energies
Article
The Effects of Module Temperature on the Energy Yield of
Bifacial Photovoltaics: Data and Model
Marco Leonardi 1,2, * , Roberto Corso 1,2 , Rachela G. Milazzo 1 , Carmelo Connelli 3 , Marina Foti 3 ,
Cosimo Gerardi 3 , Fabrizio Bizzarri 4 , Stefania M. S. Privitera 1 and Salvatore A. Lombardo 1






Citation: Leonardi, M.; Corso, R.;
Milazzo, R.G.; Connelli, C.; Foti, M.;
Gerardi, C.; Bizzarri, F.; Privitera,
S.M.S.; Lombardo, S.A. The Effects of
Module Temperature on the Energy
Yield of Bifacial Photovoltaics: Data
and Model. Energies 2022, 15, 22.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010022
Academic Editors:
Abdul-Ghani Olabi, Michele Dassisti
and Zhien Zhang
Received: 2 November 2021
Accepted: 17 December 2021
Published: 21 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15010022
1 Institute for Microelectronics and Microsystems (IMM), National Research Council (CNR), Strada VIII, 5,
95121 Catania, Italy; roberto.corso@phd.unict.it (R.C.); gabriella.milazzo@imm.cnr.it (R.G.M.);
Stefania.Privitera@imm.cnr.it (S.M.S.P.); salvatore.lombardo@imm.cnr.it (S.A.L.)
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia, 64, 95123 Catania, Italy
3 Enel Green Power, Contrada Blocco Torrazze, Zona Industriale, 95121 Catania, Italy;
carmelo.connelli@enel.com (C.C.); marina.foti@enel.com (M.F.); cosimo.gerardi@enel.com (C.G.)
4 Enel Green Power, Viale Regina Margherita 125, 00198 Rome, Italy; fabrizio.bizzarri@enel.com
* Correspondence: marco.leonardi@phd.unict.it
Abstract: Bifacial photovoltaics (BPVs) are emerging with large momentum as promising solutions to
improve energy yield and cost of PV systems. To reach its full potential, an accurate understanding of
the physical characteristics of BPV technology is required. For this reason, we collected experimental
data to refine a physical model of BPV. In particular, we simultaneously measured the module
temperature, short circuit current (Isc ), open-circuit voltage (Voc ), power at the maximum power
point (Pmpp ), and the energy yield of a bifacial and a monofacial minimodule. Such minimodules,
realised with the same geometry, cell technology, and module lamination, were tested under the
same clear sky outdoor conditions, from morning to afternoon, for three days. The bifacial system
experimentally shows higher module temperatures under operation, about 10 ◦ C on a daily average
of about 40 ◦ C. Nevertheless, its energy yield is about 15% larger than the monofacial one. We
propose a physical quantitative model that fits the experimental data of module temperature, Isc ,
Voc , Pmpp, and energy yield. The model was then applied to predict the annual energy yield of PV
module strings. The effect of different PV module temperature coefficients on the energy yield is
also discussed.
Keywords: bifacial PV modelling; temperature effect; NOCT model
1. Introduction
The bifacial photovoltaic (BPV) system represents a promising technology for the
future development of photovoltaics (PVs). Bifacial solar cells simultaneously collect
incident solar radiation from the sun on the front side, such as conventional monofacial PV
(MPV), and the albedo radiation from the ground on the back, plus some additional diffused
light. Therefore, compared with MPV, under suitable conditions, BPV can effectively
increase the energy yield of PV modules and strings at reduced costs. Since BPV presents
the possibility to reduce the levelised cost of energy (LCOE), the International Technology
Roadmap for Photovoltaics has predicted for the bifacial technology an increase in the
worldwide market share from 30% in 2020 to about 80% by 2031 [1].
Several BPV technologies are available on the market. These include the passivated
emitter rear contact (PERC) cells, the passivated emitter rear totally diffused (PERT) cells,
and the silicon heterojunction technology (HJT) cells. Differences in cell structure result
in different values of the bifaciality factor (BF), defined as the ratio of the power at the
maximum power point (MPP) measured on the back divided to the front-side power at
MPP under standard test conditions (STC). Generally, the BF ranges between 70% and
100% depending on the technology (PERC, PERT, HJT, etc., see [2,3]). Among the HJT cells,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 22 2 of 13

the n-type ones are the most promising for BPV, due to their high short-circuit current (Isc ),
open-circuit voltage (Voc ), and BF, and for their low temperature coefficient [4] compared
with the most common p-type cells [5].
In parallel to experimental studies, relevant efforts have been dedicated to the mod-
elling of bifacial devices. Yusufoglu et al. [6] proposed a model to predict the annual
energy yield based on the calculation of the ground-reflected radiation reaching the rear
side of the PV module. A further refinement of the model has been developed to take
into account the uneven radiation distribution on the back surface of the PV module [7].
A method to evaluate the bifacial gain (BG) for different installations was proposed by
Shoukry et al. [8]. Sun et al. [9] studied the optimisation of a stand-alone bifacial module
for various geographic locations. In our previous works [10,11], we have proposed an
analytical model which considers the spectral content of the solar radiation incident on the
front and back surfaces of PV modules. This model has been validated on experimental
data and applied to evaluate inhomogeneous illumination on large PV strings and energy
yield of BPV systems, either with fixed-tilt installation or uniaxial trackers. In particular,
we found that, provided that the strings have sufficiently large open perimeters, the fixed
installations produce a similar energy yield, compared with the same strings installed with
uniaxial solar trackers.
When modelling BPV systems, module temperature is a key aspect to consider since,
in most PV technologies, a high temperature negatively affects the energy yield. Hence, a
reliable prediction of the BPV energy yield has to correctly evaluate the total impinging
solar radiation as well as the module temperature. On the one hand, the BPV module
temperature is expected to be higher since the PV module collects the solar radiation both
from the front side and from the back, and since most of this power is transformed into
a heat flux, a higher module temperature is foreseen. On the other hand, an opposite
argument concerns the absorption of the impinging IR portion of the spectrum. Since the
bifacial cells, contrarily to the Al back surface field (Al-BSF) monofacial cells, are more
transparent in the IR, less solar radiation energy is effectively collected by the bifacial cell,
resulting in a lower cell temperature. Lamers et al. [12] analysed the impact of IR radiation
on Al-BSF MPV modules. In this case, at low albedo, the MPV module temperature is
estimated to be higher, compared with the BPV system. Only at high rear side irradiances
did the authors estimate that the BPV system becomes hotter than the monofacial one.
Similar results were also reported by Zhang et al. [13], who refined the previous studies
by considering also the case of different ground albedos. Patel et al. [4] underlined the
role of the IR sub-bandgap absorption, which increases the PV module temperature under
bifacial operation. These works show the importance of using technologies with power
temperature coefficients low in absolute value, such as in the case of Si HJT.
Previous works [12–14] have studied a direct comparison of performance and module
temperature in bifacial and monofacial modes. In these studies, the differences in module
temperature are due to the differences in the solar irradiation in MPV and BPV, but they
are also heavily influenced by the different technologies used to realise the modules. A
comparison in which only the operation mode (bifacial or monofacial) is varied but the Si
PV technology is maintained the same is needed, to isolate the role played by the type of
irradiation (front and back vs. only front).
In summary, the problem of predicting the PV module temperature in BPV is a crucial
aspect which needs further analysis. In this paper, we report an experimental study focused
on this problem, and on the basis of the experimental results, we refine the physical model
that we have previously proposed [10,11] which calculates the BG in three-dimensional
system geometry.
The experiments were performed in clear-sky outdoor conditions and focused on a
direct comparison of two minimodules of three cells realised by the same bifacial HJT tech-
nology, one of them operating in bifacial mode and the other one operating simultaneously
in monofacial mode. The physical quantities of interest include minimodule temperature,
Isc , Voc , power at the maximum power point (Pmpp ), and energy yield. By comparing
 Energies 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

