Clean Energy, 2021, 208–228

doi: 10.1093/ce/zkab006
Homepage: https://academic.oup.com/ce

Research Article
Performance analysis of a floating photovoltaic
covering system in an Indian reservoir

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

Nagananthini Ravichandran1, Nagavinothini Ravichandran2,* and
Balamurugan Panneerselvam3
1
Independent Researcher (Power Electronics and Drives), Tamil Nadu, India
2
Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples
Federico II, Naples, Italy
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, M Kumarasamy College of Engineering, Tamil Nadu, India

*Corresponding author. E-mail: nagavinothini.ravichandran@unina.it

Abstract
Floating photovoltaic (FPV) systems are one of the globally emerging technologies of renewable energy production
that tend to balance the water–energy demand by effectively saving the evaporated water from reservoirs while
generating electrical power. This study presents the performance analysis of a model FPV plant in an Indian
reservoir. The Mettur dam reservoir located in Tamil Nadu, India with a hydroelectric power plant of 150-MW
capacity is considered as a test case. The preliminary design of the FPV plant is proposed based on a detailed
study of the key design elements and their suitability for Indian reservoirs. The proposed plant is numerically
analysed for various tilt angles, mounting systems and tracking mechanisms in order to assess its potential
power generation. A flat-mount system in landscape orientation was found to exhibit a high performance ratio.
Further, a fixed-tilt FPV system with a panel slope of 10° and an FPV system with single-axis tracking were found
to be suitable for the Mettur reservoir. Further, cost analysis of the FPV system is also presented along with the
carbon-footprint estimation to establish the economic and environmental benefits of the system. The results
show that the total potential CO2 saving by a FPV system with tracking is 135 918.87 t CO2 and it is 12.5% higher
than that of a fixed-mount FPV system.

Received: 30 December 2020; Accepted: 4 March 2021

© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of National Institute of Clean-and-Low-Carbon Energy
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

208
 Clean Energy  |  209

Graphical abstract

Evaportation in
open water
reservoirs

Gaseous
Increase in
emissions from
energy demand
fossil fuels

SOLUTION Perfomance analysis

Floating model FPV system in
photovoltaic Mettur reservoir with
(FPV) hydroelectric power plant (HEPP)
system in India

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

Saves Hybrid FPV-HEPP
Combiner Prevention 184589 m3 system results in
box
of of water indirect water
Central
PV modules
inverter Transformer 135918.87 from saving of 43.99
Float pontoons evaporation
3.5 MW tons MCM every year
power carbon every year
Mooring
lines production emission
at during ther
optimum lifetime
Anchoring
tilt angle
Keywords:  solar energy; floating photovoltaic system; evaporation loss; hydroelectric power plants

Introduction With sunlight being the major source of energy pro-

duction, power generation through PV panels is receiving
Gaseous emissions due to energy production from fossil
worldwide attention. Also, the availability of technically ad-
fuels are polluting the atmosphere gradually, which not
vanced silicon panels and a cost-effective way of generating
only diminishes the purity of the air, but also affects
power even in low-light conditions motivate consumers
human health. The major pollutants from fossil-fuel com-
for self-power generation. However, the unavailability of
bustion are the greenhouse gases, which include carbon
land for the installation of large-scale land-mounted PV
dioxide, methane, benzene and nitrogen oxides. These
systems is the major drawback. Thus, achieving the target
are the major cause of global warming, air pollution and
solar energy production just through land-mounted and
water pollution [1]. In order to combat climate change,
rooftop PV systems is quite challenging. One of the alter-
moving towards clean energy while generating afford-
native solutions to compete with the target framed by the
able electricity is necessary. Power generation through
nation is FPV, also called floatovoltaics, a floating solar PV
renewable energy sources (RES) plays a significant role in
(FSPV) or a floating solar covering system (FSCS) [6–8]. This
transforming the fossil-fuel-based power sector towards
new emerging technology in which the solar panels are
zero-carbon green energy by the production of solar, wind,
placed on the water surface of ponds, lakes, lagoons, res-
hydro and geothermal power [2]. As per the statistics pro-
ervoirs and oceans shows increased efficiency compared
vided by the International Renewable Energy Agency, the
to land-mounted PV systems [9]. The other significant en-
global renewable-energy-generation capacity increased by
vironmental impact of placing PV panels on the water is
7.40%, which is equal to 176 GW, from 2018 to 2019 [2].
the reduction in evaporation, which helps in saving fresh-
The growth of renewable energy production is spectacular
water for domestic and agricultural purposes [10]. Studies
particularly in India, where a 27% increase in renewable
revealed that covering the water surface has the potential
energy production has been achieved in recent years, of
to mitigate water loss through evaporation by ≤90% [11].
which 43% is accounted for by the solar photovoltaic (PV)
This highly efficient technology had faced real-time imple-
sector [3]. The launch of the Jawaharlal Nehru National
mentation since 2007; from then, it has shown dramatic
Solar Mission (JNNSM) has remarkably increased the de-
growth with increased efficiency [12].
ployment of PV systems and resulted in 32.53 GW solar
India has a large number of reservoirs and natural and
energy production, making the nation the fourth-largest
artificial lakes. Due to global warming, the drastic increase
generator of renewable energy [4]. By 2022, JNNSM has a
in temperature has increased water loss in open reservoirs
target of 175 GW renewable energy production, with 100
due to evaporation [13]. This also affects the hydroelectri-
GW from the solar sector as per the report by the Solar
city yield from a hydroelectric power plant (HEPP), which
Energy Corporation of India (SECI) [5].
 210 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2
relies mainly on the water stored in the reservoirs. Rather
than innovative systems and technologies to reduce
water evaporation, the current need is a simple existing
system with additional advantages. The FPV technology
will address this issue in a better way by increasing solar
power production and preserving the water for future use.
By deploying FPV in reservoirs with a HEPP, the total en-
ergy output adding to the hydroelectricity can be increased
considerably [10]. Studies also confirmed that covering <3%
of the global reservoir water surfaces can considerably in-
crease the power generation from a HEPP to 395.90% with
4800 full load hours (FLH) [14]. Thus, installing FPV as the
cover system will be helpful in balancing the water–energy
demand in water-limited arid and semiarid regions, as it
has been roughly estimated that each MWp can save 25 000
cubic metres of water annually [15]. Experimental investi-
gations have also proved that the FPV system is technic-
ally feasible and economically viable for even covering the
total water surface area of a reservoir [16]. However, the
implementation of large-scale FPV systems covering en-
tire reservoir surfaces restricts the incoming irradiation to
the water body that eventually degrades the water quality
and ecology. Further, the implementation of a large-scale
FPV system requires minimum water storage in a reservoir
to avoid stranding [17]. Thus, considering the hydropower
generation and water quality of the reservoir, less reser-
voir coverage should be considered during the design of
FPV systems.
The cumulative capacity of FPV projects in India has
reached 2.70 MW recently and the country aims at produ-
cing 1721 MW of renewable energy through the projects
of the SECI, National Thermal Power Corporation, National
Hydroelectric Power Corporation and state-level distribu-
tion companies and city-development authorities [6, 8].
The first FPV system in India was commissioned in the
year 2014, with 10-kW capacity in West Bengal, following
which the implementation of this technology had scaled
up every year to a present cumulative capacity of 2.70 MW
[2, 6]. According to the combined analysis from the Indian
Energy Transition Commission (ETC) and the Energy and
Resource Institute (TERI), water bodies with a surface area
of ~18  000 km2 across the states and union territories of
India have the potential to implement 280 GW of FPV
systems [6]. The cumulative tender announced by the
Government of India during 2019 for the FPV installations
with 1700-MW capacity is in the developmental stage in
different states of the country. Considering the scope of
massive development in this sector, it is mandatory to in-
vestigate the overall performance of the FPV systems as
a reservoir cover to arrive at an environmentally friendly
design solution.
In this context, the present study aims at assessing the
electrical performance of the FPV model in an Indian res-
ervoir. The Mettur dam reservoir with hydroelectric power
plants in Tamil Nadu is selected as a test case. The selected
reservoir is the major source of water for irrigation and
drinking purposes for the district of Salem. Potential evapo-
transpiration is calculated using Hamon’s method to as-
sess the water loss from the reservoir. The model FPV plant
is designed for a lesser reservoir coverage area to avoid
hindrance to the hydropower generation and to maintain
water quality. The system is also designed with suitable
spacing between every row of the FPV array to maintain
positive ecosystem services [18]. The effects of variation
in tilt angle, tracking mechanisms and mounting mechan-
isms of the model FPV plants are assessed in detail. In add-
ition, the carbon footprint and cost of the FPV system are
also calculated to understand the environmental and eco-
nomic feasibility of this technology. Finally, the benefits of
a hybrid HEPP–FPV is assessed by calculating the direct and
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
indirect water savings in the reservoir and the FPV model
plant is compared with the existing FPV plants in India.
As Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation
(TANGEDCO) is planning to deploy a 100-MW FPV plant in
the Mettur reservoir, the key design parameters suggested
in this study can aid during the design and implemen-
tation stages of the project. The simplified methodology
followed in the study will also support in assessing the
overall performance of FPV plants to be deployed in any
reservoir all over the world.
1  Effects of evapotranspiration on
freshwater sources in India
In the last two decades, per-capita water availability (m3/
capita/year) has been continuously deteriorating in India.
Due to the exponential increase in the population and
acquisition of water-flow and storage areas for building
construction, freshwater sources are diminishing rapidly
in India, which in turn results in high water scarcity in
summer. In addition, the country experiences an annual
global horizontal irradiation ranging from 5.0 to 6.0 kW/
m2 and rainfall only for 3–4  months in a year. This arid
climatic condition leaves the country experiencing acute
freshwater shortages [19].
Over the past 100 years, carbon emission from burning
fossil fuels has adversely increasing the global tempera-
ture, which in turn increases the potential evapotrans-
piration [19]. Out of 4000 km3 of water received through
precipitation in India, 700 km3 of water are lost through
evaporation [20]. The evapotranspiration reaches almost
1000 mm/year in the southern states of India such as Tamil
Nadu and Kerala [21]. These regions are undergoing acute
water scarcity during the lean seasons due to evapor-
ation loss of water and diminishing water resources. This
can be clearly seen from the reduction in the per-capita
availability of water in India from 1950 to 2050 listed in
Table 1 [22]. This also highlights the necessity to conserve
diminishing freshwater sources like river basins, canals,
dams and reservoirs to prevent the larger part of India
from ‘water-stressed’ conditions (<1700 m3/capita/year) in
the future [19].

