Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Performance Evaluation and Validation of 5MWp Grid Con - 2015 - Energy Conversio PDF
Performance Evaluation and Validation of 5MWp Grid Con - 2015 - Energy Conversio PDF
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The main objective of this paper is to present the validated annual performance analysis with the mon-
Received 8 January 2015 itored results from a 5 MWp grid connected photovoltaic plant located in India at Sivagangai district in
Accepted 25 April 2015 Tamilnadu. The total annual energy generated was 8495296.4 kW h which averages around
Available online 26 May 2015
707941.4 kW h/month. In addition to the above, real time performance of the plant is validated through
system software called RETscreen plus which employs regression analysis for validation. The measured
Keywords: annual average energy generated by the 5 MWp system is 24116.61 kW h/day which is appropriately
Grid connected photovoltaic system
close to the predicted annual average which was found to be 24055.25 kW h/day by RETscreen. The pre-
Performance ratio
System efficiency
dicted responses are further justified by the value of statistical indicators such as mean bias error, root
Dependency plot mean square error and mean percentage error. The annual average daily array yield, corrected reference
RETscreen yield, final yield, module efficiency, inverter efficiency and system efficiency were found to be 5.46 h/day,
Exergy 5.128 h/day 4.810 h/day, 6.08%, 88.20% and 5.08% respectively. The overall absolute average daily capture
loss and system loss of the particular system under study is 0.384 h/day and 0.65 h/day respectively. A
comparison is also made between the performance indices of solar photovoltaic system situated at other
locations from the literature’s published. Furthermore the effect of input factors over the output of the
system is emphasized by regression coefficients obtained through regression analysis. In-depth analysis
dealing with energy and exergy of the system are also included to strengthen the study.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.04.069
0196-8904/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
430 S. Sundaram, J.S.C. Babu / Energy Conversion and Management 100 (2015) 429–439
acquisition system was designed as per IEC61724. The parameters 4.38 kW h/m2/day in December to 5.98 kW h/m2/day in
such as global horizontal irradiance (GHI), Direct normal irradiance September and the average wind speed varies from a minimum
(DNI), ambient and module temperature (Ta, Tm), wind speed (Vs), of 1.5 m/s to 4.2 m/s.
DC and AC energy generated (Edc and Eac) are measured instanta- The monthly average daily measured Ta and Tm for the moni-
neously for every 5 min duration in a day. The parameters of wind tored period vary as shown in Fig. 4. The module temperature is
speed and relative humidity are measured employing skyCONNI always found higher than the ambient due to the generation of
universal weather sensor manufactured by Skytron and are trans- thermal losses which occurs evidently on power generation. The
mitted through METEON dataloggers through Canbus communica- ambient temperature found to vary from 25.7 °C to 35.4 °C per
tion to the server which updates the information graphically. The day. Better system performance is provided with higher wind
ambient and module temperature are transmitted by RS485 USB speeds and lower ambient temperature. Higher the wind speed,
cable which is connected to the server equipped with the Vaisala lower is the module temperature which further reduces the heat
configuration software for storing the received data. The average losses providing betterment in the system performance. As the
of the observed instantaneous readings for a day is calculated wind speed is found higher which is 4.1 m/s for the month of
and continued for the rest of the working days yielding the December the corresponding module temperature is lower for
monthly measured parameter values for all working days. The ser- the same measuring to 31 °C.
ver thus works on the principle of supervisory control and data The ambient temperature and module temperature are seen to
acquisition (SCADA) for assessment of the monitored data. increase as level of radiation increases. The value of ambient and
module temperature for the irradiance of 359.1 W/m2 correspond
3. Monitored input results to 26.9 °C and 31.4 °C respectively. But the value of the same for
the irradiance of 474 W/m2 correspond to 29.6 °C and 36.9 °C
The monthly average daily variation of in-plane solar insola- respectively. The maximum temperature difference between the
tion and wind speed are shown in Fig. 3 below. The monthly PV module and the ambient is 9.3 °C which is less by 17 °C as in
average daily solar insolation varies from a minimum of Ayompe, Duffy (2011) [9].