Energies 2022, 15, 22 3 of 13

simultaneously in monofacial mode. The physical quantities of interest include
minimodule temperature, Isc, Voc, power at the maximum power point (Pmpp), and energy
yield. By comparing minimodules realised by the same PV technology, the differences in
minimodules
module temperaturerealisedcan by the
onlysame PV technology,
be ascribed the differences
to the differences in the in module
mode temperature
in which the solar
can only beimpinges
radiation ascribedon to the modules.
differences in the mode in which the solar radiation impinges
on theThe modules.
proposed refinement to the model is an equation to estimate the BPV module
The
temperature proposed
that takesrefinement to thethe
into account model is an equation
additional to estimate
light collected by the the BPV back.
module module We
temperature that takes into account the additional light collected
validate the updated model by using the experimental data of the minimodules reported by the module back. We
validate
below. In thethe
updated
final partmodel
of thebypaper,
using the
we experimental
use the modeldata of the minimodules
to predict reported
the yearly energy yield
below.
and theIneffect
the final part of the
of varying the power
paper, temperature
we use the model to predict the yearly energy yield
coefficient.
and the effect of varying the power temperature coefficient.
2. Experimental
2. Experimental
Two identical minimodules of 3 bifacial n-type Si HJT cells were prepared. The HJT
Two identical minimodules of 3 bifacial n-type Si HJT cells were prepared. The HJT
cell, characterised by a hydrogenated amorphous Si/crystalline Si heterojunction, is based
cell, characterised by a hydrogenated amorphous Si/crystalline Si heterojunction, is based
on a technology developed by Enel Green Power at its 3SUN facility. Under STC, these
on a technology developed by Enel Green Power at its 3SUN facility. Under STC, these
cells show a Voc of 730 mV, an Isc of 9.3 A, a BF of 90%, and a power conversion cell
cells show a Voc of 730 mV, an Isc of 9.3 A, a BF of 90%, and a power conversion cell
efficiency (PCCE) of 22.7%. We realised our minimodules by connecting 3 cells in series
efficiency (PCCE) of 22.7%. We realised our minimodules by connecting 3 cells in series
with copper strips and laminating them in a double transparent polyethylene substrate
with copper strips and laminating them in a double transparent polyethylene substrate
with EVA backing. One of the modules was covered with white cardboard on the back to
with EVA backing. One of the modules was covered with white cardboard on the back to
completely prevent the albedo light collection. In this way, the module operated similarly
completely prevent the albedo light collection. In this way, the module operated similarly
to a monofacial module with a white back sheet. In fact, the white cardboard here used
to a monofacial module with a white back sheet. In fact, the white cardboard here used
hasaalow
has lowtransmittance
transmittancein inthe
theinfrared
infraredrange
rangewhile,
while,in insome
somecases,
cases,the
theinfrared
infraredwhite
whiteback
back
sheetstransmittance
sheets transmittance can canbe bequite
quitelarge
large[15],
[15],which
whichwouldwouldlikely
likelyimply
implyaabetter
betterthermal
thermal
behaviour of the
behaviour of the module. module.
The minimodules
The minimodules were weretested
testedin in
outdoor
outdoorconditions
conditionsin Catania, Italy (37°26′
in Catania, N, ◦15°4′
Italy (37 E).
260 N,
The
◦ 0 data were collected from about 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. for 3 days
15 4 E). The data were collected from about 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. for 3 days in the period in the period from 17 to 19
February 2021, on sunny days with no clouds.
from 17 to 19 February 2021, on sunny days with no clouds.
An image
An imageof ofthe
theminimodules
minimodulesduring duringthe theexperiments
experimentsisisshown shownininFigure
Figure1.1.TheThe
module height (55 cm) and orientation ◦ (35° inclination from
module height (55 cm) and orientation (35 inclination from ground, modules facing south)ground, modules facing
south)
were weretochosen
chosen optimise to optimise
front- andfront- and back-side
back-side solar and
solar radiation radiation
groundand ground
albedo albedo
collection,
collection, according to our previously developed model [10].
according to our previously developed model [10]. The chosen height did not correspondThe chosen height did not
correspond to the maximum PV energy yield but rather to the
to the maximum PV energy yield but rather to the point where the further height increase point where the further
height increase
produced only a produced only a marginal
marginal improvement of improvement
energy yield [16].of energy yield [16].

Figure1.1.Image
Figure Imageof
ofthe
theexperimental
experimentalsetup:
setup:front
frontview
viewofofthe
thetwo
twominimodules,
minimodules,with
withthe
thebifacial
bifacialon
on
the left and the monofacial on the right.
the left and the monofacial on the right.

Theminimodules
The minimoduleswere wereplaced
placedononaapiece
pieceofofasphalt
asphaltwhich
whichshows
showsan anaverage
averagenormal
normal
incidencereflectivity
incidence reflectivityofof 30%
30% over
over thethe 300–1100
300–1100 nmnm range,
range, as reported
as reported in Privitera
in Privitera et al. et al.
[16].
[16].The solar irradiation intensity impinging on the PV minimodules (Efront) was mea-
suredThe solaranirradiation
by using MS-40 EKOintensity impinging
pyranometer. on the PV was
The pyranometer tilted at 35◦(E
minimodules front) was
similar to
measured by using an MS-40 EKO pyranometer. The pyranometer was tilted
the minimodules. In addition, the minimodule temperatures were measured by using two at 35° similar
to the
very minimodules.
small In addition,
thermo-resistances the placed
directly minimodule
in closetemperatures were
thermal contact tomeasured
the front andby using
back
of each minimodule. These probes were covered with white cardboard to shield the solar
radiation. Overall, each thermo-resistance had a size of 4 mm2, and it was placed above
the PV cell bus bars, thus producing negligible PV cell shadowing.
 Energies 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

Energies 2022, 15, 22 two very small thermo-resistances directly placed in close thermal contact to4 the
of 13front and
back of each minimodule. These probes were covered with white cardboard to shield the
solar radiation. Overall, each thermo-resistance had a size of 4 mm2, and it was placed
above the PV cell bus bars, thus producing negligible PV cell shadowing.
Figure 2 shows Figure
an example2 showsofan
theexample of the temperatures
temperatures measured onmeasured on(T
the front the front
front ) and(Tfront) and
back (T
back (Tback ) surfaces ofback
the ) surfaces
moduleofover
the module over time
time during one during
day of one day of measurements,
measurements, on both on both
bifacial and
bifacial and monofacial monofacial minimodule.
minimodule.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. ExampleFigure 2. Example

