Energy 58 (2013) 511e518

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Performance assessment of different solar photovoltaic technologies

under similar outdoor conditions
Vikrant Sharma a, Arun Kumar b, O.S. Sastry b, S.S. Chandel a, *
a
Centre for Energy and Environment National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur 177005, India
b
Solar Energy Centre, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Gurgaon 110003, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The site-specific evaluation of a solar photovoltaic technology helps in identifying its suitability for that
Received 8 February 2013 location. The objective of the present study is to assess the suitability of different PV technologies under
Received in revised form Indian climatic conditions. The performance assessment of photovoltaic technology arrays consisting of
28 May 2013
polycrystalline silicon, hetero-junction with intrinsic thin layer silicon and amorphous single junction
Accepted 31 May 2013
Available online 1 July 2013
silicon is carried out at a test facility at Solar Energy Centre, in India. The energy yield and performance
ratio of each technology, are evaluated. The performance of each technology is also predicted using PV
system simulation software and compared with the measured performance. A correction to the module
Keywords:
Performance assessment
efficiency, results in reducing the absolute percentage error between measured and predicted annual
HIT energy yield and performance ratio values to 4.89%, 4.94%, 1.16% and 4.34%, 4.93%, 1.88% for p-Si, HIT and
Amorphous Silicon a-Si arrays respectively. The performance comparison shows that HIT and a-Si arrays have performed
Multi-crystalline silicon better than p-Si array at this location. The energy yield of a-Si modules is found to be 14% more in
Photovoltaic systems summer months and 6% less in winter months in comparison to p-Si modules. The HIT modules are
found to produce 4e12% more energy consistently than p-Si modules.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The Solar Photovoltaic (PV) system installations in India have
increased after the launch of Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission
(JNNSM) by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of
India. The main objective of the JNNSM is to achieve 20 GWp gener-
ation capacity using solar power systems by 2020 [1]. The capacity of
installed grid connected PV systems in India, is about 1176 MW as on
31 Jan 2013 in which mono, polycrystalline silicon (p-Si) modules are
mostly used [2]. Thus, crystalline silicon modules have dominated the
PV installations in India. However, emerging new PV technologies like
Copper Indium di-Selenide (CIS), Hetero-junction with Intrinsic Thin
layer (HIT), Cadmium telluride (CdTe) and concentrator having low
manufacturing costs and high efficiencies are also deployed world-
wide. The knowledge of performance of different PV technologies
under diverse Indian climatic conditions is a key parameter for the
successful implementation of the Solar Mission. There are evidences
that modules of differing technologies are more suitable for certain
specific climates. A number of studies on these aspects have been
carried out by different researchers. Raugei et al. [3] have carried out
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 9418011957; fax: þ91 1972 223834.
E-mail address: chandel_shyam@yahoo.com (S.S. Chandel).
the energy and life cycle assessment of CdTe and CIS PV technologies
and found that these PV technologies will be quite competitive with
well-established p-Si PV technology. Singh [4] in a review reveals that
electric energy generation using PV technology is strongly influenced
by the geographical location, orientation and type of PV technology.
Akhmad et al. [5] compared the performance of single junction
amorphous (a-Si) and polycrystalline (p-Si) silicon PV modules at
Kobe, Japan. The a-Si modules are found to be more suitable for
tropical climates. Sasitharanuwat et al. [6] evaluated the performance
of 10 kWp system consisting of three technologies namely a-Si thin
film, p-Si and HIT for the first 6 months of operation at Naresuan
University, Thailand. A comparison of the energy yields shows that
the highest output power per Watt peak was generated by the a-Si
panel, followed by HIT panel and the lowest by p-Si panel under
similar outdoor conditions. Carr et al. [7] compared the performance
of five different PV technology modules: c-Si, p-Si, amorphous triple
junction silicon (a-3j-Si), CIS and the laser grooved buried contact
(LGBC) c-Si, in the temperate climate of Perth, Western Australia over
a year. The results show significant differences in the behavior and
energy output of different module types. del Cueto [8] studied the
comparative performance of PV modules installed at fixed tilt at
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and found that 14 PV
modules of crystalline, amorphous, polycrystalline silicon, cadmium
telluride and copper indium crystalline PV technology module