33 SMJB 33 SMJB
DC DC
DC DC
AC AC
AC AC
TNEB Grid
Fig. 2. Single line diagram for the 5 MWp grid connected system.
432 S. Sundaram, J.S.C. Babu / Energy Conversion and Management 100 (2015) 429–439
t¼T
Xrp X
N
Edc;d ¼ V dc Idc T r ; Edc;m ¼ Edc;d ð1Þ
t¼1 d¼1
Tr is the recording time interval and Trp is the reporting period and N
is the number of operating days of plant in a month.
The term final yield represents the time taken by the PV to gen-
erate Eac with respect to its nominal power capacity. Hence it
becomes the ratio of final output power generated (Eac) to the rated
PV power as specified by the manufacturer at standard tempera-
ture conditions. As array yield, final yield can also be calculated
daily and as a monthly average. It is dependent on the mounting
Fig. 4. Monthly average variation of module (Tm) and ambient temperature (Ta) for
structure and on location [11]. The daily final yield is given by
the annual period.
where Yr, Ct, Tm and TSTC represent the reference yield, temperature where gdegr represents degradation efficiency; represents gtemp
coefficient (% °C1), module and ambient temperature respectively. temperature efficiency; gsoil represents soiling efficiency and ginv
represents inverter efficiency.
4.7. PV Module efficiency or Energy efficiency (gpv)
4.11. Capacity factor (CF)
It represents the effective energy generated by the module with
respect to the available radiation. The instantaneous PV array effi- Capacity factor is a methodology for presenting the energy
ciency is given by delivered by an electrical power distribution system. If the system
delivers full rated power continuously its CF will be unity. It is
gpv ¼ P dc =Gi Am ð9Þ
defined as the ratio of actual annual energy output to the amount
where P(dc) is the DC power generated by the PV array system, Gi of energy the PV system can deliver at its rated capacity for 24 h
represents the global solar irradiation and Am represents the area per day for a year [7–14].
of the PV module.
Y FðannualÞ Eac;annual
The monthly average PV module efficiency is calculated as CF ¼ ¼ ð16Þ
ð24 365Þ P ðpvÞrated8760
gpv;m ¼ Edc;d =ðGi Am Þ 100% ð10Þ
The capacity factor of a system can also be calculated as
where Edc,d represents the total daily DC energy output.
h
day
of the peak sun
4.8. Inverter efficiency (ginv) CF ¼ ð17Þ
24 h=day
Inverter efficiency presumes to be the highest of module and The capacity factor varies in proportion to the variation in final
system efficiency. The inverter efficiency appropriately called as yield.
conversion efficiency is given by the ratio of AC power generated
by the inverter to the DC power generated by the PV array system. 4.12. Energy loss
The instantaneous inverter efficiency is given by
The operation of photovoltaic cell to generate power involves
ginv ¼ Pac =Pdc ð11Þ
heat transfer through convection and radiation modes resulting
The monthly inverter efficiency is calculated by equation as in losses which further reduces the system performance. The losses
follows which are more pronounced are the array capture loss, system loss
and cell temperature loss. The cell temperature loss is negligible in
Eac;d
ginv;m ¼ 100% ð12Þ comparison with the other two and hence neglected in this study.
Edc;d
As a thumb rule, the peak power of the PV module decreases by
where Eac,d represents the total daily AC energy output. 0.3–0.4% for every 1 °C rise in temperature above standard temper-
ature conditions [9].
4.9. System efficiency (gsys) Under actual operating condition the following losses add up to
the system performance:
The photovoltaic system efficiency is associated with the
balance of systems comprising the PV generator and the inverter 1. Thermal losses due to elevated cell temperatures.
module. The instantaneous system efficiency can be calculated 2. Optical reflection loss due to non-perpendicular irradiance and
by applying Eq. (13) losses due to low irradiance levels.
3. Effects of shadowing (partial shadow) due to the objects sur-
gsys ¼ gpv ginv ð13Þ rounding the mounted PV structure.
4. The effect of conversion efficiency due to the decrease in irradi-
ance and temperature reducing the performance ratio.
4.10. Performance ratio (PR) 5. Non-continuous inverter operation which includes tripping of
inverter and its failure.