of measured of measured temperatures
temperatures of the minimodule
of the minimodule on the
on the front andfront andsurfaces
back back surfaces as a
function of time for bifacial (a) and monofacial (b) minimodule measured in one of the days of
as a function of time for bifacial (a) and monofacial (b) minimodule measured in one of the days
measurement.
of measurement.
In all cases, TFront is larger than TBack. This is most likely mainly due to the different
In all cases, amounts
TFront is of
larger
solar than TBackimpinging
radiation . This is most
on thelikely
front mainly
and backdue to theofdifferent
surfaces the PV minimod-
amounts of solarules,
radiation impinging on the front and back surfaces of the
evidenced by the very different short circuit current levels measured PV minimod- in bifacial and
ules, evidenced by the verysystems
monofacial different short
at all circuit
times, current
as shown levels
in the next measured
section. in bifacial and
monofacial systems at all times,
Given as minimodule
that the shown in the next section.
structure is symmetric, with both sides laminated with
Given that the same process, we assumed that the
minimodule structure is symmetric, with module temperature
both sides (Tmodule ) is the average
laminated with of the
temperatures measured on the front and on the back, that is,
the same process, we assumed that the module temperature (Tmodule ) is the average of the
temperatures measured on the front and on the back, that T is, + T
T = (1)
2
Tfront + Tback
More complex models=of module temperature have been formulated which
Tmodule (1) imple-
2
ment heat transmission throughout the module [17]; however, glass–glass commercial
More complex modules
models usually have thicknesses
of module temperature starting fromformulated
have been 4 mm, whilewhich
our minimodule
implementis only 1
heat transmission mm thick and isthe
throughout encapsulated
module [17];in ahowever,
polyethylene substrate,commercial
glass–glass as stated above. For these rea-
modules
sons, we assumed the simpler approach of Equation (1).
usually have thicknesses starting from 4 mm, while our minimodule is only 1 mm thick
From Figure 2, it is clear that the bifacial module temperature is higher than that of
and is encapsulated in a polyethylene substrate, as stated above. For these reasons, we
the monofacial module. This was systematically observed in all cases, and it will be dis-
assumed the simpler approach of Equation (1).
cussed in detail in the following parts of the paper.
From Figure 2, itTheis clear that the bifacial
current–voltage (I–V) module temperature
characteristic is higher
of each PV minimodule than that of the
was measured by a
monofacial module. This was systematically observed in all cases, and it will be discussed
Kelvin configuration. For each minimodule, the current was evaluated by the voltage drop
in detail in the following
across a 20parts of the paper.
mΩ resistor connected in series. The voltage across the module was swept by
The current–voltage (I–V) characteristic
a variable load, obtained by an of each PV minimodule
STP60NF06 was measured
power MOS repeatedly drivenby a OFF to
from
Kelvin configuration. For eachbyminimodule,
ON condition the signal
a linear staircase current wasHzevaluated
at 0.2 applied tobythethe voltagegate.
transistor dropData were
continuously
across a 20 mΩ resistor acquired
connected throughThe
in series. a USB-6343
voltageNational Instrument
across the moduledata waslogger.
swept by
In the module bias region between ≈1.8 V
a variable load, obtained by an STP60NF06 power MOS repeatedly driven fromand ≈2 V, the I–V data were
OFF affected
to by
noise due to the acquisition system, and these data points were
ON condition by a linear staircase signal at 0.2 Hz applied to the transistor gate. Data were eliminated and excluded
from further
continuously acquired dataaanalysis.
through USB-6343 Nevertheless, it has to be noted
National Instrument data that such data filtering did not
logger.
have any impact on the measurement of Isc, Voc, and Pmpp. All these parameters were reli-
In the module bias region between ≈1.8 V and ≈2 V, the I–V data were affected by
ably measured from the experimental I–V curves such as those of Figure 3. Each I–V trace
noise due to the acquisition system, and these data points were eliminated and excluded
was repeatedly taken on each 90 s, obtaining 250 data sets on average during each day.
from further data analysis. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that such data filtering did
not have any impact on the measurement of Isc , Voc , and Pmpp . All these parameters were
reliably measured from the experimental I–V curves such as those of Figure 3. Each I–V
trace was repeatedly taken on each 90 s, obtaining 250 data sets on average during each
day. With this setup, we could follow the daily evolution of the PV system characteristics
with high time resolution and an accuracy in the measurements of current and voltage of
about 0.5% and 0.1%, respectively. Finally, the ambient temperature data were collected
from an in situ weather station.
 Energies 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 13

Energies 2022, 14,With this setup,

x FOR PEER REVIEW we
could follow the daily evolution of the PV system characteristics with5 of 13
Energies 2022, 15, 22 high time resolution and an accuracy in the measurements of current and voltage of5about of 13
0.5% and 0.1%, respectively. Finally, the ambient temperature data were collected from
an in situ weather
Withstation.
this setup, we could follow the daily evolution of the PV system characteristics with
high time resolution and an accuracy in the measurements of current and voltage of about
0.5% and 0.1%, respectively. Finally, the ambient temperature data were collected from
an in situ weather station.

Figure3.3. Experimental
Figure Experimental I–V
I–V curves
curves collected
collected from
from the
thebifacial
bifacialminimodule
minimoduleininoneoneofofthe
thedays
daysof
measurements.
of measurements.Figure 3. Experimental I–V curves collected from the bifacial minimodule in one of the days of
measurements.
3.3.Results
Resultsand
andDiscussion
Discussion
3.1.
3.1.Module
ModuleTemperature
3. Results and Discussion
Temperature
Figure
Figure4b4breports
3.1. Module
reports the
the experimental
experimentaldata
Temperature dataofofthe thePV PVminimodule
minimoduletemperature
temperatureofofboth both
modules and of the ambient temperature (T ), averaged over
modules and of the ambient temperature (Tamb), averaged over the three days of measure-of both
Figure 4b reports the experimental
amb data of the PV the three
minimodule days of mea-
temperature
surements. As modules
expected,
ments. As expected, and temperatures
of the ambient
temperatures are
are lower lower
in thein
temperature the
(T morning,
amb),
morning, averaged reach
over the
reach their their
three
maximum maximum
days
at of measure-
mid-
atday, and decrease in the afternoon. Module temperatures are much higher than the ambi-at mid-
midday, and ments.
decreaseAs expected,
in the temperatures
afternoon. are lower
Module in the morning,
temperatures are reach
much their maximum
higher than
the ambient day, and decrease
temperature since in the afternoon.
solar irradiation Module temperatures are much In higher than the ambi-
ent temperature since solar irradiation warms upwarms up the In
the modules.
◦up
modules.
particular, itparticular,
is evident
itthat
is evident entthe
that temperature
bifacial since solar
module is irradiation
up to about warms
12 C the modules.
warmer than Intheparticular,
monofacialit is evident
the bifacial module
that the bifacialis up to about
module isobserved12 °C
up to aboutwarmer 12quite than
°C warmer the monofacial
than the module.
monofacial This This
module.
module. This behaviour,
behaviour, systematically systematically
observed and quite remarkable, and remarkable, was
was quantitatively quantitatively
modelled,
behaviour, systematically
modelled, as discussed in Section 3.3 ofobserved this paper,and quite remarkable,
by using Equations was quantitatively
(2) and (3). In fact, modelled,
as discussed inasSection
discussed3.3 in
ofSection
this paper,
3.3 ofbythisusing
paper,Equations (2) and (3).
by using Equations (2) Inandfact,
(3). Figure 4 also 4 also
In fact, Figure
Figure 4 also shows the module temperature profiles, calculated according to the proposed
shows the moduleshows temperature
the module temperatureprofiles, calculated accordingaccording
profiles, calculated to the proposed model,model,
to the proposed
model, which reproduces
whichquite
quite well
reproduces quite
the experimental trends:
well the experimental
this
trends:
is is
thisfor
true
true
for the average values
for the average
which reproduces well the experimental trends: this is true the average values
values as well as asfor
welltheas temperatures
for the temperatures measured on a single
measured specific dayday (17 (17
February 2021)
as well as for the temperatures measured on a singleon a single
specific specific
day (17 February February
2021) with2021) with
with an RMSE of 7.3% of experimental values for the bifacial minimodule and 11.7% for
an RMSE of 7.3% of experimental values for the bifacial minimodule and 11.7% for thefor the
an RMSE of 7.3% of experimental values for the bifacial minimodule and 11.7%
the monofacial monofacial
minimodule.
monofacial minimodule. minimodule.
DATA: Bif.
DATA: Bif. DATA: Mono
70 DATA: Mono Model: Bif.
70 (a) (b)
Model: Bif. Model: Mono
(a) 60
Tamb
(b)
Temperature (°C)

Model: Mono
60
Tamb
Temperature (°C)

50
50
40

40 30

30 20

20 10
10 12 14 16
10 Time (hr)
10 12 14 16
Time
Figure (hr) ofFigure
4. Data 4. Data
a single day of
of amodule
single day of module temperature
temperature compared
compared with with the
the values values predicted
predicted by the by the
model values
model (a) and average (a) and average
comparedvalues
withcompared with
the model theAmbient
(b). model (b).temperature
Ambient temperature is also reported
is also reported
Figure as reference.
4. Data of a single day of module temperature compared with the values predicted by the
as reference.
model (a) and average values compared with the model (b). Ambient temperature is also reported
3.2. Module Electrical Parameters
as reference.
Figures 5b, 6b and 7b report, respectively, the experimental data of Isc , Voc , and
electrical energy yield at the maximum power point as a function of time averaged in the
3 days of measurements. For this experiment, we define the energy yield as the cumulative
energy produced by the minimodule at its maximum power point since the start of the
 Energies
Energies2022, 14,14,
2022, xx FOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 6 6ofof1313