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.05.068
512 V. Sharma et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 511e518

perform better during winters whereas thin film technology PV

module perform better during summer months. Williams et al. [9]
investigated the performance of p-Si, single and multi junction a-Si
and CdTe PV modules installed at Loughborough in UK and found that
factors like module temperature, magnitude of incident irradiance,
spectrum of incident radiation, age of the PV module influence the
electric energy generation. Makrides et al. [10] evaluated the per-
formance of thirteen different PV technology systems with nominal
power 1 kWp each under the high irradiance and hot climatic con-
dition of Cyprus. The outcome of the study indicates that the energy
yield range between 1600 and 1700 (kWh/kWp), the highest energy
yields have been produced by the technologies having lowest
temperature coefficient of maximum power (Pmax) indicating the
importance of the temperature losses due to hot climate. Rehman
et al. [11] evaluated the effect of temperature on performance of a
5.8 kWp stand-alone system consisting of p-Si modules in Saudi
Arabia. The results indicate that the performance of PV module de- Fig. 1. Experimental Photovoltaic Test Facility at SEC, Gurgaon, India.
creases with the increase in module surface temperature.
These site-specific evaluation studies have helped in identifying 4 parallel strings of 4 modules in series. The HIT array comprises 8
suitable technologies for those locations. Therefore, the main modules of 210 Wp each; IeV data are collected for two parallel
objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of different PV strings having 4 modules in series. The p-Si array comprises of 10
technologies under Indian conditions. An experimental photovol- modules of 160 Wp each, and the IeV data are collected for two
taic test facility with three different photovoltaic technology parallel strings with 5 modules in series. To record IeV data of each
module arrays: a-Si, p-Si and HIT have been set up at Solar Energy technology, the PV arrays are connected to individual specially
Centre (SEC), Gurgaon (Latitude 28 37N, Longitude 77 04E) under developed measurement system (Fig. 3). This equipment takes IeV
joint collaboration with the Advanced Industrial, Science and performance data of each PV array after every 10 min and the
Technology (AIST), Japan. SEC is an R & D division of Ministry of New analyzer identifies the maximum power (Pmax), voltage (Vmax) and
and Renewable Energy which is involved in variety of studies current (Imax) which is stored in the data logger.
including the validation of matured PV technologies suitable for A comprehensive meteorological data recording station is
specific site/ conditions. The planning engineering construction installed on the rooftop of the control room (Fig. 4). The parameters
contractors engage simulation software to compute the expected recorded include ambient temperature, relative humidity, wind
energy output (kWh) of the power plant which is valuable for in- speed, wind direction, sun spectrum and solar radiation. The solar
vestors, bankers and policy makers. Although, a number of modeling radiation intensity is measured on the horizontal surface and at the
software are now available in the market, yet the best design soft- tilt of PV panels using two Pyranometers. The specifications of the
ware is one which can accurately predict the energy output. The Pyranometer used, are given in Table 2. The data are recorded for
selection of the software should be based on the judgment that how every minute by a Campbell Scientific data logger CR-1000.
closely the predicted and measured data agree. So far, very few
studies have been reported on comparison between actual 3. Methodology
measured and predicted performance using the PV system simula-
tion software [12,13]. In this study, measured and predicted per- In order to analyze the performance of a PV system, the
formance of three different PV technology arrays, are compared performance parameters have been specified by International En-
during the first year of outdoor operation. ergy Agency (IEA) [14]. The total energy generated, array yield (YA),
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a reference yield (YR), and performance ratio (PR) are the important
description of experimental PV test-bed facility. In Section 3, parameters which provide information about the overall system
methodology is explained. The results and discussion are presented performance, with respect to energy production and system losses.
in Section 4. The main conclusions are given in Section 5.
3.1. Total energy generated
2. Experimental photovoltaic test facility
The total daily (EDC,d) and monthly (EDC,m) energy generated by
The experimental test facility of three different PV technology the PV array is given as:
arrays at 28 tilt angle installed at the Solar Energy Centre (SEC)
Gurgaon (Latitude 28 37N, Longitude 77 04E), lies in the com- X
24 X
N
EðDC;DÞ ¼ EðDC;tÞ ; EðDC;mÞ ¼ EðDC;dÞ (1)
posite climatic zone (Fig. 1). The monthly average ambient tem-
t¼1 d¼1
perature varies from 11  C in January to 34  C in May. The relative
humidity at the site remains higher during monsoon months July where N is the number of days in the month, EDC,t is the instanta-
and August with annual average variation from 42% to 62%. The neous measured energy.
wind speeds at the location are light and moderate with annual
average of 1.5 m/s and monthly global horizontal solar radiation
Table 1
varies from 2.6 kWh/m2-day in January to 6.1 kWh/m2-day in May.
Specifications of representative module.
The nominal rating of p-Si array is 1.6 kWp, HIT array is 1.68 kWp
and a-Si array is 1.2 kWp. The specifications of the representative Technology Make Model Voc (V) Isc (A) Pmax Vmp Imp h (%)
Type (W) (V) (A)
module of each technology array are given in the Table 1.
The schematic diagram of the installed experimental PV test p-Si SHARP ND-160AV 25.60 8.42 160 21.28 7.52 15.8
facility is shown in the Fig. 2. The a-Si PV array consists of 16 HIT SANYO HIP 210BKHS 73.6 3.79 210 70.00 3.52 17.3
a-Si KANEKA Z-EA075 91.8 1.4 75 67.00 1.12 7.6
modules of 75 Wp each, current voltage (IeV) data are collected for
 V. Sharma et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 511e518 513