Performance ratio represents the effect of losses (which occur
due to the effect of temperature, inverter, wiring loss, mismatch
4.12.1. Array capture loss (Lc)
loss and loss across the bypass diodes) on the performance or
Array capture loss is given by the difference between the array
the output delivered by the photovoltaic system and pictures
yield and final yield. The loss which occur due to the variation of
the incomplete utilization of incoming solar radiation as PR is
actual irradiance from the reference or theoretical irradiance.
a normalization factor with respect to incident solar insolation
[10]. It is the true efficiency of the system and measures the Lc ¼ Y r Y a ð18Þ
closeness to the ideal efficiency. It acts as a key comparator
for comparing the grid connected PV system irrespective of the where Lc represents the array capture loss in (h/day).
location, mounting structure and their power capacity [11]. It There also occur losses which are constituents of the capture
also describes the energy transformation in a grid connected loss termed as thermal capture loss and miscellaneous capture
PV system. loss. Thermal capture losses (Lct) are associated with the thermal
It is thus defined as the ratio of final yield to the array yield as energy loss which are evident due to increase in the module tem-
given by perature of above 25 °C. It is given by the difference between refer-
ence and the corrected reference yield.
Performance ratio; PR ¼ Y f =Y r : ð14Þ
Lct ¼ Y r Y cr ð19Þ
It can also be expressed as the product of efficiencies repre-
sented below Miscellaneous capture losses are embedded with multiple
causes such as wiring, diode loss, shading effects, low irradiance,
PR ¼ gdegr gtemp gsoil ginv ð15Þ dust accumulation over the module, mismatch losses and losses
434 S. Sundaram, J.S.C. Babu / Energy Conversion and Management 100 (2015) 429–439
due to maximum power point tracking [11]. This is given by the 5. Results and discussion
difference between corrected reference yield and array yield.
Monitoring the monthly average daily energy generated is
Lcm ¼ Y cr Y a ð20Þ
responsible for calculating the final yield which largely depends
on the performance ratio of the plant. The monthly average daily
generated energy varies from a minimum of 19413.1 kW h/
4.12.2. System loss (Ls)
kWp/day (December) to 27482.8 kW h/kWp/day (September). The
These loss in (h/day) occur due to discontinuous operation of
average energy generated collectively for summer(March–May),
inverter over the monitored period and is given by [11]
winter(January–February), monsoon(June–September) and post
Ls ¼ Y a Y f ð21Þ monsoon months (October–December) is 25483.9 kW h/day,
24927.95 kW h/day, 24765.5 kW h/day and 21097.8 kW h/day
respectively. Thus the energy output vary in accordance to the sea-
4.13. Energy and exergy analysis of 5 MWp grid connected PV system sonal weather change which further depends on the bright sun
shine hours.
Exergy analysis acts as an efficient performance assessment tool The monthly average final yield varies from a minimum of
for determining the true performance of the system close to its 3.882 h/day in December to maximum of 5.496 h/day in
ideal working condition. It thus becomes essential to know the September as seen in Fig. 5. This is due to the fact that the monthly
maximum amount of useful work for an operating system by average in-plane solar insolation is minimum for the month of
applying the above rational analysis. Among existing energy con- December (4.261 kW h/m2/day) to maximum for September
servatory techniques exergy analysis terms to be a simper, fruitful (5.53 kWh/m2/day). The reference yield depends on the daily
and enlightening technique for performance prediction. Exergy in-plane solar radiance. The higher the in-plane solar insolation
analysis plays a decisive role in analysis, improvement, design, the higher is the reference yield. The corrected reference yield is
assessment and optimization of the energy system [15]. The main slightly lower than the reference yield due to the effect of differ-
key features are to provide a true measure of actual plant perfor- ence between the module and the ambient temperature with the
mance and to identify the types, causes and location of thermody- difference varying from a minimum of 0.127 h/day to a maximum
namic losses in the system. of 0.524 h/day.