3.2.
3.2.Module
ModuleElectrical
ElectricalParameters
Parameters
Energies 2022, 15, 22 6 of 13
Figures
Figures5b–7b 5b–7breport,
report,respectively,
respectively,the theexperimental
experimentaldata dataofofIscI,scV
,V oc,ocand
, andelectrical
electricalen- en-
ergy
ergyyield
yieldatatthe themaximum
maximumpower powerpoint pointasasa afunction
functionofoftime timeaveraged
averagedininthe the3 3daysdaysofof
measurements.
measurements.For Forthis
thisexperiment,
experiment,we wedefine
definethe theenergy
energyyield yieldasasthe thecumulative
cumulativeenergy energy
produced
measuring periodproduced by the
(about 9bya.m.). minimodule
The figures
the minimodule at its
at alsomaximum
report the
its maximum power
power point
calculated since
point since the
curves start
the startof of ofthe
the measuring
best
the measuring
fit of the model period
toperiod (about
(about9 9a.m.).
the experimental a.m.). The
Thefigures
data. Infigures also
alsoreport
particular, report
Figurethethecalculated
5calculated
also reports curves theofcalculated
curves ofthethebest
bestfitfitofofthe
the
model to the experimental data. In particular, Figure 5 also reports the calculated
contribution to themodel to the
bifacial PVexperimental
module Isc data. due to In the
particular,
albedoFigure 5 also reports
light collection by the back of contri-
the calculated contri-
bution totothe thebifacial PVPVmodule IscIscdue
duetotothe albedo
albedolight lightcollection
collectionby bythetheback
backofofthe thePV
the PV cell (greenbution
continuous bifacial
line). The module
Isc difference inthe
bifacial and monofacial modules PV
cell
cell(green
(greencontinuous
continuousline). line).TheTheIscIscdifference
differenceininbifacial
bifacialand andmonofacial
monofacialmodules modulesisisdue due
is due to the contribution
totothe
of the current collected byby the back of thePV PV module. The com-
thecontribution
contributionofofthe thecurrent
currentcollected
collected bythe theback
backofofthe the PVmodule.
module.The Thelatter,
latter, com-
latter, comparedpared
with the monofacial module IscIsccorrected bythe
the PVcell cell BF, provides an
paredwith withthe themonofacial
monofacialmodule module Isccorrectedcorrectedby by thePV PV cellBF, BF,provides
providesananestimate estimateofof
estimate of the ratio
the of the
ratio of solar
the solar radiation
radiation flux
flux collectedbyby
collected thethe
back back surface
surface (A (A
) with
bot ) respect
with to the
the ratio of the solar radiation flux collected by the back surface (Abot) with respect to the bot
respect to the one onecollected
one collected
collectedby by
bythe thefront
the front
front AA A
top . top
top A.A .bot
bot A
/A/Abot
top /A
was
top
was measured
measured
wastop measured bybyusing
usingtwo by using
twophotodetectors two
photodetectors ori-
ori-
photodetectors oriented
ented similarly
similarly to to
the the
PV PV minimodules,
minimodules, but onebut one
ented similarly to the PV minimodules, but one facing up and the other facing downto-
facing facing
up and up
the and
other the other
facing down to-
facing down towards
wards
wardsthe the ground
theground
ground(data (data
(datanot not
not shown),
shown),
shown), which
which
which results
results
results ininthe inorder
the the
order order of 17–20%;
ofof17–20%;
17–20%; that
thatis,is,the
thera-
ra-
diation
that is, the radiation
diation impinging
impinging
impinging onon the
onthe theback
backisis
back isabout
about17–20%
about 17–20%
17–20% ofofthe
of
the radiation
the radiation
radiation incidentincident
incident ononthethe front.
on front.TheThe
proposed
proposedmodel
the front. The proposed modelcaptures
model capturesthis
captures feature
this
this feature
feature quite
quite well
quite
well since,
well
since, from
fromFigure
since, from
Figure 5,5,ititisisevident
Figure 5, it is that
evident thatthe
the
model
model and
and data
data are
are iningood
good agreement.
agreement. The
The
evident that the model and data are in good agreement. The model fits both the average model
model fits
fits both
both the
the average
average andand thethechosen
chosen
and the chosenday daydata,
day data,with
data, with
with ananan
RMSE
RMSE
RMSE ofof4.7%
4.7%
of 4.7%and
and1.5% 1.5%for
and forbifacial
1.5% bifacial and
andmonofacial
for bifacial monofacial
and monofacial minimodules,
minimodules,re- re-
spectively.
spectively.
minimodules, respectively.

1010 (a) (b)

(a) (b)
88
ISC (A)
(A)

66 DATA:
DATA:Bif.
Bif.
DATA:
DATA:Mono
Mono
ISC

44 Model:
Model:Bif.
Bif.
Model:
Model:Mono
Mono
22 Model:
Model:Back
Back

00
1010 1212 1414 1616
Time
Time(hr)
(hr)
Figure 5. Data ofFigure
aFigure5.5.Data
single Dataof
day ofa module
of asingle
singleday
ISCofof
day module
moduleISCISCcompared
compared with with
withthe
the values
compared values
valuespredicted
predicted
the by theby
predicted bythe
modelthemodel
model(a)(a)
and
andaverage
(a) and average values average values
compared values compared
with compared with
the model the
themodel
with(b). model
The (b).
(b).The
model Themodel
model
allows allows
allows
also also
alsototoseparately
to separately calculate
separately calculatethe
calculate the
current generated
current generated bybythe back
the backsurface
surfaceofofthe module.
the module.
the current generated by the back surface of the module.

DATA:
DATA:Bif.
Bif. (a) (b)
(a) (b)
2.15
2.15 DATA:
DATA:Mono
Mono
Model:
Model:Bif.
Bif.
Model:
Model:Mono
Mono
VOC (V)
(V)

2.1
2.1
VOC

2.05
2.05

22
1010 1212 1414 1616
Time
Time(hr)
(hr)
Figure 6. Data of a single day of module VOC compared with the values predicted by the model (a)
Figure 6. Data of aFigure
single6.day
Dataofofmodule
a single day
VOCofcompared
module VOCwithcompared with the
the values values predicted
predicted by the model (a)
by the model
and
andaverage
averagevalues
valuescompared
comparedwith
withthe
themodel
model(b).
(b).
(a) and average values compared with the model (b).
The results show clearly that the bifacial PV minimodule, compared with the mono-
facial one, even if it exhibits a larger temperature, has a much larger short circuit current,
owing to the albedo light collection by the PV cell’s back side, a moderately lower Voc ,
attributed to the larger module temperature, and a remarkably larger energy yield at the
maximum power point.
 Energies2022,
Energies 15,x22
2022,14, FOR PEER REVIEW 7 7ofof13
13

80 DATA: Bif. 80 DATA: Bif.

Energy yield (Wh)

Energy yield (Wh)

DATA: Mono DATA: Mono
Model: Bif. Model: Bif.
60 Model: Mono 60 Model: Mono

40 40

20 20
(a) (b)
0 0
10 12 14 16 10 12 14 16
Time (hr) Time (hr)
Figure
Figure7.7.Data
Dataofofaasingle
singleday
dayof
ofmodule
moduleenergy
energyyield
yieldcompared
comparedwith
withthe
thevalues
valuespredicted
predictedby
bythe
the
model
model(a)
(a)and
andaverage
averagevalues
valuescompared
comparedwith
withthe
themodel
model(b).
(b).