Table 1:  Per-capita availability of water resources in India [22]
Annual
Per-capita water Average water freshwater
availability (m3/ resources (m3/ requirement
Year capita/year) person/year) (km3)
1951 5177 3008 580–604
2001 1820 1283 694–710
2025 1341 814 784–850
2050 1140 687 973–1180
The increase in temperature and evapotranspiration
is also indirectly affecting hydropower generation in the
country. Hydroelectricity is an efficient source of energy
that relies on the amount of water in natural and human-
made reservoirs, and it is highly advantageous to meet
instant power-demand fluctuations. As the hydrologic
and atmospheric water balance is based on the evapo-
transpiration, this water balance is disturbed due to the
seasonal rise in temperature, which in turn restricts the
supply of power by a HEPP when the requirement is high.
Thus, the increase in the rate of evaporation makes the
HEPP system fail in its prime incitement. In this con-
text, instead of increasing the number of HEPPs, the
researchers rely on economical methods to reduce the
evaporation rate and it has also been found experimen-
tally that the implementation of FPV in reservoirs with
HEPPs aids in increasing hydroelectricity generation by
reducing the water loss due to evaporation [23]. Thus,
the installation of FPV plants in Indian reservoirs can be
seen as a promising solution to all these adverse issues.
2  Overview of key design elements of an
FPV system
In order to avoid the land acquisition for PV projects, the
idea of installing PV panels on water resources emerged
in the year 2007 and there is an evident growth in this
technology all over the world due to its significance [24].
Apart from the special arrangements required to make
the system float on the water surface, the FPV system is
quite similar to the conventional PV system. The main
parameters required to design a suitable FPV plant for any
water-storage system includes the type of PV panel, slope
direction of panels, meteorological conditions of the site,
support system and moorings. The major key design elem-
ents of FPV systems are shown in Fig. 1.
Among the different types of PV panels, polycrystal-
line (PC) silicon panels are highly effective for large-scale
solar power production. Recent studies also confirmed
the ability of PCs to withstand different environmental
conditions and the production of a high power output
[27, 28]. PCs are also used in the recently deployed FPV
systems in Wayanad and Vishakhapatnam in India. PV
panels are placed on a floating structure called a pon-
toon, which is usually made up of fibre-reinforced plastic
Clean Energy  |  211
Combiner
box
Central
PV modules
inverter Transformer
Float pontoons
Mooring
lines
Anchoring
Fig. 1: Key design elements for power generation through an FPV
system [25, 26]
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
(FRP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), medium-density
polyethylene (MDPE), polystyrene foam, hydro-elastic
floating membranes or ferro-cements to provide enough
buoyancy and stability to the total system. Anchoring the
floating deck with a proper technique is essential for an
FPV system, as the drift in the water level and the action
of the wind load can damage the floating platform and the
mooring cables [29, 30]. Various types of mooring systems
suggested for FPV plants include the gravity type, anchor-
tension type, semi-rigid type, tension type and modified
type [31]. The type of the mooring system is selected based
on the water level and soil type at the location.
Further, mechanisms to track the PV panels towards
the Sun will increase their power-generation capacity.
Accurately focusing the solar radiation perpendicular
to the PV panels either by a single- or dual-axis tracking
mechanism will enhance the power density and the effi-
ciency of the PV modules. Single-axis tracking is widely
used in FPV systems globally, in which the entire desk
with a diameter of <30 m is rotated to receive maximum
radiation [14]. The same mechanism is used in the 500-kW
FPV system in Wayanad, India, where the floating desk is
rotated four times a year by altering the anchoring pos-
ition [32]. The major disadvantage of the tracking systems
is their high cost, as this accounts for 25% of the total cost
of the system, even though it can increase the yield by 25%
[14]. In addition, power generation may also be affected
due to shading and wind effects when the trackers act all
day. Also, the installation of dual-axis tracking systems
makes the FPV system unstable under the action of rela-
tively modest wind speeds, which tend to cause twisting of
the mooring lines [9].
The mounting of PV panels is one of the important
design factors in determining the amount of radiation
incident perpendicularly on the fixed solar module
throughout the day. Through proper site inspection,
the position and direction of the panel can be pre-
determined in order to track the high-intensity radiation
for maximum sunlight hours. To further increase the
power output, tilting of the panels in a suitable direction
is necessary, through which more solar radiation can be
captured. It is the key factor that determines the energy
 212 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2
efficiency per unit area of the panel and the size of the
floating deck. As India is in the northern hemisphere,
a panel facing in the southern direction (with 180° azi-
muth) will improve the radiation interaction and eventu-
ally increase the output energy of the FPV array [33]. The
action of waves around the edges of the floating surface
will tend to move the floating platform [34, 35]. In this
case, the cables connecting the PV array on the floating
desk to the inverters should be provided with sufficient
length to withstand this extension. In the 500-kW FPV
system in Wayanad, India, submerged-type cables are
being used to transmit the generated power to the sub-
station and floating cables are used in the 2-MW FPV
system in Vishakhapatnam, India [6].
3  Case study
3.1  Details of study area
The following section presents the prospects of installing
FPV plants in Indian reservoirs through a detailed per-
formance analysis of an FPV model system in one of the
existing reservoirs in India. The Mettur dam reservoir
(Stanley reservoir) in the Salem district of Tamil Nadu,
India is considered as the test case. The Mettur dam, with
a total height 65 m and length 1.70 km, was built across
the river Cauvery in 1934 with a reservoir surface area of
42.5 km2 [36]. The water stored in this largest reservoir in
Tamil Nadu is used for hydroelectricity production, irriga-
tion and drinking purposes. This has been the main source
of water for 1096.70 km2 of farmland around the district
INDIA TAMIL NADU
State Boundary District Boundary
11°56'50''N
11°48'40''N
Fig. 2:  Index map of Mettur dam reservoir [37]
of Salem. It also plays a major role in preventing the area
from drought-prone conditions in lean seasons. The view
and geographical location of the Mettur dam reservoir are
shown in Fig. 2 [13, 36].
The dam has a tunnel powerhouse of 200-MW capacity
and a dam powerhouse of 50-MW capacity. In addition,
the downstream water gets diverted into four power-
houses called lower Mettur hydroelectric power projects
with a total capacity of 120-MW power generation, owned
and operated by Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation (TANGEDCO). The details of the HEPPs in the
Mettur dam are listed in Table 2. Full power generation of 50
MW from the dam powerhouse can be achieved only when
the water level of the dam is >27.50 m and the power gen-
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
eration from the tunnel powerhouse is possible only when
the water level is >16.80 m [36]. The power generation is
highly affected when the water inflow is lower, especially
in summer during the months of May, June and July.
The hydropower generated from the Mettur HEPP from
2011 to 2019 is shown in Fig. 3. The lowest energy yield is
observed during 2016 and the same year is recorded as
India’s hottest year of the decade as per the report from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) [38]. This shows that an increase in the irradiance
level increases the evaporation rate of the reservoir and
drastically affects the net power-generation output from
the HEPP due to less water inflow. Apart from this, the old
equipment and the algal bloom also obstruct the power
generation. Thus, a reduction in the evaporation rate in the
reservoir is highly important to meet the water–energy de-
mand during the summer season and to increase hydro
SALEM
Taluk Boundary
77°44'0''E 77°52'0''E
N Legend
11°56'50''N
Locations
Highways
Reservoir
11°48'40''N
77°44'0''E 77°52'0''E
 Clean Energy  |  213

Table 2:  Hydroelectric power plants in Mettur dam [13, 36]

Power-generation Number of Total capacity

Power plants capacity (MW) turbine units (MW)

Mettur dam powerhouse 12.5 4 50

Mettur tunnel powerhouse 50 4 200
Lower Mettur barrage Powerhouse—I/Chekkanur 15 2 30
Lower Mettur barrage Powerhouse—II/Nerinjipettai 15 2 30
Lower Mettur barrage Powerhouse—III/Kuthirai kalmedu 15 2 30
Lower Mettur barrage Powerhouse—IV/Uratchikottai 15 2 30
Net power generation

600

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

(GWh)

400

200

0
2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19
Fiscal year

Fig. 3:  Power generation from Mettur hydroelectric power plant from 2011 to 2019 [39]