It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the reference yield and final yield
4.13.1. Energy efficiency of solar photovoltaic systems show a similarity in the nature of variation among the annual mon-
Energy efficiency of solar photovoltaic systems is defined as the itored period. They are found directly proportional to the in-plane
ratio of DC power output generated by the PV or the electrical solar insolation. The monthly average PV module efficiency varies
power generated to the energy input [16], which is the product from a minimum of 5.45% to a maximum of 7.06%.
of the solar array area and the insolation incident on the PV The monthly average inverter and system efficiency varies from
surface. 79.2% in December to 97.8% in September and 4.688% to 5.282%
respectively as described in Fig. 6. The seasonal average inverter
P pv efficiency for the season of summer, winter, monsoon and
Energy efficiency of a photovoltaic system ¼ ð22Þ
EðsolarÞ post-monsoon is found to be 92.10%, 90.78%, 86.36% and 84.90%
Energy of the solar radiation is given by EðsolarÞ ¼ Apv G ð23Þ corresponding to the average in-plane solar insolation which is
5.891 kW h/m2/day for summer, 5.68 kW h/m2/day for winter,
where Apv and G represents the area of PV array and instantaneous 5.465 kW h/m2/day for monsoon and 4.688 kW h/m2/day for
solar radiation. post-monsoon respectively. This is due to the dependency of inver-
ter efficiency over in-plane insolation which is yet proved by
4.13.2. Exergy efficiency of solar photovoltaic systems RETscreen through regression analysis in Table 4. The performance
Exergy efficiency depends on the second law of thermodynam-
ics where it is the ratio of output exergy to input system exergy.
Exout
Exergy efficiency of photovoltaic system ¼ ð24Þ
Exin
where t represents wind speed (m/s). Fig. 5. Monthly average final and reference yield over the monitored period.
S. Sundaram, J.S.C. Babu / Energy Conversion and Management 100 (2015) 429–439 435
Fig. 8. Monthly average daily array loss over the monitored period.
Fig. 7. Monthly average performance ratio and capacity factor over the monitored
period.
4.8106 h/day. The annual average of PV module efficiency is
around 6.08% which is low as maximum power point tracking
ratio is fairly maintained a constant measuring an annual average function which aids in ensuring maximum power extraction is
of 89.15% as seen in Fig. 7 varying with minimum of 85.46–92.34%. absent.
The performance ratio for Summer (March–May) and Winter The variation of thermal exergy of 5 MWp photovoltaic system
(January–February) is 86.67% and 87.86% respectively with the over a monitored period depends on the difference between mod-
performance of the plant slightly higher in winter than in summer. ule and ambient temperature. It is represented in Fig. 9 as follows.
This performance variation is decisively due to module tempera- As seen from Fig. 9 the thermal exergy loss or destruction is
ture. The capacity factor varies in accordance with the final yield higher for the month of May 2011 and least for the month of
which ultimately varies with the AC energy generated. The November 2011 as the difference between Tm and Ta is higher for
monthly average capacity factor is high for September amounting May which is 9.3°°C and least for November which is 4.5 °C. The
to 22.90% where the final yield is also high as 5.496 (h/day) and thermal exergy loss and exergy efficiency are inversely propor-
is less for December yielding 16.17% where the final yield is also tional. There occurs higher exergy efficiency with least thermal
consecutively low to 3.882 (h/day). loss. This infact is justified in this study as shown in Fig. 10 which
Fig. 8 shows the distribution of array capture and system losses shows the variation of monthly average energy and exergic effi-
during the monitored operational performance of the plant. The ciency over the monitored period. The exergy efficiency is higher
monthly average absolute capture loss varies from a minimum of for November amounting to 5.66% as thermal loss is found to be
0.032 (h/day) to 0.758 (h/day) and system loss varies from 0.123 least to 1.15 MW and least for May amounting to 2.25% as the aver-
(h/day) to 1.174 (h/day). The negative the capture loss the less is age thermal loss for May is found to be higher to 2.78 MW.
the time taken by the photovoltaic system to produce DC energy The highest energy efficiency in Fig. 10 occurs for the month of
at its nominal power capacity. Thus summarizing the above perfor- November 2011 evaluating to 7.06% and the least for September
mance values the plant generates good amount of energy with 2011 evaluating to 5.45%. This is because the difference between
fairly good performance ratio of 89.15% and final yield of the energy produced and the maximum available energy is least
436 S. Sundaram, J.S.C. Babu / Energy Conversion and Management 100 (2015) 429–439
Table 1
Performance comparison of the present system with certain reported grid connected PV system.