The results
Figures 5–7show
also clearly
report that the bifacialbest-fit
the calculated PV minimodule,
curves of the compared
quantitativewith the mono-
model de-
scribed
facial below,
one, even if which allows
it exhibits performing
a larger temperature,quantitative
has a evaluations
much largerof the circuit
short energycurrent,
yield of
bifacialtoPV
owing thesystems.
albedo A good
light match ofby
collection thethe experimental
PV cell’s back dataside,
to thea model
moderately curveslower
is evident.
Voc,
Similar toto
attributed procedures
the larger for the other
module quantities,
temperature, andthe model was tested
a remarkably larger against
energy yieldthe average
at the
data and data
maximum power of the chosen day: for the Voc value, we obtained an RMSE of 0.8% for the bi-
point.
facial minimodule and
Figures 5–7 also report 0.9% forthethe monofacial
calculated minimodule,
best-fit curves ofwhile for the energy
the quantitative yield,de-
model we
obtained
scribed an RMSE
below, which of 2.4%
allows and 2.1% for bifacial
performing and monofacial
quantitative evaluations minimodules,
of the energy respectively.
yield of
In the next
bifacial section, A
PV systems. wegooddescribe
match theofproposed
the experimental model and datareport
to the its
modelevaluations
curves isofevident.
bifacial
PV annual
Similar energy yields
to procedures for as
thea other
function of the PV
quantities, themodule’s
model was temperature
tested against coefficients.
the average
data and data of the chosen day: for the Voc value, we obtained an RMSE of 0.8% for the
3.3. Model of Bifacial PV and Data Fitting
bifacial minimodule and 0.9% for the monofacial minimodule, while for the energy yield,
In refs.an
we obtained [10,11],
RMSEwe have and
of 2.4% proposed
2.1% for a model
bifacialtoand evaluate
monofacialthe I–V characteristics
minimodules, and
respec-
energy yield of PV bifacial modules and strings. The
tively. In the next section, we describe the proposed model and report its evaluations of model assumes a complete three-
dimensional
bifacial PV annual(3D) geometry,
energy yields that asis,ano simplification
function of the PVto amodule’s
bidimensional (2D) approximation
temperature coefficients.
is carried out. While differences in back-side irradiance, due to the position of the modules
in the
3.3. Modelstring, can bePV
of Bifacial neglected
and Datafor longer strings, this is not the case for shorter strings [18].
Fitting
It takes into account the impinging solar radiation divided into the direct, diffuse, and
In refs. [10,11], we have proposed a model to evaluate the I–V characteristics and
reflected components, modelled by using the ASHRAE model [19], the Global Solar Atlas
energy yield of PV bifacial modules and strings. The model assumes a complete three-
database [20], Liu and Jordan’s isotropic model of diffused light [21], and the nominal
dimensional (3D) geometry, that is, no simplification to a bidimensional (2D) approxima-
operating cell temperature (NOCT) model [22]. The solar radiation impinging on the
tion is carried out. While differences in back-side irradiance, due to the position of the
bifacial PV device was separated into two parts, that is, the Isc component due to the
modules in the string, can be neglected for longer strings, this is not the case for shorter
solar radiation impinging on the front Isc,front , and the Isc component due to the albedo
strings [18]. It takes into account the impinging solar radiation divided into the direct,
radiation diffused by the ground, Isc,back . Isc,front was calculated by considering only the
diffuse,
direct and andthe reflected
diffusedcomponents, modelledon
radiation incident bythe
using theexactly
front, ASHRAE model
in the same [19],
way theasGlobal
in the
Solar
case of the monofacial solar cells. Vice versa, Isc,back was calculated only in theand
Atlas database [20], Liu and Jordan’s isotropic model of diffused light [21], casetheof
nominal operating and
bifacial modules, cell temperature
it was obtained (NOCT) model [22].
by integrating Theall
over solar
the radiation
elements impinging
of the ground on
the
on bifacial
which the PV PVdevice
systemwaswasseparated
installed, intowhichtwo parts,
all actthat is, the Isc component
as isotropic light sourcesdue to the
diffusing
solar
lightradiation
proportionallyimpinging to theonglobal
the front Isc,front, and
horizontal the Isc component
radiation and to the ground due to the albedo
albedo. ra-
More
diation diffused by the ground, I sc,back. Isc,front was calculated by considering only the direct
specifically, Isc,front was calculated as the convolution of the front side external quantum
and the diffused
efficiency (EQE) radiation incident on
with the spectrum of thethesolar
front,radiation
exactly in the same
incident way
to the as inwhile
front, the case of
Isc,back
the monofacial solar cells. Vice versa, I sc,back was calculated
was calculated as the integral over all the underlying ground elements of the radiation only in the case of bifacial mod-
ules,
diffused and itbywaseachobtained
element,by integrating to
proportional overtheall theangle
solid elementsunderof which
the ground it seeson thewhich
solar the
cell
PV
back. system
Furtherwasdetails
installed, which
of the model all act
are as isotropic
reported in light
[11]. sources diffusing light
In the calculation, we tookpropor-
into
tionally
accountto the the global horizontal
wavelength dependence radiationof ground and to the ground
albedo, back-side albedo.
EQE,More and thespecifically,
spectrum
Isc,front
of thewas calculated
horizontal as the convolution
component of the solar spectrum.of the front side external
A larger ground quantum efficiency
area was considered
(EQE) with the
to correctly spectrum
evaluate of the solar
the back-side radiationofincident
irradiance outermost to the front, while
modules. Isc,back also
The model was took
cal-
culated as the integral over all the underlying ground
into account when the incident radiation has a large incidence angle on the receiving elements of the radiation diffused
by
PVeach element,
surface element,proportional
to correcttofor the thesolid angle under
increasing whichwhich
reflectivity it seesreduces
the solarthe cell back.
actually
Further
collected details of the model are reported in [11]. In the calculation, we took into account
radiation.
the wavelength dependence of ground albedo, back-side EQE, and the spectrum of the
Energies 2022, 15, 22 8 of 13

Once for each cell the overall Isc was calculated as the sum of Isc,front and Isc,back , as
reported in more detail in [10], the cell current–voltage (I–V) characteristics were calculated
according to the well-known current source/single-diode lumped element circuit model of
the PV cell [23]. The I–V curve of the PV module or of the PV string was then numerically
calculated by considering the series of all the PV cells. In the present case, this corresponded
to numerically calculating the series of 3 cells in the case of the minimodule and of 432
cells in the case of the string of 6 PV modules; then, the Voc was obtained as the PV system
voltage corresponding to a current equal to 0 A, while the Pmpp was evaluated as the
maximum of the power produced by the system.
The PV cell lumped element model requires the cell temperature which, therefore,
needs to be correctly modelled. Several temperature models have been defined over the
years, both for commercial modules and single cells [24]. One of the main factors that
differentiate these models is whether they take into account the effect of wind or not. As
our outdoor measurements were performed under light breeze conditions [25], quite close
to those used to measure the NOCT, we chose to start from the NOCT model and adapt it
to describe our experiment. Although a comprehensive analysis of the diverse temperature
models is beyond the scope of this work, it has to be noted that models that include
wind may be even less accurate than those that do not consider this factor, especially in
non-windy locations [26]. Moreover, the NOCT parameter is usually used for commercial
and industrial purposes, and for this reason, a correction that extended the model to BPV
would be desirable. In the experiments here reported, we experimentally measured the PV
module temperatures both in bifacial and monofacial cases, and we observed noticeable
differences, as shown in Figures 2 and 4. Therefore, to take into consideration the large
observed temperature difference, we refined the model of refs. [10,11] as follows: in a
conventional monofacial PV module the temperature is evaluated as

Tmono = Tamb + Efront · (NOCTmono − 20)/800, (2)

where Efront is the intensity of the solar radiation impinging on the PV cell front, to be
expressed in W/m2 , while NOCTmono is the nominal operating condition temperature to
be expressed in ◦ C.
We assumed that Equation (2) is only valid for monofacial PV modules, while for
the case of bifacial modules, we also had to consider the radiation impinging on the back.
In fact, in monofacial modules, the radiation impinging on the module’s back surface is
mostly reflected away by the white back sheet and therefore it does not contribute to the
module temperature. We believe that this is the reason for the large differences observed
experimentally between monofacial and bifacial modules (Figures 2 and 4). Based on such
premises, we introduced an equation similar to Equation (2) as follows:

Tbm = Tamb + (Efront + Eback ) · (NOCTbif − 20)/800 (3)

where Tbm is the temperature of the bifacial PV module, and NOCTbif is the NOCT of the
bifacial PV module. As far as the radiation impinging on the back surface is concerned,
rather than simply adding such radiation to Efront , we believed that it is more accurate to
account for this additional term by calculating the ratio between Isc,back and Isc,front , as each
factor already considers the radiation that is actually absorbed by the respective side of the
cell. In fact, as stated above, one of the factors in the calculation of Isc is the EQE, which is
different for each side and excludes from the calculation the fraction of irradiance that is
reflected or transmitted which does not contribute to cell heating.
Therefore, by assuming the model above described refined with Equations (2) and (3),
we calculated the best-fit curves of the model to the data of Figures 4–7.
The fit parameters are the NOCTbif , NOCTmono , the power temperature coefficient αT ,
the STC PV cell Isc , Voc , and the series resistance Rs . All best-fit values are very close to the
average values measured for unencapsulated cells in STC [27]. Slight changes of the order
of 10% around the STC values were allowed for Voc and Isc . On the contrary, for the Rs
Energies 2022, 15, 22 9 of 13

parameter, an increase up to a factor 3 of the STC value was allowed. The Rs best-fit value
(2× the STC value) found is likely due to the bus bar and lamination processes which can
produce some worsening of the series resistance. The best-fit values used for the curves
calculated in Figures 4–7 are reported in Table 1.

Table 1. Best-fit values of the proposed model compared with the STC cell values.

Parameter Best-Fit Value Measured STC Value

PV cell Isc 9.15 A 9.30 A
PV cell Voc 720 mV 730 mV
PV cell Rs 6 mΩ 3 mΩ
PCCE at maximum power point 21.1% 22.7%
αT −0.26%/◦ C −0.26%/◦ C
Mini-module NOCTmono 42 ◦ C -
Mini-module NOCTbif 47 ◦C -

As evident from Table 1, it is found that the cell best-fit values correspond to lower
performances compared with the cell parameters measured in STC. This is likely due to
the non-standard minimodule fabrication and lamination process which produce some
worsening compared with unencapsulated cell parameters [28].
Nevertheless, the best-fit values are quite close to the initial STC cell parameters, and
the resulting curves calculated by the proposed model reproduce the experimental data
well, in terms of PV system energy yield as well as by closely following the data of the
other fundamental physical parameters (module temperature, Voc , Isc ).
It has to be noted that the best-fit value of NOCTbif is larger than that of NOCTmono .
This result can be explained by considering the definition of NOCT, which is the operating
condition temperature of the module when irradiated at 800 W/m2 , at 45◦ inclination, at
an ambient temperature of 20 ◦ C, and with a wind flowing at 1 m/s. Given the definition,
it appears realistic that NOCTbif would be larger than NOCTmono since, under solar irradi-
ation, the bifacial module collects the albedo light from the ground. This is, on the contrary,
mostly reflected away by the monofacial module which has a white back sheet. Therefore,
more solar power is collected by the bifacial module, producing a larger temperature.

3.4. Model Extrapolations to Annual PV Energy Yield and Effect of αT

By using the proposed model, the results of the present experiments can be extrapo-
lated to realistic conditions, considering PV module strings of many modules rather than
minimodules of a few cells and yearly energy yields rather than daily yields. For this
purpose, we chose a realistic PV system configuration also in terms of the size of the ground
directly illuminated by the sun contributing to the albedo collected by the bifacial system.
In a previous paper [10], we have evaluated the effect of such perimeter size, and in the
present evaluation, we chose a perimeter size large enough to reach the maximum possible
gain of the BPV energy yield, compared with the monofacial PV.
We evaluated the annual energy yield of the bifacial system, compared with the
monofacial one. We chose the latitude of Catania (37◦ 260 N, 15◦ 40 E) and the temperature
profile in Catania in the year 2017, as reported in [25]. In all cases, the systems were assumed
to be oriented towards the south and with a 35◦ inclination, similar to the experiments, and
because this is the tilt angle to achieve the maximum annual energy yield. Figure 8 reports
the relative bifacial gain, defined as

EYbif − EYmono
BG = 100· (4)
EYmono
Energies 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13

Energies 2022, 15, 22 10 of 13

EY − EY
BG = 100 ∙ (4)
EY
where EY stands for energy yield, according to the temperature profile of Catania in 2017.
where EY stands for energy yield, according to the temperature profile of Catania in 2017.
Two cases were considered: the case of the three-cell minimodule installed at an average
Two cases were considered: the case of the three-cell minimodule installed at an average
height of 55 cm, as in Figure 1 and for the experiments here reported (blue curve), and the
height of 55 cm, as in Figure 1 and for the experiments here reported (blue curve), and
case of a string of 6 modules of 72 cells (6 cells high and 12 cells wide) of 1 m × 2 m arranged
the case of a string of 6 modules of 72 cells (6 cells high and 12 cells wide) of 1 m × 2 m
in a 2 × 3 configuration (2 modules high and 3 modules wide), installed at an average
arranged in a 2 × 3 configuration (2 modules high and 3 modules wide), installed at an
height of 2 m (red curve). Both cases were in a landscape-type installation, i.e., with the
average height of 2 m (red curve). Both cases were in a landscape-type installation, i.e.,
PV system long side along the east–west direction.
with the PV system long side along the east–west direction.

25
Relative Bifacial Gain (%)

20

15

2x3 modules
10 1x3 cells

5
0 100 200 300
Time (Day)
Modelledrelative
Figure8.8.Modelled
Figure relativebifacial
bifacialgain
gainover
overthe
thecourse
courseofofthe
theyear
yearfor
foraaminimodule
minimodule(blue)
(blue)and
andaa
stringofofsix
string sixmodules
modules(red).
(red).

Thefigure
The figureshows
showsclearly
clearlythatthatthethesystem
systemwithwiththethelargest
largestenergy
energyyield
yieldisisthe
thesmallest
smallest
one,i.e.,
one, i.e.,the
thethree-cell
three-cellminimodule.
minimodule.This Thiswas
wasexpected
expectedsincesinceas asthe
thesize
sizeof ofthe
thePVPVsystem
system
size increases, the differences of illumination of the back surfaces
size increases, the differences of illumination of the back surfaces of the PV cell become of the PV cell become
worse,that
worse, thatis,is,larger.
larger.Since Sinceall all
cellscells
areare in series,
in series, the cell
the PV PV with
cell with the worst
the worst back-side
back-side illu-
mination, i.e., the one with the lowest Isc will dominate the energy yield. This effecteffect
illumination, i.e., the one with the lowest Isc will dominate the energy yield. This be-
becomes
comes much much stronger
stronger for afor a large
large stringstring
of 6 of 6 modules
modules withwith 432 cells;
432 cells; therefore,
therefore, the PVtherel-
PV
relative bifacial gain is clearly lower. Nevertheless, the relative bifacial
ative bifacial gain is clearly lower. Nevertheless, the relative bifacial gain is still quite re- gain is still quite
remarkable,
markable, calculated
calculated to beto always
be always above
above 10%, 10%,
withwith a clear
a clear andand remarkable
remarkable advantage
advantage of
of energy yield. Such results are in good agreement with
energy yield. Such results are in good agreement with the experimental data reportedthe experimental data reported in
in refs. [29–31] and with the calculated values reported in refs. [32,33]. We also note that,
refs. [29–31] and with the calculated values reported in refs. [32,33]. We also note that,
according to our model, the maximum difference in temperature between bifacial and
according to our model, the maximum difference in temperature between bifacial and
monofacial modules is between 9 ◦ C and 12 ◦ C at the latitude of Catania throughout
monofacial modules is between 9 °C and 12 °C at the latitude of Catania throughout the
the year.
year.
The other aspect that we investigated is the weight of the α parameter of the solar cells
The other aspect that we investigated is the weight of theT αT parameter of the solar
for the application in the bifacial mode. In general, it is well known that PV technologies
cells for the application in the bifacial mode. In general, it is well known that PV technol-
with low αT in absolute value or even positive temperature coefficients are preferable
ogies with low αT in absolute value or even positive temperature coefficients are prefera-
for application in warm climates. This feature is also very useful in the case of bifacial
ble for application in warm climates. This feature is also very useful in the case of bifacial
systems. In fact, as we showed here, the temperature of a bifacial module tends to be higher,
systems. In fact, as we showed here, the temperature of a bifacial module tends to be
compared with that of the same module used in monofacial mode with a white surface on
higher, compared with that of the same module used in monofacial mode with a white
the back. Hence, one expects that the relative bifacial gain will be better in technologies
surface
with low onαtheinback. Hence,
absolute oneTo
value. expects
quantifythatthe
theadvantage,
relative bifacial gain will calculations
we performed be better in tech-
using
T
nologies with low
the model here proposed. α T in absolute value. To quantify the advantage, we performed calcu-