38
Temperature (degree celcius)

34

30

26

22

18
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year

Fig. 4:  Daily variation in temperature at Mettur dam from 2010 to 2019

power generation. The implementation of FPV plants in on water bodies is the evapotranspiration, which is the
the Mettur reservoir in integration with a HEPP will not sum of the evaporation and transpiration occurring on the
only increase the share of renewable energy production in surface. This needs to be estimated accurately for water-
the nation, but also fulfil the power energy demand of the resources management. Due to the difficulties associated
surrounding locations throughout the year. with the direct estimation of evapotranspiration, potential
evapotranspiration (PET) is commonly used to calculate
the evapotranspiration occurring from a specific surface
3.2  Potential evapotranspiration in the Mettur with unlimited water supply or from surfaces that are
reservoir completely covered with water (like lakes and reservoirs).
The meteorological data required for the study were PET is a useful measure to identify the atmospheric water
collected from NASA (Prediction of Worldwide Energy demand of a particular region under study. Further, it also
Resource) for the period 2010–19 [40], from which water loss helps in understanding the impact of climate change and
through evaporation over the years is assessed. The tem- other human-made installations on water bodies [41]. PET
perature variation in the Mettur reservoir is shown in Fig. is affected by various meteorological conditions and it is
4. An increase in temperature can be clearly seen during usually measured indirectly from other climate factors
the summer (April, May and June) every year. The max- such as air temperature, wind speed and solar radiation.
imum recorded temperature and irradiance are 34.98°C It is usually expressed in depth per unit time (mm/day
and 7.56 kW/m2/day, respectively. One of the important or m/year) and it can be considered as an upper limit of
parameters that shows the impact of high temperature evapotranspiration.
 214 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2
In order to predict the water loss in the Mettur reservoir,
daily PET is calculated. Many conventional methods to es-
timate PET, derived based on the geographical conditions
of the location, are available in the literature. One of the
commonly used methods is Hamon’s method, which is a
simple methodology with acceptable accuracy. It is used in
the present study to estimate PET at the Mettur reservoir.
According to Hamon’s method, PET (mm/day) is expressed
using the following relationship [42]:
k ∗ 0.165 ∗ 216.7 ∗ N ∗ es
(1)
PET =
T + 273.3
where k is the proportionality coefficient (equal to 1.2), N
is the daylight hours and eS is the saturated vapour pres-
sure at air temperature, T. The daily PET calculated from
the above expression for the Mettur dam is shown in Fig. 5.
The maximum value of daily PET obtained was 16.88 mm/
day during the summer of 2016. The minimum value of
the daily evaporation rate is 6.21 mm/day, and thus a min-
imum of 9.53  × 105 m3 of water was lost due to evapor-
ation every day during the last 10  years from the Mettur
reservoir.
From the daily PET at the Mettur dam, the annual evap-
oration rate is calculated and the results are shown in Fig.
6. The maximum value of an annual evaporation rate of
3958.74 mm/year is obtained during the year 2016, followed
by 3877.46 mm/year in 2019. It is also important to note the
increasing trend in the evaporation rate from 2010 to 2019
and thus a further increase may be expected in the coming
years. This highlights the necessity for evaporation-control
measures in the Mettur reservoir, which acts as a main
source of water for drinking and irrigation purposes.
3.3  Proposed FPV system for the Mettur
reservoir
The percentage of FPV system coverage on the reservoir
should be <30% to preserve the water ecology and to avoid
losses in hydropower revenues [17]. Large-scale implemen-
tation covering a greater portion of the reservoir with an
FPV system reduces air–water fluxes and creates physical,
chemical and biological effects on the surface meteorology
20
Potential evapotranspiration
16
(mm/day)
12
4
2010 2011
Fig. 5:  Daily potential evapotranspiration (PET) at Mettur dam from 2010 to 2019
of the reservoir. Thus, considering the prevailing risks as-
sociated with water-quality management and the eco-
system, the area of the FPV system is considered to be
<30%. Since the energy generation and water savings are
directly connected to the percentage of coverage, the area
of the model FPV plant is chosen close to the existing FPV
plant in Mudasarlova reservoir in India. This constitutes
~0.13% of the total reservoir area.
As the initial step, various design solutions to identify
the optimum orientation and tilt of the panel to get max-
imum energy yield are analysed in detail. The potential of
the proposed FPV models is then assessed using a quality
factor called the performance ratio (PR), which describes
the potential of FPV systems through the total potential
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
energy connected to the grid, which is calculated using the
following expression:
EG
PR =
(2)
POUT × IIPOA
STC
where, EG represents the total energy supplied to the grid
(kWh), POUT is the total power output from the FPV system
Ä ä
(kW), IPOA is the plane of array irradiance kW
mÄ2
, and ISTC is the
ä
irradiance under standard test conditions STC = 1000 kW m2
.
In the proposed FPV system, PV modules are placed at
a height of 0.3–0.5 m (including the height of the pontoon
structure) from the water surface. A polycrystalline-type
PV module of dimensions 196  × 99  × 4  cm and weight
22.5 kg coated with tempered glass of 3.20 mm and pon-
toons made up of MDPE that can support two PV panels
is considered. The system is designed with a row-to-
row spacing of 0.5 m, necessary for catwalks, and the
modules are placed 0.01 m apart. The output power de-
livered by the FPV array is carried through 10 American
Wire Gauge copper wires and connected to inverters
to generate AC power. A  string inverter is used in the
FPV model to connect the PV modules in a row. Module-
level power electronics systems like power optimizers
are not required in the present system, as the shading
losses are highly reduced by placing the FPV modules
in open reservoirs. The system is kept in position using
the pile-anchoring system. The above-mentioned de-
sign elements of the proposed FPV model in the present
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year

Annual average value
4000
Evaporation rate
3900
(mm/day)
3800
3700
3600
3500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fig. 6:  Annual average evaporation rate at Mettur dam from 2010 to 2019
A B
Fig. 7:  Schematic diagram of the FPV model in Mettur reservoir (a) Location of the FPV system and (b) top view showing the orientation of the panels.
study are selected based on its suitability for imple-
mentation along with detailed investigation of the ex-
isting FPV plants in India. The schematic diagram of the
proposed FPV model is shown in Fig. 7. Initial investi-
gations are carried out to assess the suitable PV-panel
arrangement such as square, rectangle and octagon.
The results show that the octagonal pattern of placing
PV arrays is capable of effectively accommodating the
maximum number of PV panels and also provides max-
imum energy yield in both landscape and portrait orien-
tations. Further, this system is found to be feasible while
adjusting the mooring system according to the variation
in the reservoir water level and also results in reduced
mooring forces when designed effectively. Detailed ana-
lysis with different FPV system patterns is out of the
scope of the present investigation.
3.4  Performance analysis
The total energy generated by an FPV system with the
aforementioned design requirements is simulated using
the commercial software Helioscope. For analysing the
annual energy generated from the FPV system, the esti-
mation of irradiation levels at the location is the initial
step. Irradiance can be Direct Normal Irradiance (DNI),
Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) and Diffuse Horizontal
irradiance (DHI). In order to measure the total irradiation
incident on the horizontal surface, the GHI, DHI and DNI
data for the Mettur reservoir location from 2010 to 2019,
obtained from NASA databases in typical methodological
year format (TMY), are used [40]. TMY is a set of ground-
based meteorological data with values for every hour in a
Clean Energy  |  215
Linear (Annual average value)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
year of the given location. For the estimation of real-time
power generation for the solar conversion systems, the
irradiation weather file data of the Mettur reservoir from
2010 to 2020 is uploaded in the condition sets of the soft-
ware Helioscope [47]. Additionally, the horizontal profile
of the location over the period of time is obtained from
photovoltaic geographical information system (PVGIS) in
TMY format and uploaded in the condition set to estimate
the shading pattern and its associated losses [43].
The other important parameters required in the calcu-
lation of irradiance are the solar angles and surface angles.
Solar angles include the declination angle (δ), solar eleva-
tion angle (α), hour angle (ω), surface azimuth angle (Z) and
solar zenith angle (ϕ), whereas surface angles include the
collector azimuth angle (ZS), tilt angle (β) and angle of in-
cidence (θ). The variation in the solar elevation angle (α)
to the azimuth angle (Z) is useful to predict the length as
well as the position of simple shadows like trees, hills,
poles and buildings lying between the path of the incident
Sun rays and the panel in the location of the FPV plant.
The Sun-path diagram determined from these surface-
oriented solar angles helps in identifying the shadows in a
particular location. The Sun-path chart for the Mettur res-
ervoir in artesian coordinates with hours in Local Standard
Time throughout the year is shown in Fig. 8.
Shading loss due to trees is negligible in water-
mounted PV systems. The horizon of the PV array is de-
fined by the solar azimuth angle at a particular location.
Horizontal data of the FPV system with the south-facing
PV modules for the Mettur dam were obtained from
PVGIS and the profile are shown in Fig. 9. The maximum
horizon height is observed at +90°. This shows that the
 216 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2

A
90°
(c) Univ. of oregon SRML
Sponsor: ETO
Lat: 11.78, Long: 77.8
80° (Standard) time zone: 5.5
Sun path diagram
Mettur dam 1 PM

Apr 20

1
70°

y2

21
ar
11 AM

n
Ma
20

Ju
May 2
Fe 2 PM

Jun 2
b
20
60°

1
1
10 AM Ja
Solar elevation

n
21
12 PM
3 PM
50°

De
c
21
9 AM
40°
4 PM

30° 8 AM

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

5 PM
20°
7 AM

10° 6 PM

6 AM

30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330° 360°
East Solar azimuth West

B
90°
(c) Univ. of oregon SRML
Sponsor: ETO
Lat: 11.78, Long: 77.8
80° (Standard) time zone: 5.5
Sun path diagram
Mettur dam

Aug 22
1 PM

21
70°

l
Ju

21
11 AM
Se

n
Ju
p2

Fe 2 PM
2
Jul 21
Jun 2

b
20
60°
Oc
1

t2

10 AM
Solar elevation

12 PM
No

50° 3 PM
De

v
21
c
21

9 AM
40°
4 PM

30°
8 AM
5 PM
20°
7 AM
10° 6 PM

6 AM

30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330° 360°
East Solar azimuth West

Fig. 8:  Sun-path diagram for Mettur dam (a) between solstices from December to June and (b) between solstices from June to December [44].