Ref no. Capacity (kWp) Total annual Yf (h) Total annual Yr (h) g(pv) Annual daily (%) ginv (%) PV type PR Monitored period
[8] 67.84 Spain 1000.1 1558.5 9.21 87.82 – 0.65 Three years
[8] 67.84 Spain 846.8 1463.6 7.50 95.88 – 0.58 Annually
[9] 1.72 Ireland 868.7 1029.3 13.52 89.6 MC–A-Si 0.82 Annually
[10] 190 Khatar khatar 905.2 2.99 – – PC 0.73 Annual
[13] 13 Northern Ireland 620.5 – 7.5–10 87 MC-Si 0.62 Three years
[14] Poland 839.5 – 13.7 89.5 A-Si 0.69 Annually
Present study Sivagangai 1752.3 1976.4 6.08 88.2 Thin Film 0.89 Annually
amorphous Si
X k
1
MBE ¼ ððpredÞ ðmeasÞÞ ð27Þ
N i¼1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
X ffi
1 k ^
RMSE ¼ ððpredÞ ðmeasÞÞ 2 ð28Þ
N i¼1
X
1 k ððpredÞ ðmeasÞÞ
MPE ¼ 100% ð29Þ
N i¼1 ðmeasÞ
!2
ðN 1ÞðMBEÞ2
t-static ¼ ð30Þ
ðRMSEÞ2 ðMBEÞ2
Table 4
Dependency plot of input factors over the responses as generated by RETscreen.
Estimated performance Plot of X1 Vs Y Plot of X2 Vs Y Possible plot of X3 Vs Y R2 for X1 Vs Y R2 for X2 Vs Y R2 for X3 Vs Y Influential factor
indicator
Edc Gi Vs Edc Ta Vs Edc Tm Vs Edc 0.7082 0.9442 0.4791 (Edc, Ta)
Eac Gi Vs Eac Ta Vs Eac Tm Vs Eac 0.9827 0.8452 0.7840 (Eac, Gi)
PV module efficiency Gi Vs gpv Ta Vs gpv Tm Vs gpv 0.9901 0.6617 0.7418 (gpv, Gi)
Inverter efficiency Gi Vs ginv Ta Vs ginv Tm Vs ginv 0.7841 0.7521 0.6641 (ginv, Gi)
System efficiency Gi Vs gsys Ta Vs gsys Tm Vs gsys 0.9301 0.8649 0.7697 gsys is more dependent on Gi
438 S. Sundaram, J.S.C. Babu / Energy Conversion and Management 100 (2015) 429–439
Fig. 13. Plot of monthly average daily solar insolation Vs Edc as generated by RETscreen.
Table 5
Summary statistics of the above dependency plot stated in Table 4.
Dependency plot No. of observation No. of iteration Sum of residual Average of residual Standard error of estimate R2 Durbin Watson static
(Edc, Ta) 12 251 0.4137 0.0345 712.46 0.9442 2.208
(Eac, Gi) 12 9 0.6211 0.0518 577.57 0.9827 1.941
(gpv, Gi) 12 17 3.529e6 2.941e7 0.0011 0.9901 1.926
(ginv, Gi) 12 12 1.894e6 1.578e7 0.0531 0.7841 1.918
(gsys, Gi) 12 13 2.2181e6 1.848e7 0.0007 0.9301 1.970
respect to in-plane solar insolation is more significant as the the module titlt angle is approximately equal to the latitude
regression coefficients for the variation of the same with respect of the site which will typically result in maximum energy
to in-plane solar insolation are high amounting to 0.9827, extraction for grid tied installations which can be adopted [24].
