Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Engineering and Technology

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cleaner-engineering-and-technology

An assessment of proposed grid integrated solar photovoltaic in different

locations of Nigeria: Technical and economic perspective
Olarewaju R. O a, Ogunjuyigbe A.S. O a, Ayodele T. R a, b, *, A.A. Yusuff b, T.C. Mosetlhe b
a
Power, Energy, Machine & Drive Research Group, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
b
Department of Electrical and Mining Engineering, College of Science, Engineering and Technology, University of South Africa, Florida Campus, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The plan to integrate solar energy into the Nigerian grid is in conception and thirteen different locations within
Solar photovoltaic the country have been proposed for solar farm investment. In this paper, fourteen selected solar photovoltaic
Grid integration module types from different manufacturers were assessed to determine the optimum PV module for each of the
Technical and economic perspective
locations. The optimum module was thereafter used to determine the technical feasibility and economic viability
Capacity factor
Performance ratio
of the locations identified for solar investment in Nigeria. Technical assessments were performed using the
Nigeria reference yield, array yield, final system yield, performance ratio and capacity factor while the economic
consideration was made using the levelized cost of energy and payback period. Sensitivity analyses were also
carried out to identify the important relationships among the technical and economic parameters as they affect
the proposed sites. Relevant findings reveal that final yield, performance ratio and capacity factor ranges be­
tween 4.0361 and 4.7972 kWh/kWp, 78.96–79.96% and 16.75–19.92%, respectively. It was also observed that
the cost of energy and payback period are between 0.0524 and 0.0607 $/kWh and 10.18–10.42 years, respec­
tively. The sensitivity analyses conducted across the selected sites demonstrate that levelized cost of electricity
depends heavily on the electricity production in kWh/kWp. The result obtained also shows that increase in the
installed capacity of the solar farm has no significant impact on its performance ratio and capacity factor of the
farm. Out of fourteen solar modules that were used in the study, module index M2 (Panasonic solar) provided the
best result in terms of peak values of capacity factor and performance ratio at all the proposed sites.

planning together with the determination of energy demand and the

strategies for supply for each participating country over a 30-year
1. Introduction
horizon.
As of 2018, the installed generation capacity in Nigeria reached
Solar power has become ubiquitous in the global family of a power
12,522 MW with a thermal and hydro share of 10,142 MW and 2380
system. It has almost become indispensable due to its free resource
MW, respectively (Ayodele and Ogunjuyigbe, 2015). However, the daily
coupled with its low maintenance cost. This made numerous countries of
available power is around 4000 MW. Nevertheless, the predicted load
the world to integrate solar energy into their power grid despite its
demand (excluding the suppressed load) for the year (2020) that can
variability. In recent years, airports have started to utilize solar power
closely match the validated load demand from the eleven electricity
system for some auxiliary services. In 2015, Cochin International Airport
distribution companies (DisCos) in Nigeria together with the export
Limited, India takes the lead as the world’s first airport to be completely
requirements to neighbouring countries accrue to 10,282 MW (FICHT­
powered by solar energy (Sukumaran and Sudhakar, 2017). Large solar
NER, 2017). This reveals a huge deficit (6282 MW) in the
farms are intended to be integrated to the Nigeria power system which is
demand-supply of electricity in Nigeria leading to incessant load shed­
expected to be in operation by the year 2020 (FICHTNER, 2017). This is
ding. Therefore, an urgent need for alternative electricity generation to
a bold step to strengthen the collaboration between the Energy Com­
take care of the obvious energy deficit in the country is inevitable. Solar
mission of Nigeria (ECN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency
energy has been considered a good alternative to be part of the national
(IAEA) (Sambo et al., 2012) which aims at capacity building for energy

* Corresponding author. Power, Energy, Machine & Drive Research Group, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University
of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
E-mail addresses: richardolarewaju87@gmail.com (O.R. O), a.ogunjuyigbe@ui.edu.ng (O.A.S. O), ayodetr@unisa.ac.za (A.T. R), yusufaa@unisa.ac.za
(A.A. Yusuff), mosettc@unisa.ac.za (T.C. Mosetlhe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100149
Received 21 September 2020; Received in revised form 10 May 2021; Accepted 3 June 2021
Available online 6 June 2021
2666-7908/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Nomenclature γ Temperature coefficient of Pmax (% /◦ C)