Fig. 2. Schematic of Photovoltaic Test Facility at SEC, Gurgaon, India.

3.2. Array yield (YA) 3.4. Performance ratio (PR)

Array yield (YA) is defined as the total energy generated by the
PV array for a defined period (day, month or year) divided by the
rated output power of the installed PV array and is given by:
YA ¼ EDC =PPV;Rated
Performance ratio is defined as the ratio of the array yield (YA) to
the reference yield (YR). This normalizes performance parameter
with respect to the incident solar radiation is a dimensionless
quantity and provides important information on the overall effect
of losses. This parameter is used to evaluate the long-term changes
(2)
in the performance and decreasing year wise PR values are indic-
ative of loss in the performance.

3.3. Reference yield (YR) PR ¼ YA =YR (4)

Reference yield is defined as the ratio of total in plane solar Each technology PV array is monitored to assess its performance
insolation Ht (kWh/m2) to the reference irradiance G (1 kW/m2). as per IEC standard 61724 [15]. The data of actual power generation
This parameter represents equal number of hours at the reference of each technology array and weather data of the site for the year
irradiance and is given by: 2010 are analyzed, using MS-Excel software to evaluate the per-
formance. Popular PV system simulation software is used to predict
total monthly and yearly output of the three technology PV arrays.
   
YR ¼ Ht kWh=m2 =G kw=m2 (3) While predicting the PV arrays output, simulation software re-
quires meteorological data (global horizontal solar radiation,

Fig. 3. PV measurement system. Fig. 4. Meteorological data recording facility.