8
Horizon height (degrees)

4 10
9 12
5 8 11
21 2 3 6 7 13
4
0
–180 –150 –120 –90 –60 –30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Solar azimuth angle (degrees)

Fig. 9:  Horizontal profile of Mettur reservoir

 Clean Energy  |  217

losses from the south-facing PV panels are compara-
tively lower than those of other orientations. The row-
to-row shading can be minimized by providing spacing
between the individual PV panels and adjacent rows of
panels, and by placing the panels with a minimum tilt
angle. Even though the bottom edge of the second row
of the PV array will be obstructed by the first row of the
PV array, the reflected radiance on the shaded area will
help in reducing the losses. The location of the FPV in
the Mettur reservoir is selected accordingly to avoid the
shadow cast by the nearby trees and mountains. The
possibility of obstruction shadows by the reservoir em-
bankment on the FPV array may occur only when the
reservoir is empty or <50% of its full water capacity.
temperature drops with the wind speed, TC is the cell
temperature (°C), 𝐸 𝑂 is the reference solar irradiance on
the PV module (1000 W/m2), WS is the wind speed (m/s)
and Δ𝑇 is the temperature difference between the module
and the cell at 𝐸 𝑂.
4  Results and discussions
4.1  Effect of tilt-angle variation
In order to find the optimum tilt angle for the south-
oriented panels of the FPV model, the performance of the
system is analysed by varying the tilt angle from 0° to 89°
with 10-degree intervals. The panels are positioned par-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

The transposition model is used to convert the available
meteorological irradiation data incident on the horizontal
surface to the irradiation data incident on the surface in-
clined at a particular angle. The Hays model is used to
calculate the diffuse radiation incident on the solar PV in-
clined at an angle [45]. Finally, the reflected radiation in-
cident on the tilted solar module is calculated using the
albedo coefficient (α0) of the location, which is the unitless
measure of the amount of irradiance reflected by the sur-
face. In India, the albedo coefficient for the water reservoir
varies from 0.16 to 0.19 [46]. The local ambient temperature
variation and wind speed of the location impact the tem-
perature loss of the FPV system. Further, the temperature
losses also depend on the variation in the airflow under
the PV panel based on the type of racking used. The PV cell
temperature is calculated according to the performance
model given by Sandia National Laboratories using the fol-
lowing mathematical equations [47]:
(3)
TM = E ∗ e(a+b∗WS) + TA
E ergy at a 20° tilt angle. This occurs due to the increase in
(4)
TC = TM + ∗∆T
EO
where TM is the module temperature (°C), TA is the am-
bient air temperature (°C), 𝐸 is the solar irradiance inci-
dent on the module surface (W/m2), α is the empirically
determined coefficient for the upper limit of the module
temperature at low wind speed, b is the empirically de-
termined coefficient for the rate at which the module
allel to the water surface at a 0° tilt angle and the analysis
is carried out up to 89°. A tilt angle of 90° is not considered
due to the well-known shading losses associated with
this position. The results of the performance analyses are
listed in Table 3. The results show that the number of mod-
ules, FPV power output and shading losses increases and
the FPV energy output decreases with the increase in the
tilt angle.
The variations in the power and energy of the FPV
system with varying tilt angles are shown in Fig. 10a. It
can be clearly seen that the increase in the tilt angle of the
panels increases the FPV power output from 3440 to 7229.5
kW/year, whereas the FPV energy output increases up to a
20° tilt angle and then decreases. Increasing the tilt angle
of the panel shrinks the area covered by each panel consid-
erably, which provides room to deploy panels additionally
in the total available area. Thus, a large number of PV mod-
ules can be placed in the available area and this results in
an increase in the FPV power with the increase in tilt angle.
The FPV energy at a 89° tilt angle is 38% less than the en-
the row-to-row shading of panels leading to a non-uniform
panel of array (POA) irradiance at higher tilt angles. The
variation in shading and temperature losses for different
tilt angles is shown in Fig. 10b. The maximum shading loss
of 39.10% is observed at a 89° tilt angle, whereas a com-
paratively less significant variation in the temperature loss
is observed with an increase in the tilt angle.

Table 3:  Performance of the FPV system in Mettur reservoir under varying tilt angles

Tilt FPV power FPV energy FPV potential POA irradiance Number of Shading Temperature
(degrees) (KW) (MWh/year) PR (%) (kWh/kW) (kW/m2) modules loss (%) loss (%)

0 3440 5586 80.7 1625 2016.5 13 742 0.01 9.3

10 3472 5799 80.4 1670.3 2078.4 13 888 0.4 9.6
20 3564 5939 79.6 1666.2 2092.9 14 258 1.5 9.6
30 3707 5932 77.7 1600.1 2059.4 14 258 3.9 9.5
40 3936 5906 75.9 1500.2 1977.1 15 746 6.2 9.2
50 4258 5689 72.3 1336.4 1849.0 17 032 10.8 8.6
60 4689 5376 68.3 1148.3 1608.8 18 758 15.4 7.9
70 5299.5 4897 62.4 924.0 1479.0 21 198 22.1 7.1
80 6153.5 4334 55.7 704.3 1263.8 24 614 29.5 6.2
89 7229.5 3675 46.9 508.0 1083.9 28 918 39.1 5.2
 218 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2

A 10 000 B 50
FPV power (kW) Shading loss
FPV energy (kWh) Temperature loss
8000 40

6000 30

Loss (%)
Output

4000 20

2000 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Tilt angle (Degrees) Tilt angle (Degrees)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

× 104
C 3 D
2.7 80

Performance ratio (%)

Number of modules

2.4
70
2.1
60
1.8
50
1.5

1.2 40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Tilt angle (Degrees) Tilt angle (Degrees)

Fig. 10:  Effect of tilt-angle variation on the performance of the FPV model (a) Power and energy output, (b) losses, (c) number of modules and (d)
performance ratio.

The number of panels required for the FPV system in-
creases by 50% with the increase in the tilt angle from 0°
to 89° as seen from Fig. 10c, which will result in increased
cost of the system. Thus, considering the number of
panels required and the yield of the FPV system, it is ad-
vantageous to position the panels with a lower tilt angle.
Further, the PR of the FPV system is also high for the
lower tilt angles, as seen from Fig. 10d. In addition, the
lower tilt angle of panels also results in high PV poten-
tial. This will tend to reduce the magnitude of the drag
force acting on the PV array and thus avoids damage
to the panels due to high winds. A  lower tilt angle also
helps in reducing the evaporation rate in the reservoir
and provides evaporative cooling to maintain the panel
temperature. Thus, a tilt angle of 10° has been identified
as being more suitable for this FPV model in the Mettur
reservoir due to its good electrical, structural and oper-
ational performances.
4.2  Effect of panel orientation and
mounting systems
The performance of the proposed model is then analysed
by varying the orientation of the panels and the mounting
systems, by maintaining the optimum tilt angle of 10°.
Portrait and landscape orientations of the panels are con-
sidered along with flat-mount, flush-mount, East–West
and carport mounting systems to identify the best FPV
model system for better output in the Mettur reservoir. In a
flat-mount type of racking system, the PV modules are ar-
ranged at a fixed tilt angle on a flat surface. Each module in
the array is arranged with sufficient row spacing between
them to reduce the shading losses. Also, the space behind
the PV panel in this type of arrangement ensures good ven-
tilation that results in less temperature loss even at high
temperatures. In flush-mount racking, the PV modules are
placed in such a way that the tilt angle is equal to the in-
clination of the surface with zero row spacing. Therefore,
losses due to shade from adjacent panels can be effectively
neglected whereas the absence of any space between the
modules and the surface leads to poor ventilation and in-
creased temperature loss. In an East–West type of racking
system, PV panels are positioned at 90° and 270° at an
azimuth angle of 180°. The row, module, frame and peak
spacing of the panels in this dual-tilt racking arrangement
provides sufficient ventilation to each module in the PV
array. Thus, lower temperature and shading losses of the
system provide higher energy yield than flat- and flush-
mount racking. In a carport mounting type, the entire PV
array is placed at a particular tilt angle to the flat sur-
face area without row spacing. Thus, the panels arranged
in a carport type of racking is similar to the flush-mount
racking system with reduced temperature losses equal to
those of the flat-mount racking system [47]. The schematic
 Clean Energy  |  219

A B C

Fig. 11:  Schematic diagram of FPV models with different mounting systems (a) Flat mount, (b) East–West and (c) carport and flush mount.