0.9901, 0.7841 and 0.9301 respectively. Thus the significant inter- Thus an improved performance than reported can be realized if
action between the input factors and responses paves way for the the inverter employed is used for multi-MPPT function rather
justification of selected factors resulting in mathematical predic- than master–slave operation as the occurrence of inverter fail-
tion model for responses. ure is less than MPPT which is most essential for intermittent
Table 5 presents the summary of the interaction plot statistics renewable energy sources such as solar. Improved inverter
as computed by RETscreen. Durbin Watson test is used in identify- efficiency also predicts an increased power delivery. Also, the
ing autocorrelation in regression models [23]. By default the value module efficiency is low than other evaluated system as seen
of the same varies between 0 and 4. A value 2 of Durbin Watson in Table 1 because of the PV technology adopted. The present
constant indicates the absence of autocorrelation in the samples. system employs thin film amorphous silicon PV cells for har-
Value approaching toward 0 indicate positive autocorrelation and nessing PV power which results in less PV module efficiency
if the same approaches toward 4 a space for negative autocorrela- typically in the range of 4–9% only. Thin film CiGs and thin film
tion is left [19]. CdTe posses typical module efficiencies in the range of 8–13.5%
and 9–11% which indicated the usage of them. But the main dis-
8. Conclusion advantage lying with the thin film CiGs and CdTe are fabrication
complexity and raw material availability for production. Thus
A 5 MWp grid connected PV system located at Sivagangai was thin film silicon cells and monocrystalline cells (typical effi-
monitored annually between May 2011 to April 2012 and its per- ciency of 13–17%) together as a whole can be combined for
formance were evaluated on monthly average daily basis. power generation rather adopting same type of cells. The
Depthful energy and exergy analysis were also carried out for the advantage behind thin film lies in its production or fabrication
same. The significant conclusions of the analysis are as listed cost, weight and occupancy area. Furthermore, hybrid cell
below. topology will also yield better system efficiency than the pre-
sent, paving way for betterment. Thus to resolve the cited prob-
The annual average of in-plane solar insolation, ambient and lem a combination of thin film with mono or polycrystalline
module temperature and wind speed were 5.414 kW h/ would improve the PV harnessing capacity indigenously with
m2/day, 30.76 °C, 37.90 °C and 3.191 m/s respectively. The a trade off met with the cost and efficiency. The energy analysis
importance and the effect of solar insolation over energy gener- also suggest the technology improvement or module tempera-
ation is emphasized. In addition, the importance of maximum ture control for improved system performance.
power point tracking is clearly brought out as the module effi- The significance of the real time PV system is yet validated by
ciency is found to be less at annual average of 6.08% though the RETscreen plus where a overall coefficient of best fit for the
performance ratio of the plant is found to be high at 0.8915 selected key performance indicators varied from a minimum
indicating its absence. In connection to the above, the inverter of 0.7841 to a maximum of 0.9901 which proves remarkably
efficiency also reduces due to the fact of PV system’s ineffi- good agreement between the actual and the predicted values
ciency to track the instantaneous maximum power which aids of the same. In addition, statistical validators such as MBE,
maximum DC generation. Inference of highest annual energy RMSE, MPE were evaluated for the same and the overall annual
output is made from 5 MWp plant as inferred from Table 2 as average value of RMSE and MPE between 0.04 to 4.57 and
S. Sundaram, J.S.C. Babu / Energy Conversion and Management 100 (2015) 429–439 439
0.0013 to 0.2425 respectively. The lesser the value of RMSE [5] IEA (International Energy agency) Country report on analytical monitoring of
photovoltaic systems IEA PVPS Task13; 2014. <www.iea-pvps.org>.
and MPE, the better is the operational accuracy of the plant.
[6] Padmavathi K, Arul Daniel S. Performance analysis of a 3 MWp grid connected
The dependency of input factors over the output is essential for solar photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy Sustain Dev 2013;17:615–25.
formulating theoretical models such as regression, time-series [7] Makrides G, Zinsser B, Norton M, Georghiou GE, Schubert M, Werner JH.
and neural network for the prediction of daily average of Potential of photovoltaic systems in Countries with high solar irradiation.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:754–62.
monthly based Eac where selection of input factors for output [8] Drif M, Perez PJ, Aguileria J, Almonacid G, Gomez P, De la Casa J, et al. A grid
prediction forms the most important part. This would be the connected photovoltaic system of 200 kWp at Jean University. In: Overview
future scope of the present study. and performance analysis, vol. 91; 2007. p. 670–83.