514 V. Sharma et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 511e518
Table 2
Specifications of Pyranometer.
Make EKO
Model MS-802-C
Sensitivity 7 mV/W/m2
Impedance 650 Ohm
Linearity 0.5% from 0 to 2800 W/m2
ambient temperature), electrical and mechanical specifications of
representative module as inputs. The data are taken from the
meteorological data recording station installed at the experimental
test facility. The global solar radiation and ambient temperature
recorded in 1-min interval are converted into suitable monthly
format and given as inputs to simulation software. The electrical
and mechanical specifications of a representative module of each
technology, the PV array taken as inputs by the software is provided
from manufacturer data sheet.
4. Results and discussion
The measured monthly global solar radiation on horizontal sur-
face varies from 80.22 kWh/m2 in January to 190 kWh/m2 in May,
whereas the measured monthly solar radiation at 28 tilt varies from
101.36 kWh/m2 in January to191.29 kWh/m2 in March. The annual
global solar radiation on horizontal and tilt are found to be
1621 kWh/m2and 1741 kWh/m2 respectively. The monthly average
ambient temperature at the site varies from 11  C in January to 34  C
in May. The annual solar radiation estimated on tilt by simulation
software is1740 kWh/m2, which is quite close to the actual measured
value 1741 kWh/m2. The variation of monthly and annual global
horizontal, actual measured and simulation software predicted so-
lar radiation in the plane of array is shown in Fig. 5.
A comparison of measured monthly and yearly normalized en-
ergy yield of each technology during first year of installation 2010 is
Fig. 5. Comparison of measured and simulation software predicted monthly and annual solar radiation on the plane of the module at 28 tilt along with measured global horizontal
solar radiation.
shown in Fig. 6. The measured yearly normalized energy yields are
found to be 1590 (kWh/kWp), 1580 (kWh/kWp), 1474 (kWh/kWp)
for HIT, a-Si and p-Si PV arrays respectively, which shows that HIT &
a-Si PV modules have performed better in comparison to p-Si under
similar outdoor conditions. The a-Si modules produced 14% more
energy in summer months (AprileJuly) and around 6% less in
winter months (Dec, Feb) than p-Si modules. The HIT module
consistently produced 4e12% more energy than p-Si modules. Fig. 7
shows the comparison of measured monthly and yearly PR values
of each technology array which shows that yearly PR values also
follow the same trend. The PR rating of HIT and a-Si arrays are
found to be about 7% higher as compared to p-Si PV array. The
monthly variation of energy yield and performance rating data,
indicate that a-Si PV modules showed higher yield and PR values
during MarcheSeptember, while HIT PV modules performed better
during the months OctobereFebruary.
The comparison of the actual measured energy output and per-
formance ratio with the software predicted values for each technol-
ogy array is given in Figs. 8e13. The graphs shows that predicted and
measured energy output for each technology PV array follow the
same pattern. There are two predicted energy output curves corre-
sponding to one measured curve. The dotted curve represent the case
when the efficiency of the PV module is considered as available in the
simulation software, where as the second predicted curve is obtained
after applying correction to the module efficiency values available in
the simulation software. This is done by adjusting module parame-
ters Imax and Vmax, as simulation software does not give the freedom
to input directly the module efficiency values, which it calculates
internally based upon the inputs given to it. It can be seen from the
graphs that predicted energy outputs, after applying correction to the
module efficiency, are much closer to the measured energy outputs.
Table 3 shows the comparison of module parameters without and
with efficiency correction. It may be noted that all these data are
plotted after applying the correction for temperature coefficients of
each technology. It is interesting to see that after applying the
 V. Sharma et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 511e518 515

a-Si (kWh/kWp) HIT (kWh/kWp)

p-Si (kWh/kWp) a-Si (kWh/kWp)
HIT (kWh/kWp) p-Si (kWh/kWp)

Monthly Energy Yield (kWh/kWp)

250 2000

Yearly Energy Yield (kWh/kWp)

200
1500

150
1000
100

500
50

0 0

Month

Fig. 6. Comparison of measured monthly and yearly energy yield of each technology array.

1.2

1
Performace Ratio (%)

0.8 a-Si

HIT
0.6
p-Si
0.4

0.2

Month

Fig. 7. Comparison of measured monthly and yearly PR of each technology array.

Measured yearly Energy output(kWh) Predicted yearly Energy output (kWh)

Predicted yearly Energy output after efficiency correction (kWh) Measured Monthly Energy output (kWh)

Predicted Monthly Enegy output (kWh) Predicted monthly Energy output after effciency correction (kWh)

300 2500
Monthly Energy output (kWh)

Yearly Energy output (kWh)

250 2000
200
1500
150
1000
100

50 500

0 0

Month

Fig. 8. Comparison of measured and predicted (with out and with efficiency correction) energy output of 1.6 kWp p-Si PV array.
516 V. Sharma et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 511e518

Measured yearly Energy output(kWh) Predicted yearly Energy output (kWh)

Predicted yearly Energy output after efficiency correction (kWh) Measured Monthly Energy output (kWh)

Predicted Monthly Enegy output (kWh) Predicted monthly Energy output after effciency correction (kWh)

350 3000

Monthly Energy output (kWh)

Yearly Energy output (kWh)

300 2500
250
2000
200
1500
150
1000
100

50 500

0 0

Month

Fig. 9. Comparison of measured and predicted (before & after applying the efficiency correction) monthly and annual energy output of 1.68 kWp HIT PV array.