Table 4:  Performance of the FPV model under varying orientations and mounting systems

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

FPV power FPV energy FPV potential Number of
Orientation Mounting system (KW/year) (MWh/year) PR (%) (kWh/kW) modules

Portrait Flat-mount 4138.5 6909.9 80.3 1669.5 16 554

Flush-mount 4140.0 6325.0 73.5 1528.3 16 654
East–West 5240.0 7866.6 76.2 1506.6 20 968
Carport 3460.0 5820.0 80.2 1683.6 16 554
Landscape Flat-mount 3380.0 5155.0 73.4 1526.0 13 822
Flush-mount 3380.0 5645.0 80.4 1671.7 13 822
East–West 3730.0 6973.0 76.2 1502.4 18 564
Carport 3460.0 5818.0 80.4 1683.6 13 822

diagrams of different mounting systems considered in the
present study are shown in Fig. 11.
Carport and flush-mount structures are common in
land-based fixed PV systems; however, these structures
have not been practically used or theoretically analysed in
a water-based fixed PV system [48–50]. These systems are
included in the present study to understand the tempera-
ture and shading losses in the systems. The geometry of
the carport structure is configured according to the orien-
tation of the PV array and the optimal angle of the slope is
identified using the PVGIS application [43]. The perform-
ances of the FPV model under varying orientations and
mounting systems are listed in Table 4. Portrait orientation
of the panels results in higher power output compared to
landscape orientation. Under portrait orientation, the max-
imum power output of 5240 kW/year is obtained from the
East–West mounting system, followed by flush-mount and
flat-mount systems with an almost equal power output of
4140 kW/year. The same trend is also observed under land-
scape orientation.
A comparison of FPV power, energy and PR under dif-
ferent conditions considered in the study is shown in
Fig. 12. The FPV power produced using the East–West
mounting in landscape orientation is 28.80% less than
that in portrait orientation. In the case of the flat-mount
and flush-mount systems, the power reduction in land-
scape orientation is ~18%. The power output remains the
same under both orientations when carport tracking is
used. The FPV energy output of the portrait orientation
is higher than that of the landscape orientation under
all mounting systems, with variations of 25.40%, 10.75%,
11.35% and 0.03% under flat-mount, flush-mount,
East–West and carport-mount systems, respectively.
However, the variation in PR of the FPV systems under
different orientations is not similar to the trend ob-
served in FPV power and energy outputs. The PR of the
flat-mount system in portrait orientation is higher than
that of landscape orientation by 8.60%, but the value is
less in the case of a flush-mount system. The variation
in PR between the landscape and portrait orientations
under other mounting systems is found to be negligible.
Despite the high FPV power and energy output of the
East–West mount system, its PR is comparatively lower
due to the requirement for a large number of PV modules.
In the case of the flush and carport mounts, these systems
are specialized types for PV models in rooftops with slopes.
They may not be highly advantageous when implemented
in FPV models due to the increase in the distance between
one side of the FPV array and the water surface, which af-
fects the uniform cooling effect on the panels and thereby
affects the overall panel efficiency. Considering the overall
performance of FPV model cases, the flat-mount FPV
system was found to be the most suitable for the Mettur
reservoir. Though there exists a significant difference in
the PR of the portrait and landscape orientations of flat-
mount systems, the variation in the FPV potential is only
8.50%. From an economic perspective, a flat-mount system
with landscape orientation will be advantageous due to
the smaller number of modules required.
4.3  Effect of tracking mechanisms
FPV systems with tracking mechanisms tend to result in
high energy yield compared to fixed-tilt FPV systems in
 220 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2

Portrait Landscape Portrait Landscape

6000 10 000

FPV energy (MWh/year)

3

FPV power (kW/year)

3
5000 8000 1 3
1 2 2
4000 3 2 4 4
2 4 4 1
1 6000
3000
4000
2000
1000 2000

0 0
Flat Flush East West Carport Flat Flush East West Carport
Mounting system Mounting system

Portrait Landscape
100

Performance ratio (%)

1 2 4 4
80 1 2 3 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

60

40

20

0
Flat Flush East West Carport
Mounting system

Fig. 12:  Performance of the FPV model with varying panel orientations and mounting systems

Table 5:  Performance of the FPV system with and without tracking

POA
FPV power FPV energy FPV potential irradiance Number of Shading Temperature
Orientation Tracking (KW/year) (MWh/year) PR (%) (kWh/kW) (kW/m2) modules loss (%) loss (%)

Portrait Single-axis 3459 6713 79.2 1937.6 2447.2 13 858 2.4 10.6
Fixed 3472 5851 81.1 1685.2 2078.4 13 888 0.5 9.7
Landscape Single-axis 2676 5358 79.1 1998.6 2527.5 10 724 2.3 10.7
Fixed 2701 4512 81.2 1674.2 1999.7 10 780 0.2 9.7

both portrait and landscape orientations. One of the com- irradiance due to tracking especially during the summer
monly deployed tracking mechanisms in FPV systems is in the months of March, April and May. However, the
single-axis tracking. Thus, the performance of the FPV cost associated with the installation and maintenance
model in the Mettur reservoir with single-axis tracking of tracking mechanisms is a major issue. Thus, a suitable
is assessed and the results are compared with the op- trade-off is necessary before deciding on the tracking
timum fixed flat-mount tilt system. The comparison of mechanism for the FPV model. Both fixed-tilt FPV sys-
outputs of FPV models with single-axis tracking and tems with a panel slope of 10° and FPV with single-axis
fixed-mount systems in landscape and portrait orienta- tracking are found to be suitable for the Mettur reservoir.
tions are listed in Table 5. The tracking mechanism in- The inclusion of the tracking mechanism solely depends
creases the FPV energy yield of models with portrait and upon the project cost.
landscape orientations by 12.80% and 15.80%, respect-
ively. In addition, the tracking mechanism also increases
the FPV potential of landscape- and portrait-oriented 4.4  Carbon footprint
FPV models by 15% and 20%, respectively. It is important According to the UN human development report (2016),
to note that FPV systems with single-axis tracking can the per-capita CO2 emission in India is 1.60 tons and India
provide high energy output even with an 80% increase in stands as the third-largest contributor of carbonaceous
the shading loss compared to the fixed flat-mount sys- emission from fossil fuels, of which 50% of the emissions
tems without tracking. are from the power sector [51]. The National Electricity Plan
A comparison of the average POA irradiance of FPV of the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) reported in 2018
systems with and without tracking in portrait and that solar power generation in India will increase to 162
landscape orientations with the GHI of Mettur reser- GW in 2021, through which 130 million tons of CO2 emis-
voir throughout the year is shown in Fig. 13a and b, re- sion can be avoided [39]. The average CO2-emission factor
spectively. This clearly shows the increase in the POA in India including the RES for the year 2015–16 (0.721  kg
 Clean Energy  |  221

A POA irradiance without tracking (kWh/m2)

POA irradiance with tracking (kWh/m2)
Global Horizontal Irradiation (kWh/m2)
300 3
1 4
2
Irradiance (kWh/m2)
250 1 3 5 12
2 10 12
200 3 4 5 8 9 10 11
1 4 6 7 9 11
2 5 8 12
6 7 10
150 8 9 11
6 7
100
50
0

ch

e
ry

ry

ay

r
st

er

r
ril

be

be

be
n

l
Ju
ua

ua

gu
ar

Ap

ob
Ju
M

em

em

em
M
n

br

Au

ct
Ja

Fe

O
pt

ov

ec
Se

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

B POA irradiance without tracking (kWh/m2)
POA irradiance with tracking (kWh/m2)
Global Horizontal Irradiation (kWh/m2)
300 3
1 4
2 5
Irradiance (kWh/m2)

250 1 3 12
2 4 10
3 9 11 12
200 5 7 8 10
1 4 5 6 9 11
2 7 8 12
150 6 9 10
7 8 11
6
100
50
0
ch

ne
y

ry

ay

ly

r
er

r
st
ril

be

be

be
ar

Ju
ua

gu
ar

Ap

ob
Ju
M
nu

em

em

em
M
br

Au

ct
Ja

Fe

O
pt

ov

ec
Se

D
Fig. 13:  Comparison of monthly POA irradiance of FPV systems with and without tracking (a) Portrait orientation; (b) landscape orientation.

Power Station I Power Station II

1.2
CO2 emission (kg/kW)

1.15 1 6
2
1.1
2 3
1.05 4
5
6 7 8
1 3
5
0.95 1 4 8
7
0.9
2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19
Fiscal year

Fig. 14:  Specific carbon emission per KW power generated from the Mettur thermal power plants from 2011 to 2019
Source: CEA, 2019.

