation-related costs and land use [6].

Costs for the electricity generated in existing gas and coal-fired power plants are constantly rising. This is a real driver for the full competitiveness of PV. Energy prices are increasing in many regions of the world due to the nature of the current energy mix. The use of finite resources for power generation (such as oil, gas, coal and uranium), in addition to growing economic and environmental costs will lead to increased price for energy generated from fossil and nuclear fuels. In many countries with high electricity prices and high Sun irradiation, the competitiveness of PV for residential systems could already be achieved with low PV system costs and the simplification of administrative procedures [6]. Fig.1.5 [6] shows the historical development and future trends of retail electricity prices compared to the cost of PV electricity. The trend is similar for most regions world-wide. For example, in developing countries electricity prices are rising due to higher demand whereas PV electricity generation cost is reducing and offer more costcompetitiveness.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Fig.1.5. Development of utility prices and PV generation costs

1.3.1.

Impact of grid integration on PV competitiveness

PV market has driven prices down faster than expected, bringing some market segments in specific countries close to the first level of competitiveness already. But the question about the future remains: How will grid integration challenges affect PV competitiveness? A new study has explored the impact of potential additional costs either directly linked to PV participation in grid operation or related to the necessary system evolution and reached the following conclusions [7]: The costs associated with increased PV participation in system operation will, depending on the measures involved, have an impact on PV competitiveness as shown in Fig.1.6 [7]. The costs of widespread deployment of state-of-the-art capabilities in PV inverters will be negligible.

Chapter 1

Introduction

However, curtailment would have a considerable negative impact on the revenue stream of PV system owners, even when the cuts are limited; it should therefore be used only in extreme grid situations and after all other technically more efficient options have been executed. If PV system owners are required to pay grid costs and taxes even when self-consuming electricity, PV competitiveness will be delayed by a certain number of years depending on the market segment and on the country. On one hand, the increasing competitiveness of PV systems will also allow more room to invest in storage. The combination of PV and storage will become more and more economically attractive as the electricity savings from storage will exceed the revenues from the electricity sold on the wholesale market. On the other hand, DSM (Demand Side Management) measures would bring forward in time the competitiveness of PV.

Fig.1.6. Impact on PV competitiveness of exposure to grid costs and taxes of self consumed electricity

1.4. THESIS OBJECTIVE


The objective of this study is to develop a simple and reliable PV model with the help of the measured power output data from the existing PV plant and to recommend on appropriate sizing methods to PV consumers and system designers. Secondly, the developed model needs to be validated with the measured data and compared with existing models in the PV market for reliability. Moreover, this study determines the complexities involved in power output prediction performance tools to provide an acceptable sizing method for both well established and newer technologies.
6

Chapter 2

Literature Review

CHAPTER 2
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
Jiang [8] has examined the status of the solar PV technology and feasibility of solar energy in Singapore through the case study. The author has obtained the analytic results from an 8.88kW grid connected solar PV system consisting of three types of solar PVs, i.e. 2.7kW monocrystalline silicon, 3.06kW polycrystalline silicon and 3.12kW thin film silicon PVs. The conversion efficiency of mono-crystalline PV system has reached 8.12%, poly-crystalline PV system 7.45% and thin film PV system 6.75%

Zakaria Anwar Zakaria [9] has dealt with methods of design for the appropriate selection of a stand-alone photovoltaic power system for residential application in the absence of utility power supply. The author has developed a C++ computer program to implement the selected design procedures and calculated the size ratings of various components of the PV system. The design has achieved according to the mathematical model as realized by the selected algorithm for calculating the design ratings of the various components of the system. Julie [10] has executed a detailed analysis of the PV array performance. The data analysis consists of efficiency with intensity, monthly and yearly performance comparisons of roof and pole arrays with PV modeling simulations, and the effect of weather, temperature, and different orientations on overall performance. The author has compared the performance data to the results of photovoltaic modeling programs that were used before, and during installation of the system and showed that the accuracy is quite close. Granata [11] has outlined the methodology used to test the DC output, analysis techniques used to evaluate the array performance, current reliability assessment, presented the comparative data for up to five years of use and exposure, and discussed the methods used to track down the causes of unexpected string-level degradation. The author has found that proper commissioning is essential to detect installation errors, and acceptance testing should also be performed following any maintenance work. J. Adelstein [12] has deployed a grid-tied 1-2 kilowatt PV system at NRELs Outdoor Test Facility (OTF) and two 6 kilowatt systems mounted on the roof of NRELs Solar Energy Research Facility (SERF). The systems, which employ several PV module technologies including crystalline silicon (c-Si), amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), and copper indium diselenide (CIS), are being monitored to determine the long-term performance and reliability of
7

Chapter 2

Literature Review

the modules and arrays under actual field conditions. The annual degradation and seasonal fluctuation of the systems power output was observed to be between between 1 and 3 percent per year through PVUSA analysis. Ole-Morten Midtgard [13] has monitored three different commercially available photovoltaic modules at outdoor conditions in Norway. The results mainly focus on the measurement of key parameters and comparison with the manufacturers data and on seasonal variations of energy yield over a year. The author found that the mono-crystalline technology performed best on both maximum efficiency and overall energy production, whereas the module with triple junction amorphous silicon technology had the worst performance.

A. Kimber [14] has described the effects of soiling on energy production for large grid-connected systems in the US and presented a model for predicting soiling losses. This model was empirically derived and incorporated into an hourly energy simulation program that uses TMY2 data files and typical rainfall data to predict energy performance. The author has found that the PV module efficiency declines by an average of 0.2% per day without rainfall during dry days. This daily loss finding equates to an annual energy loss between 1.5% to 6.2% depending on system location.