Measured yearly Energy output(kWh) Predicted yearly Energy output (kWh)

Predicted yearly Energy output after efficiency correction (kWh) Measured Monthly Energy output (kWh)

Predicted Monthly Enegy output (kWh) Predicted monthly Energy output after effciency correction (kWh)

250 2000
Monthly Energy output (kWh)

Yearly Energy outout (kwh)

200
1500

150
1000
100

500
50

0 0

Month

Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and predicted (before & after applying the efficiency correction) monthly and annual energy output of 1.2 kWp a-Si PV array.

1.2

1 Measured PR
performance Ratio (PR)

0.8
Predicted PR

0.6
Predicted PR after
efficiency
0.4 correction

0.2

Month

Fig. 11. Comparison of measured and predicted (before & after applying the efficiency correction) monthly and annual performance ratio of 1.6 kWp p-Si PV array.
 V. Sharma et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 511e518 517

1.2

1 Measured PR

performance Ratio (PR)

0.8
Predicted PR

0.6
Predicted PR after
efficiency
0.4 correction

0.2

Month

Fig. 12. Comparison of measured and predicted (before & after applying the efficiency correction) monthly and annual performance ratio of 1.68 kWp HIT PV array.

1.2

1
Performance Ratio (PR)

Measured PR
0.8

Predicted PR
0.6

Predicted PR after
0.4 efficiency correction

0.2

Month

Fig. 13. Comparison of measured and predicted (before & after applying the efficiency correction) monthly and annual energy output of 1.2 kWp a-Si PV array.

efficiency correction, the predicted results match closely with the After applying the efficiency correction, the predicted monthly
measured results for all the three technologies. Table 4 provides the energy output variation fits more closely with the actual measured
comparison of percentage difference of annual energy output and PR monthly energy output variation for the 1.2 kWp a-Si PV array and
value before and after applying efficiency correction. less closely for the 1.68 kWp HIT PV array. When the PV modules

Table 3
Module performance parameters.

Module parameters p-Si HIT a-Si

Without efficiency After applying Without efficiency Applying efficiency Without efficiency After applying
correction efficiency correction correction correction correction efficiency correction