CO2/kWh) is expected to reduce by 16% (0.604 kg CO2/kWh) equivalent amount of carbon emission while deploying
by the end of the year 2021–22 [39]. Also, the Intended FPV systems. Studies have also reported that the annual
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) of India in- carbon footprint of a PV system can be estimated by sub-
sist on reducing the emission intensity to 35% by the year tracting the direct and indirect energy consumption of
2030 in comparison with the 2005 level to diminish the the PV system from the gross energy injected into the
equivalent carbon emission of 2.5 billion tons [2]. India grid by the total PV system [52], and it is found that the
needs to pay more attention to minimizing the use of ex- potential of a 20-kWp FPV system has carbon savings
isting coal-fired power plants in order to meet the INDC of 1454.19 t CO2 over a lifetime of 20  years [10]. The CO2
target with future security and reliability of power supply. emission per kW power generated in India has been in
The solar energy sector plays a major role in pollution- the range of 0.841–1.055 kg over the past two decades. In
free electricity production by avoiding carbon emissions particular, the CO2 emission per kW power generated in
to a greater extent. Thus, it is important to estimate the the Mettur thermal power plants is shown in Fig. 14. The
 222 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2
Table 6:  Lifetime CO2 saving from fixed-mount and single-axis tracking FPV systems
FPV energy CO2 saving from solar energy
FPV system (MWh/year) production (tons)
Single-axis 6713 132 246.10
tracking
Fixed-mount 5851 115 264.70
average specific carbon emission from the Mettur region is
~0.985 kg CO2/kWh [53].
The CO2 savings from the FPV fixed-mount system and
FPV system with single-axis tracking in portrait orienta-
tion are calculated for a service life of 20  years and the
values are listed in Table 6. In addition to the quantification
of the potential net loss in the carbon emissions from the
installation of FPV systems, the effects due to the reduc-
tion in water evaporation should also be considered while
calculating the CO2 balance. This can be calculated using
specific electricity consumption (SEC), which is the ratio
of the consumed energy to the volume of water supplied
[39]. It is a key indicator for estimating the environmental
benefit of reducing the rate of evaporation. The average
SEC in India is 1.01 kWh/m3 for the recycled water of de-
centralized wastewater treatment plants [54]. The model
FPV array consists of polymeric floating modules and
metal net catwalks. A small amount of air–water flux and
irradiation is available for the water surface through these
catwalks and the space between each floating module.
Due to the possibility of water loss through these available
spaces in the FPV system, complete eradication of water
evaporation cannot be achieved. Hence, an evaporation
coefficient of 0.896 is assumed for calculating the direct
water saving using HDPE pontoons. This indicates that
10.40% water loss occurs through the openings in the FPV
system [55, 56]. The amount of water saved due to the re-
duction in evaporation by the model FPV system is 184 589
m3/year. Taking all this into account, the total potential CO2
saving by FPV systems with tracking is 135 918.87 t CO2 and
it is 12.5% higher than the fixed-mount FPV system for a
lifespan of 20 years.
Apart from the CO2 savings, it is also important to
record the CO2 emission associated with the production of
the polymeric floating modules. The total carbon footprint
of the PV floating module considered in the study will re-
sult in CO2 emission of 23.1 kg CO2/m2 [10]. Thus, the model
FPV system will have embodied carbon of 1108.80 t CO2.
Hence, a large-scale FPV system using a different floating
platform having a zero carbon footprint will further reduce
the carbon emission, making this technology more envir-
onmentally suitable.
4.5  Cost analysis
The total installation cost per kW for the PV system in
India was 0.618 USD in the year 2019, which was 88% less
CO2 saving from reduction in Total CO2
evaporation (tons) saving (tons)
3672.77 135 918.87
3672.77 118 937.47
than the per kW installation cost of the country in 2010.
Also, the nation’s levelized cost of electricity was reduced
by 85% from 2010 to 2019 [2]. This cost reduction in recent
years is one of the major advantages that promote the in-
stallation of PV systems. However, the cost associated with
the additional components of the floating platform should
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
also be considered in the case of FPV systems [10, 16, 24].
The cost analysis of the fixed-mount FPV system is
presented in the following section. The number of floating
modules required to accommodate 13  858 PV panels in
portrait orientation is 6930 while 10  780 PV panels in
landscape orientation require an equivalent number of
pontoons. The cost of transporting and assembling the
required materials of the floating platform (USD/Wp)
along with the cost of the mooring system are estimated
and listed in Table 7 with the components cost given in
US dollars equivalent to its Indian rate conversion in
the year 2019. The total cost of the FPV support system
is 0.963 USD/Wp. The cost of PV panels and other elec-
trical components used in the installation of the FPV
system is 0.526 USD/Wp [2]. Table 8 provides the installa-
tion and soft and hardware costs of the components in-
volved in the utility-scale PV system in India in the year
2019. Thus, the total cost of the model FPV system in
Mettur reservoir without a tracking system is 1.49 USD/
Wp for the portrait-oriented and 2.329 USD/Wp for the
landscape-oriented FPV plant. The cost breakdown of the
FPV system components is shown in Fig. 15. This clearly
shows the high cost associated with the construction
and installation of the floating platform, which is ~35%
of the total cost of the FPV system. However, the cost of
buying and levelling large hectares of land is avoided in
this water infrastructure system when compared to con-
ventional PV systems. In addition, FPV coupled with a
HEPP also eliminates the need for grid connection and
the water-saving effect also provides additional advan-
tage to meet the required power demand.
In the case of FPV systems with single-axis tracking, the
cost of the tracking mechanisms increases the total cost of
the plant. A  comparison of utility-scale fixed-mount and
single-axis tracking FPV systems is listed in Table 9 [57]. The
hardware cost includes the cost of the modules, inverters,
racking and all balance-of-system (BoS) hardware, which is
7.35% higher for the FPV system with single-axis tracking
in comparison with the fixed-mount system. The soft cost
is the installation labour, which is equal for both systems.
However, the other soft-cost category that includes the
non-hardware and non-installation labour costs, primarily
 Clean Energy  |  223

Table 7:  Estimated cost of the floating platform and mooring system

Cost of portrait-oriented Cost of landscape-oriented

Sl no. Item FPV system FPV system

1 Floating module (USD) 2036.034 3150.711

2 Structure (USD) 574.266 888.6621
3 Platforms transport (USD) 52.206 80.78747
4 Tensors (USD) 83.530 129.2599
5 Screws and rivets (USD) 20.882 32.31499
6 Assembly (USD) 208.824 323.1499
7 Total cost of the floating module (USD) 2975.742 4604.886
Cost estimation per Wp
8 Cost of the floating module (USD/m2) 0.062 0.096
9 FPV power produced (Wp/m2) 0.072 0.056
10 Total cost of the floating module (USD/Wp) 0.861 1.713

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

11 Elastic joints (USD/Wp) 0.068 0.068
12 Pilot foundation (USD/Wp) 0.034 0.034
13 Total cost of the floating system (USD/Wp) 0.963 1.803

Table 8:  Cost components of the utility-scale PV system in India in 2019 [2]

Utility-scale solar PV installed

Sl no. Category Cost component cost in India in 2019 (USD/kW)

1. Module and inverter hardware Modules 277.9

Inverters 44.4
2. Balance-of-system (BoS) hardware Cabling/wiring 29.3
Safety and security 21.3
Monitoring and control 0.7
3. Installation Inspection 3.7
Electrical installation 14.6
4. Soft costs Margin 25.6
Financing costs 40.6
System design 19.9
Permitting 14.2
Incentive application 21.9
Costumer acquisition 12.2

50
40
Total cost (%)

30
20
10
0
PV Modules Floating Cables Inverter Soft Cost BoS Anchoring Installation
Platform Hardware &
Mooring
FPV system components

Fig. 15:  Cost breakdown of fixed-mount FPV-system components in Mettur reservoir

Table 9:  Cost comparison of utility-scale fixed-mount and single-axis tracking FPV systems [57]

FPV system Hardware cost (USD/Wp) Soft cost (USD/Wp) Other soft cost (USD/Wp) Total cost (USD/Wp)

Fixed-mount 0.68 0.10 0.28 1.06

Single-axis tracking 0.73 0.10 0.35 1.18
 224 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2
EPC (Engineering, Procurement and Construction), is 25%
higher for the tracking PV system. Hence, the total cost of
the tracking FPV system is 11.30% higher than that of the
fixed-mount system.
To identify the time required to offset the carbon emis-
sions during the production of the floating modules, the
payback time PBtime of the FPV system is calculated using
the following equation:
CPV
(5)
PBtime =
SPV
where CPV is the total cost of the FPV system that in-
cludes the BoS and hard and soft costs, and SPV is the
total saving from the FPV system after its installation.
The FPV system in the present study gives good elec-
trical and economic performance when it is placed in
portrait orientation and the same is considered for ana-
lysing the PBtime. The selling cost of solar power in India
was ~0.27 USD/kWh in the year 2019 [58]. The total cost
of the fixed FPV system with portrait orientation is 5.17
million USD and the total annual savings after installa-
tion of the FPV system on Mettur reservoir is 0.7 million
USD. Thus, the payback time is 7.3  years and the sav-
ings from the FPV system by the end of 7.5  years and
10  years is 0.09 million USD and 1.85 million USD, re-
spectively. The additional cost to implement the tracking
mechanism into the FPV system is 0.07 USD/W. Thus, the
total cost of the FPV system in portrait orientation with
a tracking mechanism is 5.38 million USD with annual
savings of 0.8 million USD after installation. Hence, the
payback time of the FPV system with a tracking mech-
anism is 6.3 years and results in a saving of 3.1 million
USD after 10 years.
4.6  Benefits of the hybrid HEPP–FPV system
The major advantages of the hybrid HEPP–FPV configur-
ation are the prevention of water loss due to evaporation,
the available grid connectivity and high efficiency in com-
parison with land-based PV systems [59]. In addition, this
integration aids the intermittent operation of the HEPP in
regions with good solar-radiation levels [60]. Intermittent
operation refers to the power generation through solar
PV during high irradiation times and hydropower gener-
ation during low or absence of irradiation for continuous
power supply. Further, the amount of water saved by the
FPV covering system through preventing evaporation is
also directed to generate hydroelectricity. Thus, the FPV
system in a reservoir saves water by reducing the evap-
oration rate, which is the direct water-saving effect. The
electricity generated by the FPV is used as a substitute
for the hydropower and this is equivalent to the water
consumed by the HEPP for generating the same amount
of electricity. This is an indirect water-saving effect of the
FPV system [56].
As mentioned earlier, the FPV model system proposed
in the present study saves 184  589 m3 of water per year,
which is the direct water-saving effect of the hybrid HEPP–
FPV system. The saved water can be suitably used for ei-
ther generating hydropower or domestic and agricultural
purposes. The indirect water-saving effect is calculated by
converting the power generated from the FPV system into
the volume of water (Ve) using the following expression
[56]:
0.75 ∗ 3600 ∗ EPV ∗ [1 ε]
Ve =
(6)
ρ ∗ g ∗ ∆H
where EPV is the total amount of electricity generated by
the FPV plant (Wh), ∆H is the water head (36.57 m), g is
the gravitational acceleration (9.8 m2/s), ρ is the density of
the water (1000 kg/m3) and ε is the discarding rate of the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
PV power, which is the ratio of the discarded PV output to
the total power generated from the FPV. Based on this, the
power generated from the FPV model system will corres-
pond to indirect water savings of 43.99 millions of cubic
metres every year. This water saved indirectly can be ef-
fectively used for irrigation.
4.7  Comparison of the Mettur FPV model with
existing FPV plants in India
The two largest FPV plants in India, with 500- and 2000-
kW capacity, are located in Banasura Sagar dam reservoir
in Kerala [61, 62] and Mudasarlova reservoir in Andhra
Pradesh [63], respectively. Comparisons of the existing FPV
plants with the FPV model proposed in the present study
for Mettur reservoir are given in Table 10. The energy pro-
duced in the FPV plants increases with the increase in the
FPV size and varies also with respect to the orientation of
the panels. Hence, the electrical performance of the pro-
posed FPV model in both portrait and landscape orienta-
tions is considered for comparison.
In Banasura Sagar reservoir FPV plant, PV arrays are pro-
vided in two layers piled one above the other (see Fig. 16a).
In the case of the Mudasarlova reservoir FPV system, only
one layer of PV array is positioned in landscape orientation
(see Fig. 16b). The difference in the energy production be-
tween the FPV systems can be attributed to this variation
in the PV-panel arrangement. The power density (W/m2) of
the FPV plant at Banasura Sagar dam is 75.02% higher than
that of Mudasarlova reservoir, i.e. the former effectively
utilizes a minimum-area two-layer arrangement when
compared to the latter. The variation in the cost of the FPV
systems is due to the different type of floating platforms
used, the PV-panel arrangement and the difference in the
installation costs. For example, ferrocement platforms
are used to accommodate the PV panels and inverters
in Banasura Sagar dam FPV plant, whereas metal rafts
and aluminium bars are used in Mudasarlova FPV plant.
Further, the installation costs of these systems were 1.12
USD/W in 2016 and 0.79 USD/W in 2018. In Mudasarlova
reservoir, the FPV system is installed close to the land sur-
face. Hence, a land substation is used, as shown in Fig. 17.
 Clean Energy  |  225