Gobind H. Atmaram [15] has discussed the general procedure for estimating the measurement uncertainty and its application to develop formulation for the uncertainty in PV module power rating under outdoor testing. The expanded uncertainty in the module power rating at the FSEC (Florida Solar Energy Center) for outdoor testing was estimated to be 4.5% at 95% confidence level.

Chapter 3

PV performance models for system design

CHAPTER 3
1. PV PERFORMANCE MODELS FOR SYSTEM DESIGN
Photovoltaic performance models are used to estimate the power output of a photovoltaic system, which typically includes PV panels, inverters, charge controllers and other balance of system (BOS) components. These models create a generation profile based on a specific geographic location which helps to determine how much solar irradiance is available for harvesting. The meteorological inputs for any given location vary by latitude, season and changing weather patterns. To accurately determine the generation profile due to these changing variables results in better matching of system load with expected generation. Some models make general assumptions about system components and ratings while other more complex models take into account manufacturer parameters, derived parameters and empirically derived data. These models can also be used to evaluate system performance over time by providing a baseline to compare with if performance suddenly decreases and troubleshooting is necessary. This chapter discusses about the models developed and used by researchers at various laboratories for evaluating PV system performance [16].

3.1.

PV MODELS DEVELOPED BY SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES (SNL)

3.1.1. PVSS
The Photovoltaic System Simulation Program (PVSS) developed by SNL is a simple component model built in FORTRAN to simulate PV system performance by allowing the user to choose a variety of different system configurations for both on and off-grid PV systems. A plane of array (POA) radiation model was not used in this model. Array performance is based on a one-diode equivalent circuit equation for determining the current-voltage (I-V) curve. Temperature effects on irradiance are based on equation that is a function of the band-gap, a silicon specific constant, Boltzmanns constant and the cell temperature. This model does not perform any economic or financing analysis [16].

3.1.2. SOLCEL
SOLCEL is a system-level model used for both grid-tied and off-grid (battery storage) PV systems. It is implemented in FORTRAN and can run simulations down to an hourly time-step. A simple equivalent circuit model as described in PVSS is used to model array performance. Temperature effects on array performance are determined using a temperature-corrected efficiency model based on PVSS and modified based on different passive and active cooling configurations. The program can model both flat-plate and concentrating PV (CPV) incorporated onto trackers or fixed arrays. Weather and solar insolation data for the model is obtained using
9

Chapter 3

PV performance models for system design

the SOLMET (SOLar radiation and METeorological elements) typical Meteorological Year (TMY) database. The two economic-evaluation techniques the program implements are the life-cycle costing methodology and the Department of Energy (DOE)/Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) required revenue methodology [16].

3.1.3. PVFORM
PVForm by was one of the first system models for PV applications that can analyze and compare system performance in one or many locations with the benefit of incorporating system costs. The model has the ability to look at both grid-tied and stand-alone systems (with battery storage) and can allow a user to model system degradation, and the effects of load and component changes. PVForm appears to only model flat plate crystalline silicon modules. For weather and solar insolation, the TMY dataset is utilized. For financial information, PVForm gives users the ability to understand important metrics such as LCOE (Levelised Cost Of Electricity) for comparing the cost of other electricity generating technologies with PV. Fig.3.1 shows the PV and hybrid systems models that incorporate the POA and array performance algorithms from PVForm [16].

SAM PVoptimize Ongrid PVwatts CPF Tools PVform Hysim

IMBY Clean power estimator


Solar estimate

Fig.3.1. Hierarchy of PV and hybrid system models that use PVform

3.1.4. PVSIM
PVSIM was developed at SNL to better understand the electrical behavior between each module in an array. Specifically, it was built to take a look at module mismatch and shading loss. This analysis is done using a two-diode equivalent circuit model with empirically derived parameters from dark I-V measurements at a low (25C) and high (50C) cell temperatures. The software program allows for users to enter their parameters to create cell I-V curves determined through testing. From there, users can see how an array would perform at a variety of different operating temperatures [16].
10

Chapter 3

PV performance models for system design

3.2. OTHER PERFORMANCE MODELS 3.2.1. 5 parameter array performance model


The 5-Parameter array performance model was developed from research conducted at the Wisconsin Solar Energy Laboratory (SEL). This model utilizes the well-known one-diode array performance model for evaluating PV array performance. The 5-parameter model was intended to predict both maximum power and current-voltage characteristics using only data normally supplied by manufacturers. At the time of model development, manufacturers typically supplied values of: short circuit current, open circuit voltage, voltage at maximum power point, current at maximum power point, and the temperature coefficients of both open circuit voltage and short circuit current. This model can be used to predict performance for cSi, ribbon cSi, and thin film (CdTe, and aSi), however work is currently underway to improve the model accuracy for the thinfilm technologies [16].

3.2.2.

SolarPro

SolarPro software is a PV system simulation program from Laplace System based in Kyoto, Japan. The first version of the software appears to have been released in 1997. The user must first define the system in terms of mounting, array layout and orientation, then develop a 3-D layout that can have shading objects built-in. Interesting features include detailed analysis of module-specific shading within an array by looking at module I-V curves. It appears that the onediode equivalent circuit model is used to calculate array performance. Temperature effects are modeled as a function of temperature, irradiance and wind speed. System derates are lumped into one coefficient for soiling and electrical losses. Inverter losses are determined by an inverter specific efficiency, which can be changed. Based on the module database for the demonstration version, cSi, thin-film (aSi, CdTe) can be utilized, as well as the ability to input user-defined modules. System construction and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs can be included in the analysis [16].