Voc (V) 25.60 25.60 73.6 73.6 91.8 91.8

Isc (A) 8.42 8.42 3.79 3.80 1.4 1.4
Vmax (V) 21.28 22.15 60.00 60.00 67.00 69.00
Imax (A) 7.52 7.80 3.52 3.66 1.12 1.17
h (%) 12.83 13.83 16.92 17.5 6.86 7.23
518 V. Sharma et al. / Energy 58 (2013) 511e518
Table 4
Percentage difference in energy output and performance ratio before and after applying efficiency correction.
PV array % difference between actual measured and predicted annual energy output
Before applying efficiency correction After applying efficiency correction
multi-C-Si 12.95 4.89
HIT 11.56 4.94
a-Si 5.23 1.16
Minus sign indicates underestimation by simulation software.
are deployed in the outdoors, the degradation due to exposure to
actual operating environment is experienced by them which are
reported in several studies [16]. Thus the rated power of the
modules does not remain the same which is taken as the fixed value
by the popular PV system simulation software. However, the initial
degradations which are more pronounced in a-Si modules (27%)
due to StaeblereWronski effect as compared to the HIT (0.5%) and
p-Si (1.8%), are not taken into consideration because the data pre-
sented here are from first year of the operation. This will be
considered in the follow-up study.
5. Conclusion
The performance of three different photovoltaic technology
modules, polycrystalline silicon, hetero-junction with intrinsic
thin-layer silicon and amorphous single junction silicon, is studied
during the first year of outdoor operation at the Solar Energy
Centre, Gurgaon, India. The main conclusions are as follows:
1. The HIT and a-Si technology arrays performed better than p-Si
under similar outdoor conditions at this location in India. The
a-Si array has performed better than the p-Si array during the
summer months and under performed during the winter
months. This may be attributed to thermal annealing effect of
a-Si technology [17]. The HIT array have performed consistently
better than p-Si throughout the year
2. The comparison of predicted and measured performance of
three different technologies PV arrays shows that the per-
centage difference between measured and predicted output
can be minimized by using more accurate input data to the
simulation software, rather than using the data available in the
simulation software.
The performance of a PV technology, under real outdoor con-
ditions, does not remain same due to environmental stresses such
as solar radiation, temperature, humidity, moisture, thermal
cycling, UV light exposure, high voltage etc. The individual or a
combination of these environmental stresses result in the degra-
dation of the PV modules in an array. Such real outdoor studies play
an important role in quantifying long-term behavior and esti-
mating lifetime time of PV modules in the field hence identifying
suitable location specific technology to PV industry. Keeping in
% difference between actual measured and predicted annual PR
Before applying efficiency correction After applying efficiency correction
12.55 4.34
11.57 4.93
4.65 1.88
view these aspects of performance and degradation, follow up
work will be focused on estimating the module lifetime based upon
the degradation rate for each technology.
References
[1] Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission. Guidelines for selection of new grid
connected solar power projects [accessed 10.03.2012], www.mnre.gov.in; July
2010.
[2] Cumulative achievement (Grid Interactive Solar Power) up to 31-12-2012. http://
www.mnre.gov.in/mission-and-vision-2/achievements/ [accessed 31.01.2013].
[3] Raugei M, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment and energy pay-back time
of advanced photovoltaic modules: CdTe and CIS compared to poly-Si. Energy
2007;32:1310e8.
[4] Singh GK. Solar power generation by PV (photovoltaic) technology: a review.
Energy 2013;53:1e13.
[5] Akhmad K, Kitamura A, Yamamoto F, Okamoto H, Takakura H, Hamakawa Y.
Outdoor performance of a-Si and p-Si modules. Solar Energy Materials and
Solar Cells 1997;46:209e18.
[6] Sasitharanuwat A, Rakwichian W, Ketjoy N, Yammen S. Performance evalua-
tion of a 10 kWp PV power system prototype for isolated building in Thailand.
Renewable Energy 2007;32:1288e300.
[7] Carr AJ, Pryor TL. A comparison of the performance of different PV module
types in temperate climates. Solar Energy 2004;76:285e94.
[8] J.A. del Cueto. Comparison of energy production and performance from flat
plate photovoltaic module technologies deployed at fixed tilt. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 29th IEEE photovoltaic specialists conference; 2002. p.
1523e1526.
[9] S.R. Williams, R. Gottschalg, D.G. Infield. Performance of photovoltaic modules
in a temperate maritime climate. In: Proceedings of 3rd world conference on
photovoltaic energy conversion; 2003 Osaka, Japan.
[10] Makrides G, Zinsser B, Norton M, Georghiou GE, Schubert M, Werner JH. Po-
tential of photovoltaic systems in countries with high solar irradiation.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2010;14:754e62.
[11] Rehman S, El-Amin I. Performance evaluation of an off-grid photovoltaic
system in Saudi Arabia. Energy 2012;46:451e8.
[12] Cameron C, Stein J, Hansen C. Evaluation of PV performance models and their
impact on project risk. Boston, MA: PV Rollout Conference; 2011.
[13] G.R. Lee, L. Frearson, and P. Rodden. An assessment of photovoltaic modelling
software using real world performance data. In: 26th European photovoltaic
solar energy conference and exhibition, Hamburg, Germany, 2011.
[14] B. Marion, J. Adelsten, K. Boyel, H. Hayden, B. Hammon, T. Fletcher, B. Canada,
D. Narang, A. Kimber, L. Michell, G. Rich, T. Towsend, A. Detride, A. Kimbler.
Performance Parameters for Grid-connected PV System. In: 31st IEEE Photo-
voltaic Specialist Conference, Lake Buena Vista FL, 2005.
[15] International Standard IEC 61724, Photovoltaic system performance
monitoring-guidelines for measurement, Data exchange and analysis.
[16] Sastry OS, Sriparn S, Shil SK, Pant PC, Kumar R, Kumar A, Badopadhyay B.
Performance analysis of field exposed single crystalline silicon modules. Solar
Energy Material & Solar Cells 2010;94:1463e8.
[17] Makrides G, Zinsser B, Phinikarides A, Schubert M, Georghiou GE. Tempera-
ture and thermal annealing effects on different photovoltaic technologies.
Renewable Energy 2012;43:407e17.