Table 10:  Comparison of proposed FPV model and existing FPV plants in India [61–63]

Present study Mettur

reservoir, Tamil Nadu
Mudasarlova reservoir
Banasura Sagar dam, Vishakhapatnam-Andhra Portrait Landscape
Sl no. Parameters Wayanad-Kerala Pradesh orientation orientation

1. Floating PV size (MW) 0.5 2 3.5 2.8

2. Energy produced per 0.130 0.074 0.122 0.094
year (MWh/m2)
3. Area (m2) 6000 42 000 48 000 48 000
4. Power density (W/m2) 83.33 47.61 72.33 56.27
5. Specific yield (kWh/kW) 1556 1555 1685.2 1674.2
6. Floating desk Ferrocement Metal raft-type, aluminium, HDPE HDPE
pontoon-type HDPE and fibre materials pontoon-type pontoon-type

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022

7. Total number of panels 370 6250 13 888 10 780
8. Type of panel Polycrystalline Polycrystalline Polycrystalline Polycrystalline
9. Orientation Portrait Landscape Portrait Landscape
10. Cost (USD/W) 1.68 3.95 1.49 2.33
11. Water evaporation NA 20 31.1 31.1
reduction (%)
12. Land area required for 10 117 40 468 70 256 54 655
the equivalent power
rating (m2)
13. Substation Floating substation Land-based substation HEPP integrated HEPP
integrated

A B

Fig. 16:  Exiting FPV plants in India (a) 500-kW plant in Wayanad, Kerala and (b) 2-MW plant in Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh [32, 63].

The major differences between the existing FPV sys-
tems can be seen from the type of floating platforms,
PV-panel arrangement, mooring system and installation
cost. In the present study, pontoon-based FPV systems
with pile-anchoring systems are considered for the pre-
liminary design of the demonstrative FPV plant in Mettur
reservoir. The FPV parameters are carefully selected on the
basis of the economic perspective and feasibility of the
selected parameters for the location.
As mentioned earlier, polycrystalline PV modules are
used in present FPV models that are similar to the two
existing FPV plants. Regarding the orientation of the
panels, portrait and landscape orientations are used in
500- and 2000-kW FPV plants, respectively. Hence, it is
reasonable to compare the proposed FPV model with a
similar orientation to the respective FPV plants. While
comparing the power density of the 500-kW FPV plant
and the proposed FPV model in portrait orientation, a
lower power density (by 13.20%) is observed in the pro-
posed model. The reduction in the power density of the
Mettur FPV model can be attributed to the absence of
the two layers of PV module used in the 500-kW plant.
This configuration of the piled PV module layers is not
considered in the present study to avoid shading losses.
The power density of the Mettur FPV model in landscape
orientation is 15.30% higher than that of the 2000-kW
FPV plant. Despite the equivalent range of irradiance
levels in Mudasarlova reservoir and Mettur reservoir, the
proposed FPV model has high power density due to the
effective installation of a large number of PV modules
 226 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2
Substation
Floating carles
2MW floating PV ARRAY
Fig. 17:  Location of the substation in Mudasarlova reservoir
with a pontoon-type floating desk rather than the raft
type, which needs large spacing between the panels, as
used in 2000-kW FPV plant. The land-area requirements
for the FPV plants are calculated based on the rule of
thumb of 9.29 m2 area required for every 1-kW panel.
Thus, a 1-MW land-based PV system requires 20  234.30
m2 of land area, which includes the area for the installa-
tion of panels and spacing between them [64]. Through
effective utilization of the available area, the proposed
FPV model for Mettur reservoir produces better energy
output without exceeding the equivalent land require-
ment, even in landscape orientation.
5  Conclusion
Floating photovoltaic installation has grown tremen-
dously in the last 3 years with a global installed capacity
of 1314 MW. India, being in the development stage, has in-
creased its FPV implementation from kW to MW scales in
the last 5  years. With proper technological development
in the FPV sector, India has the potential to implement
≤280 GW of capacity with its available water resources.
This study presents a detailed numerical analysis of a
model FPV system in Mettur reservoir. It is observed that
the FPV cover will save 184 589 m3 of water annually from
evaporation. The demonstrative plant in this study is also
analysed for various angles of inclination, mounting sys-
tems and tracking mechanisms. The main outcomes are
listed below:
(i) The lower tilt angle will result in a reduced number
of PV panels, high PR and high PV potential, and also
helps in maintaining the optimum panel temperature.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
A tilt angle of 10° was found to be more suitable for the
Mettur location.
(ii) Considering the power output, energy output and PR
of FPV systems with different mounting systems, a
flat-mount system has been identified as being more
suitable for Mettur reservoir.
(iii) Landscape orientation of the panels is more econom-
ical due to the reduced number of panels required in
comparison with portrait orientation.
(iv) An FPV system with single-axis tracking yields 15.80%
more energy in comparison with a fixed-tilt system
without tracking. But the inclusion of a tracking
mechanism is not advantageous from an economic
perspective.
Following the assessment of electrical performance, the
carbon footprint and cost analysis of the FPV system were
also carried out. The results show that an FPV system with
single-axis tracking in the Mettur reservoir will help in re-
ducing 135  918.87 tons of CO2 emission annually. Based
on the cost-analysis study, it is estimated that 35% of the
total cost of the project is associated with the construction
of the floating platforms. However, this can be effectively
compensated for by the cost reduction due to the existing
grid connection of the HEPP. This small-scale methodology
exemplified for the Mettur reservoir outlining key design
factors will support the 100-MW FPV target plan of Tamil
Nadu government in Mettur reservoir. As India is a tropical
country with high solar irradiance throughout the nation,
the installation of FPV systems in similar reservoirs with
existing HEPPs will enhance the solar power production
and also help in reducing water evaporation. Similarly, the
parametric investigations presented in the study will also