3.2.3. Polysun
Polysun is a photovoltaic systems analysis software program designed by Vela Solaris in Switzerland. The software can model performance from the following PV modules: cSi, CdTe, CiS, aSi, c-Si, and Ribbon. For insolation and weather data, the program uses Meteotest. Economic analysis includes financing, O&M costs, incentives, energy prices, fuel cost savings and system value [16].

3.2.4. PVWatts
PVWatts is a grid-connected photovoltaic modeling tool developed by NREL that is based on the PVForm algorithms developed at SNL. This includes the POA radiation model and the modified power temperature coefficient model for array performance. PVWatts is available as a webbased application in two different versions. Version 1 allows the user to choose from preset
11

Chapter 3

PV performance models for system design

locations and PV system values that include the DC rating, derating factors, array type (fixed tilt, 1-axis or 2-axis tracking), array tilt and azimuth. It also assumes -0.5%/C which is reasonable for cSi but not for thin-film technology. Version 2 uses an internet map server (IMS) to allow the user to choose a more site-specific location than what is available in version 1 [16].

3.2.5. PVOptimize
PVOptimize is a software tool developed for the California market by KGA Associates and is geared towards installers for generating system quotes and design. The program uses PVWatts for solar resource data and array performance modeling. Modules available for analysis include cSi, CdTe, aSi, CPV and Ribbon. For weather and insolation, the program uses PVWatts (TMY2) data [16].

3.2.6. PVSol
PVSol is a photovoltaic systems analysis software program developed by Valentin Energy Software in Germany with an English language version distributed by the Solar Design Company based in the UK. Array performance is calculated as a function of incoming irradiance, module voltage at standard test condition (STC) and an efficiency characteristic curve. PVSol can use either a linear or dynamic temperature model. There is also an incident angle modifier for determining how much is radiation is reflected. The software can model performance for the following PV technologies: cSi, CdTe, CiS, aSi, c -Si, and Ribbon. For insolation and weather data, the program uses MeteoSyn, Meteonorm, PVGIS, NASA SSE, SWERA and custom inputs. The software has a great deal of economic analysis capabilities, including determining economic efficiency for cash value, capital value, amortization and electricity production costs [16].

12

Chapter 4

Grid connected PV system in Bangalore

CHAPTER 4
1. GRID CONNECTED PV SYSTEM IN BANGALORE
4.1. SITE LOCATION

The grid connected PV system considered for this study is mounted on the roof top of the corporate building as shown in Fig.4.1. The organization is located in a dense locality having the latitude of 12.971oN and longitude of 77.594oE.

Fig.4.1. Photograph of grid connected PV (crystalline II technology) system in Bangalore

The solar resource map of India is shown appendix A. The air temperature data for Bangalore as given in Table 4.1 was taken from NASA for a period between 1990 to 2012. The wind speed data for the location as given in Table. 2 is taken from NASA for a period between 2002 to 2012. Similarly, the precipitation data was also taken from NASA for a period between 1990 to 2012, whereas, the solar insolation data was taken from meteonorm software as shown in Table. 4.

13

Chapter 4

Grid connected PV system in Bangalore

1. Table 4.1 Average air temperature at Bangalore Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average air temperature at 10m above the earths surface deg C 22.3 24.9 27.5 27.2 26.7 24.8 24.3 24.4 25 24.1 22.7 21.9 24.6

2. Table 4.2. Average wind speed at Bangalore Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average wind speed at 50m above the surface of the earth (m/s) 2.85 2.77 2.58 2.33 2.7 3.71 3.7 3.29 2.54 2.18 2.36 2.85 2.82

3. Table 4.3. Average precipitation at Bangalore Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average precipitation (mm/day) 0.42 0.39 0.42 1.74 3.28 6.64 6.63 5.33 5.21 6.21 4.21 1.78 3.51

14

Chapter 4

Grid connected PV system in Bangalore

4. Table 4.4. Global Horizontal irradiation at Bangalore Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Global Horizontal Irradiation 2 kWh/m /day 5.79 6.48 6.89 6.63 6.34 5.16 4.78 4.85 5.02 4.68 5.19 5.5 5.61

4.2.

PV SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The PV plant under study consists of three technologies as shown in Fig.4.2 each having an installed capacity of about 10kW. The specifications for all the technologies are given in Table. 5. All the modules are inclined at an angle of 15 o facing south-west to allow natural cooling effect and to avoid dust deposition to some extent. Two 3-phase transformer - less inverters of each 10 kW are used for crystalline technologies and three 1-phase transformer based inverters of each 3.6 kW are used for thin film technologies.

Fig.4.2. PV systems instrumentation block diagram

15

Chapter 4

Grid connected PV system in Bangalore

The maximum inverter efficiency is 98%. The power generated from the plant is directly fed in to the grid. The PV plant was installed and started working in the year 2010. The available power output and other meteorological parameters recorded from Jan 2012 to Dec 2012 were taken for study.
5. Table 4.5. Specifications of PV modules under study Parameters Crystalline I technology per 220 110 Thin film technology Crystalline II technology 235

Power output module, W

Total power output, kW No. of panels Inverter Module Efficiency, % Panel area, m
2

10.12

10.56

10.34

46 3-phase 13.7 1.66 X 0.99 -0.43

96 1-phase 7.7 1.3 X 1.1 -0.25

44 3-phase 14.5 1.66 X 0.99 -0.46

Temperature coefficient, %/K

5.1.