[9] Ayompe LM, Duffy A, McCormack SJ, Conlon M. Measured performance of a
Finally a comparison of the performance results obtained from 1.72 kW roof top grid connected photovoltaic system in Ireland. Energy
this study to the other reported results as in Tables 1 and 2 Convers Manage 2011;52:816–25.
reveal that the PV system’s annual average of the final yield [10] Vikrant S, Chandel SS. Performance analysis of a 190 kWp grid interactive solar
photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy 2013;55:476–85.
and reference yield is higher than plants at Spain, Poland, [11] Trilo-Montero D, Santiago I, Luna-Rodriguez JJ, Real-Calvo R. Development of a
Northern Ireland, Dublin and Khatar-khatar marking to 4.801 software application to evaluate the performance and energy losses of grid
(h/day) and 5.4149 (h/day) thus indicating the higher annual connected photovoltaic systems. Energy Convers Manage 2014;81:144–59.
[12] Micheli D, Alessandrini S, Radu R, Casula L. Analysis of the outdoor
average performance ratio of 89.15%. The PV module efficiency performance and efficiency of two grid connected photovoltaic systems in
of 6.08% is least of all cited literature in Table 1 and inverter effi- northern Italy. Energy Convers Manage 2014;80:436–45.
ciency of the system tend to be the lowest of 88.2% compared to [13] Mondol JD, Yohanis Y, Smith M, Norton B. Large Long term performance
analysis of a grid connected photovoltaic system in Northern Ireland. Energy
the Spain, Poland and Ireland sites. Collectively, Sivagangai
Convers Manage 2006;47:2925–74.
shows vast solar energy potential which are utilized effectively [14] Pietruszko SM, Gradzki M. Performance of grid connected small PV system in
and can still be made more efficient by inclusion of MPPT Poland. Appl Energy 2003;74:177–84.
equipped inverter and employing a combination of thin film [15] Dincer I, Ratlamwala TAH. Importance of exergy for analysis, improvement,
design, and assessment. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev – Energy Environ
with mono or polycrystalline cells(hybrid technology) for PV 2013;2:335–49.
power extraction. [16] Saber S, Mehran A. Exergy analysis of photovoltaic panels-coupled solid oxide
fuel cell and gas turbine-electrolyzer hybrid system. J Energy Res Technol
2014;136:1201–9.
[17] Spanner DC. Introduction to thermodynamics. London: Academic Press; 1964.
[18] Saitoh H, Hamada Y, Kubota H, Nakamura M, Ochifuji K, Yokoyama S, Nagano
Acknowledgement
K. Field experiments and analysis on a hybrid solar collector. Appl Therm Eng
2003;23:2089–105.
The authors acknowledge the assistance given by M/s Sapphire [19] MNRE (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Performance of grid solar PV
private limited for accessing the input data of the plant which was power plants under demonstration programme, Report: 32/54/2011-12/PVSE;
2011. <www.mnre.gov.in/file manager/user files/Grid_Solar_Demo_
required for the above analysis. Performance.pdf>.
[20] RETscreen International Empowering cleaner energy decisions <http://www.
retscreen.net/ang/performance_analysis.php>.
References [21] Tarhan S, Ahmed S. Model selection for global and diffuse radiation over the
Central Black Sea (CBS) region of Turkey. Energy Convers Manage
[1] Energy Statistics, Central statistics office, 21st Issue; 2014. <www.mospi.gov. 2005;46:605–13.
in>. [22] Wanxiang Y, Zhengrong L, Yuyan W, Fujian J, Lingzhou H. Evaluation of global
[2] Goura R. Analyzing the on-field performance of a 1-megawatt-grid -tied PV solar radiation models for Shanghai, China. Energy Convers Manage
system in South India. Int J Sustain Energ 2015;34:1–9. 2014;84:597–612.
[3] Government of India. New and renewable energy policy statement 2005. [23] Durbin Watson static <http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/durbin-
Ministry of non-conventional energy sources, Government of India; 2005. watson-statistic.asp>.
[4] SERC (Solar energy corporation of India). <www.seci.gov.in/content/ [24] Amorphous silicon thin film Solar PV module installation manual. 2011.
innerinitiative/jnnsm.php>. Moserbaer solar limited. Document No. PV/TF1/ENG/WI/036.