help in deciding the suitable configuration of FPV systems
in several other locations all over the world. As the advan-
tages of FPV systems have been established based on the
results obtained through the present study, future investi-
gations by the research group will be focused on the com-
parison of FPV systems with single- and dual-axis tracking
systems, static and dynamic panel-interconnection top-
ologies, DC–DC converter configurations and detailed op-
eration simulations of hybrid FPV systems with HEPPs.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to in-
fluence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] EPA, U.S—Environmental Protection Agency 2020. https://www.
epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions (1
March 2021, date last accessed).
[2] IRENA. Renewable Capacity Statistics 2019. Abu Dhabi:
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), 2019.
[3] Dudley  B. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018. London:
British Petroleum Co., 2018, 1–56.
[4] IEA/IRENA Renewable Policies Database, 2018 [Online]. https://
www.iea.org/policies/4916-jawaharlal-nehru-national-solar-
mission-phase-i-ii-and-iii (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[5] SECI—Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited, 2008. https://
www.seci.co.in/jnnsm/jnnsm-introduction (1 March 2021,
date last accessed)
[6] Acharya M, Devraj S. Floating Solar Photovoltaic (FSPV): A Third
Pillar to Solar PV Sector. TERI Discussion Paper: Output of the ETC
India Project. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute,
2019.
[7] Sahu  A, Yadav  N, Sudhakar  K. Floating photovoltaic power
plant: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016,
66:815–824.
[8] SECI—Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited, Public Tenders
2020. https://www.seci.co.in/view/publish/tender?tender=all
(1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[9] Choi YK, Lee NH, Lee AK, Kim KJ. A study on major design elem-
ents of tracking-type floating photovoltaic systems. International
Journal of Smart Grid and Clean Energy, 2014, 3:70–74.
[10] Redón Santafé M, Torregrosa Soler JB, Sánchez Romero FJ, et al.
Theoretical and experimental analysis of a floating photo-
voltaic cover for water irrigation reservoirs. Energy, 2014,
67:246–255.
[11] Taboada ME, Cáceres L, Graber TA, et al. Solar water heating
system and photovoltaic floating cover to reduce evaporation:
experimental results and modeling. Renewable Energy, 2017,
105:601–615.
[12] Trapani K, Redón-Santafé M. A review of floating photovoltaic
installations: 2007–2013. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and
Applications, 2015, 23:524–32.
[13] CWC—Central Water Commission, 2020. http://cwc.gov.in/
water-info (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[14] Cazzaniga R, Cicu M, Rosa-Clot M, et al. Floating photovoltaic
plants: performance analysis and design solutions. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2018, 81:1730–1741.
[15] Rosa-Clot M, Tina GM, Nizetic S. Floating photovoltaic plants
and wastewater basins: an Australian project. Energy Procedia,
2017, 134:664–674.
Clean Energy  |  227
[16] Ferrer-Gisbert C, Ferrán-Gozálvez JJ, Redón-Santafé M, et al. A
new photovoltaic floating cover system for water reservoirs.
Renewable Energy, 2013, 60:63–70.
[17] Haas J, Khalighi J, de la Fuente A, et al. Floating photovoltaic
plants: ecological impacts versus hydropower operation flexi-
bility. Energy Conversion and Management, 2020, 206:112414.
[18] Armstrong  A, Page  T, Thackeray  SJ, et  al. Integrating envir-
onmental understanding into freshwater floatovoltaic de-
ployment using an effects hierarchy and decision trees.
Environmental Research Letters, 2020, 15:114055.
[19] Krishnan  R, Sanjay  J, Gnanaseelan  C, et  al. Assessment of
Climate Change Over the Indian Region: A  Report of the Ministry
of Earth Sciences (MOES), Government of India. Basingstoke:
Springer Nature, 2020.
[20] PIB-Press Information Bureau, 2017. Government of India, Ministry
of Water Resources. https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
aspx?relid=168727 (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[21] Goroshi S, Pradhan R, Singh RP, et al. Trend analysis of evapo-
transpiration over India: observed from long-term satellite
measurements. Journal of Earth System Science, 2017, 126:1–21.
[22] HWRISI—Hydrology and Water Resource Information System
of India, Water Resource System Division, National Institute of
Hydrology. http://117.252.14.242/rbis/rbis.htm (1 March 2021,
date last accessed).
[23] Kougias  I, Bódis  K, Jäger-Waldau  A, et  al. The potential of
water infrastructure to accommodate solar PV systems in
Mediterranean islands. Solar Energy, 2016, 136:174–182.
[24] Trapani  K, Millar  DL. Proposing offshore photovoltaic (PV)
technology to the energy mix of the Maltese islands. Energy
Conversion and Management, 2013, 67:18–26.
[25] Nagananthini  R, Nagavinothini  R, Balamurugan  P. Floating
photovoltaic thin film technology—a review. Intelligent
Manufacturing and Energy Sustainability, 2020, 169:329–338.
[26] Nagananthini  R, Nagavinothini  R. Investigation on floating
photovoltaic covering system in rural Indian reservoir to
minimize evaporation loss. International Journal of Sustainable
Energy, 2021; doi:10.1080/14786451.2020.1870975.
[27] Alkhalidi A, Hussain Al Dulaimi N. Design of an Off-Grid Solar
PV System for a Rural Shelter. Amman: School of Natural
Resources Engineering and Management, Department of
Energy Engineering, 2018.
[28] Elibol E, Özmen ÖT, Tutkun N, et al. Outdoor performance ana-
lysis of different PV panel types. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 2017, 67:651–661.
[29] Chandrasekaran  S, Nagavinothini  R. Tether analyses of off-
shore triceratops under wind, wave and current. Marine
Systems & Ocean Technology, 2018, 13:34–42.
[30] Chandrasekaran  S, Nagavinothini  R. Tether analyses of off-
shore triceratops under ice force due to continuous crushing.
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2019, 4:25.
[31] Kim  SH, Yoon  SJ, Choi  W. Design and construction of 1MW
class floating PV generation structural system using FRP
members. Energies, 2017, 10:1142.
[32] KSEB—Kerala State Electricity Board, 2017 Inauguration of 1st 10
KW Floating Solar Plant of Banasurasgar Dam and Inauguration of
the Construction of 500 KW Floating Solar Plant, 400 KW Dam top
Solar Plant and Hydel Tourism Development Project. http://kseb.in
(1 June 2020, date last accessed).
[33] Nagananthini R, Nithya G, Bhuvanesh S. Economic analysis of
bi-directional net-meters with orientation and positioning of
solar module. In: Proceedings of 2019 International Conference
on Advances in Computing and Communication Engineering
(ICACCE). Sathyamangalam, India, 4–6 April 2019, 4–6.
[34] Chandrasekaran  S, Nagavinothini  R. Dynamic analyses and
preliminary design of offshore triceratops in ultra-deep
waters. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 2018, 3:1–13.
 228 | Clean Energy, 2021, Vol. 5, No. 2
[35] Nagavinothini R, Chansrasekaran S. Dynamic analyses of off-
shore triceratops in ultra-deep waters under wind, wave, and
current. Structures, 2019, 20:279–289.
[36] TANGEDCO—Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation,
2020—Hydro Stations. https://www.tangedco.gov.in/
hydroerode.html (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[37] QGIS: QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source
Geospatial Foundation Project. 2021. https://qgis.org/en/site/ (1
March 2021, date last accessed).
[38] NCEI—National Centers for Environmental Information—National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2019 Global
Climate Report. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-
climate-201912 (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[39] CEA. Central Electricity Authority (CEA) Monthly Reports. 2020. http://
www.cea.nic.in/reports/monthly/installedcapacity/2020 (1
December 2020, date last accessed).
[40] NASA—POWER, Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resources
(POWER)—Power Data Access Viewer. https://power.larc.nasa.
gov/data-access-viewer/ (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[41] Lang D, Zheng J, Shi J, et al. A comparative study of potential
evapotranspiration estimation by eight methods with FAO
Penman–Monteith method in southwestern China. Water,
2017, 9:734.
[42] Hasan MR. Estimating potential evapotranspiration. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 1983, 109:341–343.
[43] PVGIS—Photovoltaic Geographical Information System, Joint
Research Centre (JRC). http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/
pvest.php# (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[44] University of Oregon, Solar Radiation Monitoring Laboratory
(UO-SRML), 2007. http://solardat.uoregon.edu/SunChart
Program.html (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[45] McArthur  LB, Hay  JE. On the anisotropy of diffuse solar ra-
diation. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1978,
59:1442–1443,
[46] Mani A, Chacko O, Desikan V, et al. Aircraft measurements of
the Earth’s Albedo over India. Indian Journal of Radio & Space
Physics, 1975, 4:304–309.
[47] Helioscope, 2020. https://www.helioscope.com/ (1 March 2021,
date last accessed).
[48] Babatunde AA, Abbasoglu S, Senol M. Analysis of the impact of
dust, tilt angle and orientation on performance of PV plants.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2018, 90:1017–1026.
[49] Alghamdi  AS, Bahaj  AS, Wu  Y. Assessment of large scale
photovoltaic power generation from carport canopies.
Energies, 2017, 10:686.
[50] Umer F, Aslam MS, Rabbani MS, et al. Design and optimization
of solar carport canopies for maximum power generation and
efficiency at Bahawalpur. International Journal of Photoenergy,
2019, 2019:6372503.
[51] IEA. Average CO2 emissions intensity of hourly elec-
tricity supply in India, 2018 and 2040 by scenario and
average electricity demand in 2018, Paris. https://www.
iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-co2-emissions-
intensity-of-hourly-electricity-supply-in-india-2018-and-
2040-by-scenario-and-average-electricity-demand-in-2018 (1
March 2021, date last accessed).
[52]
Bayod-Rújula  ÁA, Lorente-Lafuente  AM, Cirez-Oto  F.
Environmental assessment of grid connected photovoltaic
plants with 2-axis tracking versus fixed modules systems.
Energy, 2011, 36:3148–3158.
[53] CEA, 2019. Central Electricity Authority (CEA) CO2
Baseline Database. https://cea.nic.in/cdm-co2-baseline-
database/?lang=en (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[54] Singh P, Kansal A. Energy and GHG accounting for wastewater
infrastructure. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2018,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/5/2/208/6271254 by guest on 29 November 2022
128:499–507.
[55] Han KW, Shi K Bin, Yan XJ, Cheng YY. , et al. Water savings effi-
ciency of counterweighted spheres covering a plain reservoir in
an arid area. Water Resources Management, 2019, 33:1867–1880.
[56] Liu L, Sun Q, Li H, et al. Evaluating the benefits of integrating
floating photovoltaic and pumped storage power system.
Energy Conversion and Management, 2019, 194:173–185.
[57] Chung D, Davidson C, Fu R, et al. U.S. Photovoltaic Prices and Cost
Breakdowns : Q1 2015 Benchmarks for Residential, Commercial,
and Utility-Scale Systems. Golden, CO: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, 2015.
[58] Sahu  A, Yadav  N, Sudhakar  K. Floating photovoltaic power
plant: a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016,
66:815–824.
[59] Gulagi  A, Choudhary  P, Bogdanov  D, et  al. Electricity system
based on 100% renewable energy for India and SAARC. PLoS
One, 2017, 12:1–27.
[60] Farfan  J, Breyer  C. Combining floating solar photovoltaic
power plants and hydropower reservoirs: a virtual battery of
great global potential. Energy Procedia, 2018, 155:403–411.
[61] Regenpower, 2020. https://regenpower.com/portfolio-item/
500kw-floating-banasura sagar/ (1 June 2020, date last
accessed).
[62] BTO, 2018. Bridge to India (BTO): Vikram Solar, 2018. http://
kwattsolutions.com/Solware/program1/img/Floating-Solar-
Report_WEB.pdf (1 March 2021, date last accessed).
[63] GVSCCL. Greater Vishakhapatnam Smart City corporation Limited
(GVSCCL), SMARTNET. https://smartnet.niua.org/users/
greater-visakhapatnam-smart-city-corporation-limited (1
March 2021, date last accessed).
[64] Hyder  F, Sudhakar  K, Mamat  R. Solar PV tree design: a
review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2018,
82:1079–1096.