INSTRUMENTATION ON EXISTING PV PLANT

The PV system considered for this study has specific instruments to measure the input and output parameters as shown in Fig. 9. Two pyranometers each with an error of less than 10W/m 2 have been used to measure the Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) and plane of array irradiance. An anemometer with a measurement range of 0.5 m/s to 50 m/s has been used to measure the wind speed at the plant site. Air temperature and module back panel temperature is measured using a calibrated thermocouple. The power output, solar radiation, air temperature, wind speed and module back panel temperature are recorded by a data logger at an interval of 15min.

16

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

CHAPTER 5
1. MODELING OF PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYS
There are different methods to assess the PV technologies ranging from simple basic model requiring only monthly meteorological data to complex model requiring detailed inputs from the plant throughout the year. Two basic sets of input are needed to develop a model, one is the meteorological set of data and the other input is from PV module side. The input from meteorological data can be either directly measured from the site or it can be retrieved from various public domain sites like NASA, NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratories) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). But, there exists a small inaccuracy in the public domain data, because those are measured through satellites and hence they may not provide us the exact data as it is measured in ground stations. Therefore, it is always appropriate to validate the public domain data with the measured data from the specified location to minimize the error.

Fig.5.1. Flowchart for work methodology 17

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

In this study, apart from the PV array prediction model, an existing model is used to determine the solar radiation at inclined surface and cell temperature. The flowchart for work methodology followed in this study is shown in Fig.5.1. The descriptions of the models are given in the following section.

5.1. SOLAR RADIATION MODEL


The power output from the PV arrays depends strongly on the solar radiation, which in turn depends on the orientation and tilt of the panels. In general, the solar radiation is measured on horizontal surfaces and therefore, the first task is to convert it in to plane of array irradiance. When the absorbing surface and the sunlight are perpendicular to each other, the power density on the surface is equal to that of the sunlight (in other words, the power density will always be at its maximum when the PV module is perpendicular to the sun). However, as the angle between the sun and a fixed surface is continually changing, the power density on a fixed PV module is less than that of the incident sunlight. Therefore, a simple trigonometric relationship is used to achieve the aforementioned parameter as shown in Fig.5.2 [17]. Irradiation on the plane of array is given as [17],

Fig.5.2. Solar radiation on tilted surface

(1) The elevation angle is given as [17], (2) Declination angle is given as [17],
18

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

(3)

5.2. SANDIA THERMAL MODEL


It is necessary to estimate the module operating temperature to obtain the estimated power output from the array; therefore, a thermal model is required to estimate the module operating temperature based on the local environmental conditions: Solar Irradiation, air temperature and wind speed. Site-dependent solar resource and meteorological data from recognized databases or from meteorological models are typically used to provide the environmental information required in the array design analysis. Estimates of hourly-average values for solar irradiance, ambient temperature, and wind speed are used in the thermal model to predict the associated operating temperature of the photovoltaic module. There is uncertainty associated with both the tabulated environmental data and the thermal model, but this approach has proven adequate for system design purposes [18]. A simpler empirically-based thermal model, described by Equation (4) and Equation (5), was more recently developed at SNL. The model has been applied successfully for flat-plate modules mounted in an open rack, for flat-plate modules with insulated back surfaces simulating building integrated situations, and for concentrator modules with finned heat sinks. The simple model has proven to be very adaptable and entirely adequate for system engineering and design purposes by providing the expected module operating temperature with an accuracy of about 5C. Temperature uncertainties of this magnitude result in less than a 3% effect on the power output from the module [18]. The module back panel temperature is given as [18],

(4) Cell temperature is given as [18], (5)

5.3.

SOILING LOSS MODEL

Dust contributes to as much as 40% degradation in peak power of photovoltaic [14], which is the second important loss factor after cell temperature that impacts the energy yield in a PV system. In this section, the study is focused on to develop a correlation to estimate the soiling loss in a PV module including rainfall as one of the key parameter. Even though it is difficult to measure the accumulation of dust on the panel on a daily basis, attempts have been made to collect the dust on weekly basis and measured it using an electronic weighing machine with a readability of 0.001g and repeatability of 0.2mg as shown in Fig.5.3. A 10W mono-crystalline test panel has been used to record the degradation of power output due to soiling formation. There are a few assumptions included in the model to make it simple and they are:
19

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

5mm of rainfall in a region can reduce the soiling loss by 0.5% [19] The rainfall days in a month is assumed to be evenly distributed The soiling accumulation for month includes new soil formation (in between rainfall days) and half of the soiling from the previous month

Density of the dust particles is assumed to be 3000 kg/m3 [20]

The correlation to estimate the soiling loss is given as,

(*(

+)

(6)

Thickness of the soil formed on the PV module is calculated using the formulae given below [20], (7) Where, (8)

Fig.5.3. Soil collected from crystalline I, thin film and crystalline II panels

5.4. PVIND MODEL PHOTOVOLTAIC INDIAN MODEL


The hourly and monthly power output data from the plant is collected and separated as sunny days based on the insolation and power output from the plant. The effect of temperature on the PV array has been analyzed and the other losses like cable losses, Inverter losses, shadowing losses, irradiation losses, module mismatch losses and auxiliary consumption have been assigned a constant factor based on the available standards like BS EN 50521, IEC 60502 and traditional factors to make the model simple. To avoid complexity in the model, the overall other loss factor has been assigned to a factor of 0.1 for all the technologies. The generic model to determine the estimated power output from the plant is given as, * ((( ) )+ (9)

20

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

5.5.