lationsFigure
using 9the modelthe
reports here proposed.
relative bifacial gain as a function of time calculated for the
temperature profile of Catania inbifacial
Figure 9 reports the relative 2017 andgainforasthe
a function
case of oneof time calculated
string for the
of 6 modules in tem-
2×3
perature profile of Catania in 2017 and for the case of one string
landscape configuration, as previously described. All cases were calculated by assuming of 6 modules in 2×3
landscape configuration,
the same values as previously
of the parameters, described.inAll
as reported cases
Table were calculated
1, except by assuming
for αT , which is varied
the same values ◦ of the parameters, ◦ as reported in Table 1,
from −0.26%/ C to −0.45%/ C, that is, in the range of the most important silicon PV except for α T, which is varied

technologies currently available. As expected, as αT increases in absolute value the relative

bifacial gain decreases. From the best to the worst case, the change is noticeable, of about
Energies 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13

Energies 2022, 15, 22
from −0.26%/°C to −0.45%/°C, that is, in the range of the most important silicon PV 11 tech-
of 13
nologies currently available. As expected, as αT increases in absolute value the relative
bifacial gain decreases. From the best to the worst case, the change is noticeable, of about
−20%. In all cases, however, the bifacial systems show a strong advantage in terms of en-
−20%. In all cases, however, the bifacial systems show a strong advantage in terms of
ergy yield.
energy yield.

20

Relative Bifacial Gain (%) 15

10 αT = -0.26 %/°C
-0.35 %/°C
-0.45 %/°C

5
0 100 200 300
Time (Day)
Modelled percent
Figure9.9. Modelled
Figure percent increase
increaseininrelative bifacial
relative gain
bifacial over
gain the course
over of theofyear
the course theof a six-module
year of a six-
module string
string for for different
different values
values of of thetemperature
the power power temperature coefficient.
coefficient.

InInsummary,
summary,inin this
this work,
work, wewe experimentally
experimentally studied
studied and and modelled
modelled the module
the module tem-
temperature
perature forsame
for the the same bifacial
bifacial technology
technology usedused
in ain a bifacial
bifacial mode mode
or, or,
on on
thethe contrary,
contrary, in in
a
a monofacial mode, by covering the module’s back surface with
monofacial mode, by covering the module’s back surface with a white sheet. We found a white sheet. We found
thatthe
that thePVPV module
module when
when operated
operated as as bifacial
bifacialexhibits
exhibitslarger
largertemperatures,
temperatures, estimated
estimated to to
be
between 9 ◦ C and 12 ◦ C, depending on the season, at midday throughout the year for the
be between 9 °C and 12 °C, depending on the season, at midday throughout the year for
latitude
the latitudeof Catania. Nevertheless,
of Catania. Nevertheless,the bifaciality provides
the bifaciality a noticeable
provides advantage
a noticeable in terms
advantage in
of system
terms energy
of system yield.yield.
energy The PV Thetechnologies with low
PV technologies withαlowT in α
absolute value provide more
T in absolute value provide
advantage
more when when
advantage used inused
bifacial mode. This
in bifacial mode.is, for
Thisexample, the case ofthe
is, for example, thecase
HJToftechnology
the HJT
used in the experiments here reported, with an α of − 0.26%/ ◦ C.
T
technology used in the experiments here reported, with an αT of −0.26%/°C.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
In this work, we showed, discussed, and quantitatively modelled the results of outdoor
In this work, we showed, discussed, and quantitatively modelled the results of out-
tests performed for 3 days in clear sky conditions on two PV minimodules based on Si HJT
door tests performed for 3 days in clear sky conditions on two PV minimodules based on
technology. Rather than monitoring the behaviour of the modules at their maximum power
Si HJT technology. Rather than monitoring the behaviour of the modules at their maxi-
point, we continuously swept the load on the modules from the open- to the short-circuit
mum power point, we continuously swept the load on the modules from the open- to the
condition with a 90 s period. This allowed us to monitor Voc , maximum power point,
short-circuit
Isc , and module condition with a 90 sUsing
temperature. period.this
This allowed us
approach, wetodirectly
monitorcompared
Voc, maximum power
monofacial
point, Isc, and module temperature. Using this approach, we directly compared monofa-
and bifacial operations within the same Si PV technology, evaluating the quantitative
cial and bifacial
correlation operations
between within the
PV electrical same Si PVsolar
performance, technology, evaluating
irradiance on the PVthemodule
quantitative
front
correlation between PV electrical
and back, and the module temperature. performance, solar irradiance on the PV module front
and back, and thereveal
The results module temperature.
that the observed increase in power output and consequent better
energy yield in the case ofthe
The results reveal that observed
bifacial increase
operation is in powerdue
mainly output andhigher
to the consequent better
short-circuit
energy
current. The increase in current is high enough to completely overcome the effect ofcur-
yield in the case of bifacial operation is mainly due to the higher short-circuit the
rent.
higher The increase
module in current and
temperature is high enough to completely
the consequent overcome
lower open-circuit the effect
voltage of the
observed in
higher
bifacialmodule temperature and the consequent lower open-circuit voltage observed in
operation.
bifacial operation.
Owing to the experimental data on PV module temperature, we refined our 3D model
Owing to
to evaluate thethe
PV experimental datagain.
system’s bifacial on PV Themodule temperature,
model well reproduceswetherefined our 3D
experimental
model to evaluate the PV system’s bifacial gain. The model well
results of module temperature, Voc , Isc , maximum power point, and energy yield, reproduces the experi-
both
mental results of module temperature, V , I , maximum power
in monofacial and in bifacial operations. Hence, we used the model to evaluate
oc sc point, and energy yield,
the
both
annual in monofacial
energy yieldsandand
in bifacial operations.
the effect of varying Hence, we used
the power the modelcoefficient.
temperature to evaluateFrom
the
annual energy yields
such analysis, and the
the n-type HJTeffect of varying
technology appearsthe power temperaturesuitable
to be particularly coefficient. From
for bifacial
photovoltaics given its very low temperature coefficient.
Energies 2022, 15, 22 12 of 13