PVSYST MODEL

PVSYST V5.0 is a PC software package for the study, sizing and data analysis of complete PV systems. It deals with grid-connected, stand-alone, pumping and DC-grid (public transport) PV systems, and includes extensive meteorological and PV systems components databases, as well as general solar energy tools [21]. The following section describes about the steps to design grid connected PV system.

5.5.1. Grid connected PV system design steps i) Site location


study, Bangalore was chosen If needed, the albedo factor can be modified based on the geographical conditions, else it is left unmodified to its default value of 0.2 An appropriate site has to be chosen from the existing meteorological database. In this

ii)

Orientation
case, the module is oriented to 15o with fixed tilted plane option as shown in Fig.5.3

Modules can be oriented with the help of the available options in the software, but in this

Fig.5.4. Panel orientation in PVSYST

iii)

System design
capacity of 10.3 kW is chosen as shown in Fig.5.4

The capacity of the PV module can be entered according to our need. In this study, a PV module can be chosen from the list of manufacturers given in the software. In this case, Bosch solar energy of 235W mono-crystalline panel was chosen. The approximate number of panel required is calculated as 44.

21

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

Similarly, the inverters can also be chosen from the list of manufacturers according to the size of the PV system. Here, Danfoss inverter of 10 kW capacity with an operating range of 250 to 800 V is chosen. Based on the maximum inverter operating range, the number of strings is calculated as 2 with 22 panels in each string.

Fig.5.5. System design in PVSYST

iv)

Detailed losses
losses specified in PVSYST software as shown in Fig.5.5. They are: a) Thermal losses b) Ohmic losses c) Module mismatches losses d) Soiling losses e) IAM (Incident Angle Modifier) losses f) System unavailability

Losses can be defined by the user or it can be left to the default values. There are 7

In this study, the soiling loss values were entered as per the model developed in the previous section and all the other losses were summed up to 10%

22

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

5.5.2. Simulation results


After successfully designing the grid connected PV system, performance of the system needs to be analyzed on hourly and monthly basis. The daily system output diagram is shown in Fig.5.6. The graph shows a dip during summer and peak during winter conditions.

Fig.5.6. Detailed losses in PVSYST

Fig.5.7. Daily system output in PVSYST 23

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

Fig.5.8. Power output profile on a typical sunny day from PVSYST

Fig.5.9. Power output profile on a typical winter day from PVSYST

24

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

The power output profile during the sunny days of summer and winter seasons are shown in Fig. 5.7 and Fig.5.8. From the graph, it is evident that the GHI reaches as high as 1000 W/m 2 with cumulative incident energy of 7.239 kWh/m2/day and the power available at the output of the array nearly reaches 8000 W with a cumulative production of 58.89 kWh/day during a typical summer day. Whereas, during a typical winter day, the GHI reaches as high as 900 W/m2 with a cumulative incident energy of 6.321 kWh/m2/day and the instantaneous power output reaches 7500 W with a cumulative production of 6.321 kWh/day.

PVSYST is capable of delivering the total losses in the system as shown in Fig.5.10.

Fig. 5.10. SANKY Loss diagram from PVSYST

As shown in the above fig, temperature loss is found to be more expensive than the other losses. The cumulative power output and performance ratio on monthly basis are shown in Fig.5.11 and Fig.5.12. It is evident that the power output was as high as 1900 kWh during the month of January and it starts to decrease during summer and reaches as low as 950 kWh during the month of July.

25

Chapter 5

Modeling of photovoltaic arrays

Fig.5.11. Monthly power ouptut from PVSYST

Fig.5.12. Performance ratio from PVSYST

26

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

CHAPTER 6
1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A typical sunny and winter day pattern of measured power output is shown in Fig.6.1 and Fig.6.2. To start with the technology assessment, the maximum voltage and current at different insolation levels needs to be known. Therefore, manufacturers data sheet is used to get the trend for each technology and it is shown in Table 6.1

9 8

1200

1000 power output at the inverter kW Insolation @ 15 deg tilt W/m^2 7 6 5 600 4 3 2 200 1 0 9:00 0 17:00 400 800

Crystalline I Thin film Crystalline II Insolation

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00 time

15:00

16:00

Fig.6.1. Measured power output profile for a typical sunny day

From Fig.6.1, it is evident that the insolation reaches its peak value of 1058 W/ m2 at 1:00 noon and the power output reaches 8 kW and 8.63 kW at12:00 noon for crystalline I and crystalline II technologies. Similarly, thin film technology also reaches a power output of 8.93 kW at 12:00 noon. This graph clearly shows the effect of temperature on the panels during the mid day of summer.

27

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

10 9 8 power output at the inverter kW 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Insolation @ 15 deg tilt W/m^2

Crystalline I Thin film Crystalline II Insolation

0 0 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 time Fig.6.2. Measured power output profile for a typical winter day

From Fig.6.2, it is evident that the insolation reaches its peak value of 943.98 W/ m2 at 1:00 noon and the power output reaches 8.17 kW and 8.54 kW at12:00 noon for crystalline I and crystalline II technologies. Similarly, thin film technology also reaches a power output of 8.48 kW at 12:00 noon. This graph also clearly shows the effect of temperature on the panels during the mid day of winter.

5. Table 6.1. PV array power output trends at STC for different technologies
Technology Trend Crystalline I Thin film Crystalline II Y = 0.0101X Y = 0.0105X Y = 0.0105X STC output at GHI R 1 1 1
2

Where, Y is the power output in kW and X is the insolation in W/m2.

6.1. SOILING LOSS ANALYSIS


The soiling loss estimated using the model discussed in chapter 5 for crystalline II technology is shown in Fig.6.3 on monthly basis. From the graph it is evidently clear that the soiling loss percentage is higher during non-rainy months and almost reduces to zero percentage during rainy months. The soiling loss escalates to 11.2% during a rainfall of 13mm and reduces to a minimum of 0% for more than 150mm rainfall in a month. We know that the module efficiency is
28

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

affected by the amount of soil formed on the panel; therefore, a statistical analysis has been done to determine a correlation between the thickness of soil formed and drop in panel efficiency. Fig.6.4 shows a linear regression model between rainfall and thickness of soil deposited on the panel.
250 12

200 Rainfall mm/month

10

8 150 6 100 4 50 Soiling loss %

soiling loss Rainfall

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months

Fig.6.3. Monthly estimated soiling loss for crystalline II technology 0.8 0.7 Thickness of soil m 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Rainfall mm/month Thickness m Linear (Thickness m) y = -0.0029x + 0.6347 R = 0.802

Fig.6.4. Linear regression model relating rainfall and thickness of soil for crystalline II technology

29

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

Fig.6.5 helps the user to determine the soil thickness with the available rainfall data. Fig.6.6 shows a linear regression model where the panel efficiency drops by 1.62% for a maximum thickness of 0.756m. Fig.6.7 represents the comparison of two major losses in a PV module on monthly basis. From the graph, it is evident that the temperature loss is higher than the soiling loss
1.8 1.6 Drop in panel efficiency % 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Thickness of soil accumulated m Fig.6.5. Linear regression model relating soil thickness and drop in panel efficiency for crystalline II technology 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 Drop in panel efficiency % 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months Fig.6.6. Effect of temperature and soiling on crystalline II technology on monthly basis 30 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Thickness of soil m drop in panel efficiency due to soiling Linear (drop in panel efficiency due to soiling) drop in panel efficiency due to soiling y = 2.4622x - 0.3447 R = 0.959

Thickness m

drop in panel efficiency due to temperature

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

6.2. POWER OUTPUT VALIDATION


Based on the models considered and developed, the STC output, expected output with temperature losses, expected output with other losses and expected output with all losses are calculated and compared with the measured output and shown in Fig.6.8, Fig.6.9 and Fig.6.10 for summer conditions and shown in Fig.6.11, Fig.6.12 and Fig.6.13 for winter conditions.
STC output @ 15 deg tilt Expected output with rise in temp Cell temperature deg C Expected output with other losses measured output loss due to temp effect loss due to other effects expected output(incl. all losses)

12 STC,Expected,measured output and losses kW 10 8 6 4 2

60 50 40 30 20 10

0 0 9:00 10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:00 Time

Fig.6.7. Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of crystalline I technology during summer

12 STC, Expected, measured output and losses kW 10 8 6 4 2

60 50 40 30 20 10 Cell temperature deg C STC output @ 15 deg tilt Expected output with rise in temp Expected output with other losses measured output loss due to temp effect loss due to other effects expected output (incl. all losses) cell temp

0 0 9:00 10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:00 Time Fig.6.8. Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of thin film technology during summer 31

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

12 STC,Expected, Measured output and losses kW

60 STC output @ 15 deg tilt Expected output with rise in temp Expected output with other losses measured output loss due to temp effect loss due to other effects expected output (incl. all losses) cell temp

10

50 Cell temperature deg C

40

30

20

10

0 0 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 Time

Fig.6.9. Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of crystalline II technology during summer

12

60

STC, Expected, measured output and losses kW

STC output @ 15 deg tilt Expected output with rise in temp Cell temperature deg C Expected output with other losses loss due to temp effect loss due to other effects expected output(incl. all losses) measured output

10

50

40

30

20

10

0 9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

0 17:00

Time Fig.6.10. Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of crystalline I technology during winter 32

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

12

60

STC output @ 15 deg tilt Expected output with rise in temp Cell temperature deg C Expected output with other losses loss due to temp effect loss due to other effects expected output (incl. all losses) measured output cell temp

STC,Expected, measured output and losses kW

10

50

40

30

20

10

0 9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

0 17:00

time Fig.6.11. Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of thin film technology during winter

12 STC,Expected,Measured output and losses kW

60

10

50

STC output @ 15 deg tilt Expected output with rise in temp


Cell temperature deg C

40

Expected output with other losses loss due to temp effect loss due to other effects expected output (incl. all losses) measured output cell temp

30

20

10

0 9:00

0 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 Time

Fig.6.12. Hourly comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs of crystalline II technology during winter

33

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

Fig.6.8 to Fig.6.13 shows the comparison of STC, expected and measured outputs for the three specified technologies. In crystalline I technology, the loss due to temperature effects corresponds to 7.8% and in crystalline II technology the temperature loss is 8.5%. Whereas, in thin film technology, the temperature loss is found to be only 3.8%. This shows the impact of temperature on the output of PV arrays. From the above graphs, it is evident that, all the technologies show a close match between the expected and the measured output.

6.3. MODEL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS


Any developed model must be compared with the existing power output estimation performance tools to check the reliability and of the model. Therefore, in this study, PVSYST has been used for comparison with PVIND model. Fig.6.14 shows the comparison of power output between PVSYST, PVIND and measured values. From the graph it is evident that the estimated power output values are in good agreement with each other.
2,500.00

2,000.00 Power output kWh

1,500.00 PVIND 1,000.00 PVSYST Actual 500.00

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec months

Fig.6.13. Expected and measured outputs comparison for crystalline II technology for Bangalore region

Similarly, the performance ratio comparison between the PVIND, PVSYST and the actual PR are also in good agreement with each other as shown in Fig.6.15.