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, S.M.S.P. and S.A.L.; methodology, S.A.L.; software, M.L.,
R.C. and S.A.L.; validation, S.M.S.P.; formal analysis, M.L. and R.C.; investigation, M.L., R.C., and
R.G.M.; resources, C.C., C.G., M.F. and F.B.; data curation, M.L., R.C., R.G.M., S.M.S.P. and S.A.L.;
writing—original draft preparation, M.L. and R.C.; writing—review and editing, S.M.S.P. and S.A.L.;
visualisation, M.L. and R.C.; supervision, S.A.L.; funding acquisition, S.A.L., C.G. and F.B. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The present research was, in part, funded by PON Ricerca e Innovazione 2014–2020, under
Decreto Direttoriale di concessione dell’agevolazione del 21 May 2019 Prot. N. 991, Contract Code
ARS01_00519, BEST-4U Project.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data of this study are available from the corresponding author
upon reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaics, 12th ed. 2021. Available online: https://itrpv.vdma.org/en/ (accessed on
20 February 2021).
2. Liang, T.S.; Pravettoni, M.; Deline, C.; Stein, J.S.; Kopecek, R.; Singh, J.P.; Luo, W.; Wang, Y.; Aberle, A.G.; Khoo, Y.S. A review
of crystalline silicon bifacial photovoltaic performance characterisation and simulation. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12, 116–148.
[CrossRef]
3. Gu, W.; Ma, T.; Ahmed, S.; Zhang, Y.; Peng, J. A comprehensive review and outlook of bifacial photovoltaic (bPV) technology.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 223, 113283. [CrossRef]
4. Patel, M.T.; Vijayan, R.A.; Asadpour, R.; Varadharajaperumal, M.; Khan, M.R.; Alam, M.A. Temperature-dependent energy gain
of bifacial PV farms: A global perspective. Appl. Energy 2020, 276, 115405. [CrossRef]
5. Yu, B.; Song, D.; Sun, Z.; Liu, K.; Zhang, Y.; Rong, D.; Liu, L. A study on electrical performance of N-type bifacial PV modules. Sol.
Energy 2016, 137, 129–133. [CrossRef]
6. Yusufoglu, U.A.; Lee, T.H.; Pletzer, T.M.; Halm, A.; Koduvelikulathu, L.J.; Comparotto, C.; Kopecek, R.; Kurz, H. Simulation of
Energy Production by Bifacial Modules with Revision of Ground Reflection. Energy Procedia 2014, 55, 389–395. [CrossRef]
7. Yusufoglu, U.A.; Pletzer, T.M.; Koduvelikulathu, L.J.; Comparotto, C.; Kopecek, R.; Kurz, H. Analysis of the Annual Performance
of Bifacial Modules and Optimization Methods. IEEE J. Photovolt. 2015, 5, 320–328. [CrossRef]
8. Shoukry, I.; Libal, J.; Kopecek, R.; Wefringhaus, E.; Werner, J. Modelling of Bifacial Gain for Stand-alone and in-field Installed
Bifacial PV Modules. Energy Procedia 2016, 92, 600–608. [CrossRef]
9. Sun, X.; Khan, M.R.; Deline, C.; Alam, M.A. Optimization and performance of bifacial solar modules: A global perspective. Appl.
Energy 2018, 212, 1601–1610. [CrossRef]
10. Galluzzo, F.R.; Canino, A.; Gerardi, C.; Lombardo, S.A. A new model for predicting bifacial PV modules performance: First valida-
tion results. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 46th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Chicago, IL, USA, 16–21 June 2019;
pp. 1293–1297. [CrossRef]
11. Galluzzo, F.R.; Zani, P.E.; Foti, M.; Canino, A.; Gerardi, C.; Lombardo, S. Numerical Modeling of Bifacial PV String Performance:
Perimeter Effect and Influence of Uniaxial Solar Trackers. Energies 2020, 13, 869. [CrossRef]
12. Lamers, M.W.P.E.; Özkalay, E.; Gali, R.S.R.; Janssen, G.J.M.; Weeber, A.W.; Romijn, I.G.; Van Aken, B.B. Temperature effects of
bifacial modules: Hotter or cooler? Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2018, 185, 192–197. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, Z.; Wu, M.; Lu, Y.; Xu, C.; Wang, L.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, F. The mathematical and experimental analysis on the steady-state
operating temperature of bifacial photovoltaic modules. Renew. Energy 2020, 155, 658–668. [CrossRef]
14. Rodríguez-Gallegos, C.D.; Bieri, M.; Gandhi, O.; Singh, J.P.; Reindl, T.; Panda, S.K. Monofacial vs. bifacial Si-based PV modules:
Which one is more cost-effective? Sol. Energy 2018, 176, 412–438. [CrossRef]
15. McIntosh, K.R.; Jung, J.; Abbott, M.D.; Sudbury, B.A. Determination and evaluation of a backsheet’s intrinsic reflectance. AIP
Conf. Proc. 2018, 1999, 020018. [CrossRef]
16. Privitera, S.; Muller, M.; Zwaygardt, W.; Carmo, M.; Milazzo, R.; Zani, P.; Leonardi, M.; Maita, F.; Canino, A.; Foti, M.; et al.
Highly efficient solar hydrogen production through the use of bifacial photovoltaics and membrane electrolysis. J. Power Sources
2020, 473, 228619. [CrossRef]
17. Notton, G.; Cristofari, C.; Mattei, M.; Poggi, P. Modelling of a double-glass photovoltaic module using finite differences. Appl.
Therm. Eng. 2005, 25, 2854–2877. [CrossRef]
18. Marion, B.; MacAlpine, S.; Deline, C.; Asgharzadeh, A.; Toor, F.; Riley, D.; Stein, J.; Hansen, C. A Practical Irradiance Model for
Bifacial PV Modules. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), Washington, DC, USA,
25–30 June 2017; pp. 1537–1542. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 22 13 of 13

19. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE Handbook, 1985 Fundamentals: An
Instrument of Service Prepared for the Profession Containing Technical Information; The Society: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1985.
20. Global Solar Atlas. Available online: https://globalsolaratlas.info/ (accessed on 20 February 2021).
21. Liu, B.; Jordan, R. Daily insolation on surfaces tilted towards equator. ASHRAE J. 1961, 10, 53–59.
22. Ross, R.G., Jr. Interface design considerations for terrestrial solar cell modules. In Proceedings of the 12th Photovoltaic Specialists
Conference, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 15–18 November 1976; pp. 801–806.
23. Xiao, W.; Dunford, W.G.; Capel, A. A novel modeling method for photovoltaic cells. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE 35th Annual
Power Electronics Specialists Conference (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37551), Aachen, Germany, 20–25 June 2004; pp. 1950–1956.
24. Santiago, I.; Trillo-Montero, D.; Moreno-Garcia, I.; Pallarés-López, V.; Luna-Rodríguez, J. Modeling of photovoltaic cell tempera-
ture losses: A review and a practice case in South Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 90, 70–89. [CrossRef]
25. Weather Underground. 2020. Available online: https://www.wunderground.com/ (accessed on 20 February 2021).
26. Zouine, M.; Akhsassi, M.; Erraissi, N.; Aarich, N.; Bennouna, A.; Raoufi, M.; Outzourhit, A. Mathematical Models Calculating
PV Module Temperature Using Weather Data: Experimental Study BT. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Electronic Engineering and Renewable Energy, Saidia, Morocco, 15–17 April 2018; pp. 630–639.
27. Foti, M.; Galiazzo, M.; Cerasti, L.; Sovernigo, E.; Gerardi, C.; Guglielmino, A.; Litrico, G.; Sciuto, M.; Spampinato, A.;
Ragonesi, A.; et al. Silicon Heterojunction Solar Module using Shingle interconnection. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 48th
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 20–25 June 2021; pp. 1092–1095. [CrossRef]
28. Green, M.A.; Dunlop, E.D.; Hohl-Ebinger, J.; Yoshita, M.; Kopidakis, N.; Hao, X. Solar cell efficiency tables (Version 58). Prog.
Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2021, 29, 657–667. [CrossRef]
29. Park, H.; Chang, S.; Park, S.; Kim, W.K. Outdoor Performance Test of Bifacial n-Type Silicon Photovoltaic Modules. Sustainability
2019, 11, 6234. [CrossRef]
30. Molin, E.; Stridh, B.; Molin, A.; Wackelgard, E. Experimental Yield Study of Bifacial PV Modules in Nordic Conditions. IEEE J.
Photovolt. 2018, 8, 1457–1463. [CrossRef]
31. Jang, J.; Lee, K. Practical Performance Analysis of a Bifacial PV Module and System. Energies 2020, 13, 4389. [CrossRef]
32. Gu, W.; Li, S.; Liu, X.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, X.; Ma, T. Experimental investigation of the bifacial photovoltaic module under real
conditions. Renew. Energy 2020, 173, 1111–1122. [CrossRef]
33. Abotaleb, A.; Abdallah, A. Performance of bifacial-silicon heterojunction modules under desert environment. Renew. Energy 2018,
127, 94–101. [CrossRef]