34

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

90.00 80.00 70.00 Performance ratio % 60.00 50.00 PVIND 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months Fig.6.14. Expected and actual performance ratio comparison for crystalline II technology for Bangalore region PVSYST Actual

6.4. MODEL COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS


The developed PVIND model is also checked for its compatibility with climatic conditions similar to Bangalore. Therefore, an extensive study on Indian climatic conditions was done to identify a similar climatic region. The study was concluded after finalizing Mysore as a region having moderate climatic condition similar to Bangalore. Both Mysore and Bangalore regions have an annual GHI of 5.5 to 6 kWh/m2/day and air temperatures of 23.725oC and 24.65oC respectively as shown in Fig.6.16 and Fig.6.17. The power output from the PV array is estimated using PVIND and PVSYST models respectively.
7 6 5 GHI kWh/m^2/day 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Months 8 9 10 11 12

BangalorekW h/m^2/day

Mysore kWh/m^2/da y

Fig.6.15. Global Horizontal Irradiance for Bangalore and Mysore regions 35

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

30

25

20
Air temperature deg C

15

Bangalore deg C Mysore deg C

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Months 8 9 10 11 12

Fig.6.16. Air temperature for Bangalore and Mysore regions

The PVIND and PVSYST model was applied to Mysore region for crystalline II technology and it is checked for its compatibility. Fig.6.18 and Fig.6.19 shows that the comparison of estimated power output and performance ratio between PVIND and PVSYST model. The graph clearly shows that PVSYST model is slightly over estimated than the PVIND model.
2,000.00 1,800.00 1,600.00 Power output kWh 1,400.00 1,200.00 1,000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months PVIND PVSYST

Fig.6.17. Expected output comparison for crystalline II technology using PVIND and PVSYST for Mysore region 36

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

100.00 90.00 80.00 Performance ratio % 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months PVIND PVSYST

Fig.6.18. Expected performance ratio comparison for crystalline II technology using PVIND and PVSYST for Mysore region

6.5. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF PV ARRAYS


The performance assessment for the plant has been done using standards and some by using measured data. The performance ratio of the plant is given as [22],

1.5.1.

Energy Yield

(10)

1.5.2.

Reference Energy Yield


(11)

1.5.3.

Performance ratio
(12)

37

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

The actual and expected performance ratio for three technologies is shown in Fig.6.20, Fig.6.21 and Fig.6.22.
90 80 70 Performance ratio % 60 50 Actual PR 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Months 8 9 10 11 12 Expected PR

Fig.6.19. Performance ratio comparison for crystalline I technology between actual and expected values for Bangalore region 90 80 70 Performance ratio % 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Months 8 9 10 11 12 Actual PR Expected PR

Fig.6.20. Performance ratio comparison for thin film technology between actual and expected values for Bangalore region

38

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

90.00 80.00 70.00 performance ratio % 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 months 8 9 10 11 12 Actual PR Expected PR

Fig.6.21. Performance ratio comparison for crystalline II technology between actual and expected values for Bangalore

6.6. UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS FOR PVIND MODEL


Whenever a model is developed, there will always be some assumptions made to make the model simpler. The assumptions for this model are as follows, The temperature effect on the silicon cell by the surrounding materials is assumed to be negligible The constants p and q used in the model is assumed to be close to the experimental values. The other loss factor in the model is assumed to be 0.1 The assumptions made in the model will lead to an overall uncertainty and hence it is necessary to perform the uncertainty analysis using the method of rule of squares and is given as[23],

(13)

From Equation (13), the overall uncertainty on hourly and monthly basis is calculated and shown in Table 6.2.

39

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

2.

Table 6.2. Uncertainty analysis for PVIND model Hourly uncertainty,% 9.28 8.87 8.83 Monthly uncertainty,% 3.56 3.85 2.78

Technology Crystalline I Thin film Crystalline II

6.1. PROBABILITY AND CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF PVIND MODEL


This section deals with the range of power output the model can estimate with 95% confidence level on both hourly and monthly basis. Similarly, it also determines the Probability at which the model can estimate the power output using the Probability Of Exceedance (POE) method. The mean and standard deviation for all the three technology power output samples are calculated and shown in Table 6.3 using the equation (14) and equation (15),

(14)


3.

(15)

Table 6.3. Mean and standard deviation for three different technologies Hourly values Sample mean Sample standard deviation Monthly values Sample mean Sample standard deviation 1303.75 1440.04 1318.1 170.49 195.74 110.21

Technology/Values

Crystalline I Thin-film Crystalline II

6.018 6.522 6.128

1.355 1.65 1.434

40

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

The power output range at 95% confidence level for all the three technologies using t-distribution table are calculated and given in Table 6.4.
4. Table 6.4. Hourly and monthly power output range at 95% confidence level Technology/Values Power output range (Hourly), kW Crystalline I Thin-film Crystalline II 5.772 to 6.264 6.227 to 6.817 5.874 to 6.382 Power output range (Monthly), kWh 1195 to 1412 1315 to 1564 1248 to 1388

Probability of exceedance gives the forecast probability of the exceedance of power output for particaular location at a given period of time. The POE for all the three technologies are calculated and given in Table 6.5 using equation (16), (16)
5.

Table 6.5. Exceedance of Power output at P50, P75 and P90 Power output at P50, kWh Power output at P75, kWh 1143 1263 1212 Power output at P90, kWh 1093 1204 1158

Technology/Values

Crystalline I Thin-film Crystalline II

1219 1329 1293

41

Chapter 7

Conclusion

CHAPTER 7
1. CONCLUSION
Data analysis, performance modeling and assessment of PV arrays for three different technologies have been carried out for Bangalore region. The PV array power output estimation using the PVIND model is found to be in proximity with the measured output with an uncertainty of less than 10 % for all the three technologies on hourly and monthly basis. The performance ratio for each technology is assessed and found to be 79.58% for crystalline I technology, 83.3% for thin film technology and 78.3% for crystalline II technology on monthly basis. The power output comparison between PVIND, PVSYST and measured values has been carried out and they are found to be in good agreement with each other. The analysis showed that the total cumulative power generation for a year in Bangalore and Mysore is found to be in close match with less than 7% of deviation with each other. The above comparisons give valuable information to PV consumers on the prediction capability of different tools and the complexities involved in the model to get acceptable results.

42

Chapter 8

Future work

CHAPTER 8
1. FUTURE WORK
The comparative and compatibility analysis for the PVIND model is performed which can be applied for other climatic zones in India to improve the models predictability and quality. T he soiling loss model developed in this study can be validated with more real time data for reliability as a part of future work. Ageing factor in the PVIND model can be included if more real time data is available to estimate the factor.

43

Bibliography

1. BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Performance of solar power plants in India, Central Electricity Regulatory Commission,
New Delhi

[2] Global market outlook for photovoltaics until 2016, EPIA, May 2012 [3] India Solar compass, Bridge to India, April 2013 [4] Photovoltaic energy - electricity from the sun, EPIA, 2012 [5] Photovoltaic solar energy development and current research , European commission,
2009

[6] Solar generation photovoltaic electricity empowering the world , EPIA, 2011 [7] Connecting the sun Solar photovoltaics on the road to large scalegrid integration, EPIA,
Sep 2012

[8] Fan Jiang, Andy Wong, Study on the performance of different types PV modules in
Singapore, 7th international power engineering conference, IPEC 2005

[9] Zakaria Anwar Zakaria, Baichao Chen and Mohammed Osm an Hassan, Modeling of
photovoltaic power plants, Electrical machines and systems, ICEMS, 2008

[10] Julie A. Roedik, Steve R. Bes and Henry W. Brandhorst Jr., Data analysis of solar power
installations project for Lee countys T.K Davis justice center, 35 th IEEE phtotvoltaic specialist conference, 2010

[11] J.E.Granata, W.E. Boyson, J.A. Kratochvil and M.A.Quintana, Long term performance and
reliability assessment of 8 PV arrays at Sandia National Laboratories, 34 th IEEE photovoltaic specialist conference, 2009

[12] J. Adelstein and W. Sekulic, Small PV Systems Performance Evaluation at NREL's


Outdoor Test Facility Using the PVUSA Power Rating Method, DOE solar energy technologies review meeting, NREL, Nov 2005

[13]

Ole-Morten Midtgard, Tor Oskar Stre, Georgi Yordanov, Anne Gerd Imenes, Chee Lim

Nge, A qualitative examination of performance and energy yield of photovoltaic modules in southern Norway, Elsevier, Renewable Energy, Vol. 35, pp:12661274, 2010

[14] A. Kimber, L. Mitchell, S. Nogradi, H. Wenger, The effect of soiling on large grid-connected
photovoltaic systems in california and the southwest region of the united states, IEEE 4th world conference on PhotoVoltaic energy conversion, 2006

[15]

Gobind H. Atmaram, Uncertainty estimate of photovoltaic module power rating for

outdoor testing, IEEE conference on photo voltaic energy conversion , 2006

44

Bibliography

[16] Geoffrey T. Klise, Joshua S. Stein, Models used to assess the performance of photovoltaic
systems, Sandia National La boratories, 2009

[17] http://pvcdrom.pveducation.org/SUNLIGHT/MODTILT.HTM [18] D.L.King, W.E.Boyson,


Laboratories, New mexico. PhotoVoltaic array performance model,Sandia National

[19] R. Hammond, D. Srinivasan, A. Harris, and K. Whitfield, Effects of soiling on pv module


and radiometer performance, IEEE 26th conference on photovoltaic specialist, 1997

[20] Rahnuma Siddiqui and Usha Bajpai, Correlation between thicknesses of dust collected on
photovoltaic module and difference in efficiencies in composite climate, International journal of energy and environmental engineering, 2012

[21] PVSYST users guide, 2012 [22] B.marion, J.Adelstrin, Performance Parameters for Grid -Connected PV Systems, 31st
IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2005

[23] Didier Thevenard , Sophie Pelland , Estimating the uncertainty in long -term photovoltaic
yield predictions,Elsevier, Solar energy,2012

45

Appendix A

1. APPENDIX A

Fig.A.1. Solar resource map of India

46

Appendix B

1. APPENDIX B

Fig.B.1. Climatic zone map of India

47

List of publications

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1. National Conference
Title : Performance modeling and assessment of different photovoltaic arrays for Indian climatic conditions
Author(s) : Anirudh Bhaskaran, Dr. R. Velavan, Mr. Ramalingam Vijaykumar,

Mr. Arun Pansare


Proceedings : National conference on New and Renewable Energy

Technologies NRET 13, PSG college of Technology, Coimbatore

48