β Temperature coefficient of Voc (% /◦ C)
DisCos Distribution Companies α Temperature coefficient of Isc (% /◦ C)
AEDC Abuja Electricity Distribution Company Dg Degradation rate
KEDC Kano Electricity Distribution Company Apv Area of the PV panel (m2)
KAEDC Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company Nmd Model number
EEDC Enugu Electricity Distribution Company G(j) Global solar irradiance of day (j)
JEDC Jos Electricity Distribution Company dmt Deration due to manufacturers’ tolerance
MCS Monocrystalline silicon dtp Deration due to temperature
PCS Polycrystalline silicon Ta (j) Ambient temperature of day (j)
Pmax (W) Maximum power Tc Cell temperature
Vmpp Maximum power voltage Esys The energy output of the PV system
Imp Maximum power current ηpv,inv Sub system efficiency between the PV array and inverter
Voc Open circuit voltage ηinv Inverter efficiency
Isc Short circuit current ηinv,sb Sub system efficiency between the inverter and
M% Module efficiency
switchboard
Top ( − ) Operating temperature (lower bound)
Yr Reference yield
Top ( + ) Operating temperature (upper bound) Ya Array yield
Vms Maximum system voltage Yf Final yield
Imsf Maximum series fuse current
PP Payback period
Ptol Power tolerance Levelized cost of energy
LCoE
EDC,d Output energy delivered by the PV modules Cf Capacity factor
PR Performance ratio PPV,rated Rated power of the PV installed
Eideal Ideal energy output Tnm Total number of modules
Icap Installed capacity
Npm Number of parallel modules
Nsm Number of series modules

Fig. 1. Existing Installed generation capacity in Nigeria.

energy mix (NEM) for meeting the energy needs while maintaining the
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission target of the country. The existing
installed generation capacity, as well as the expected, installed capacity
with the contribution of solar energy in the energy mix by 2020 is
depicted in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. Currently, there is no solar
contribution to the national energy mix, however, it is expected that
before the end of the year, 8% of the installed capacity would be coming
from solar energy.
Different studies have been carried out and reported concerning the
assessment of proposed grid integrated solar photovoltaic across the
globe. The authors in (Adrada Guerra, Amador Guerra, Orfao Tabernero,
& De la Cruz García, 2017) carried out a comparative study of six
selected photovoltaic technologies (ms-Si, pc-Si, a-Si/μc-Si, CdTe/Cds,
CIS, mc-dc-Si) connected to the internal network of a University in
Spain. The result revealed an average performance ratio that was above
Fig. 2. Expected Installed capacity with PV contribution by 2020 adapted from
(Africa, 2018; FICHTNER, 2017; NEWS, 2016).
80% for technologies like mc-Si, pc-Si, CIS, mc-dc-Si and 74.5% and
64.3% for a-Si/μc-Si and Cd–Te/CdS, respectively. In a different study
(Bakhshi-Jafarabadi et al., 2020), employed several economic indices
such as net present value (NPV), levelized cost of energy (LCOE),
payback period time (PBT), Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and
benefit-cost ratio (BCR) in order to perform the economic evaluation of
commercial grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the Middle East of
Iran. The results obtained reveal that the commercial system is charac­
terized with 0.0477 $/kWh LCOE, 5.24 years PBT, 31.88% IRR and 3.36
BCR. An assessment of solar potential using performance indices such as
array yield, reference yield, array capture losses, performance ratio,
capacity factor and system losses for four islands of Lakshadweep has

2
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

been performed by (Bhakta and Mukherjee, 2016). The authors indi­ (128.34–183.75) kWh/kWp, respectively (Adaramola, 2014). used
cated that the results of the indices were 4.13–4.29 h/d, 5.78–5.88 h/d, HOMER energy optimization software to examine the feasibility of
1.58–1.66 h/d, 64.22–65.83% and 15.51–16.09%, respectively (Mukisa grid-tied solar PV for electricity generation in Jos, Nigeria. Their find­
et al., 2019). evaluated the feasibility of implementing grid-tied rooftop ings reveal that grid connected solar PV could be economically feasible
solar PV systems in the industrial sector in Uganda. The authors also in the North-Eastern part of Nigeria (Hrayshat, 2009). studied a pro­
developed an alternative approach that is capable of determining posed 5 MW grid-connected solar in Jordan using RetScreen to obtain
rooftop area suitable for solar PV development. A study in Turkey by the viability of solar photovoltaic as an electricity generation source.
(Cubukcu and Gumus, 2020) analyzed a 2130.7 kWp grid-connected The author presented their result in terms of annual sunshine hours,
photovoltaic power plant. It was observed that the capacity factor, specific yield and the amount of greenhouse gases that could be avoided
mean performance ratio and system efficiency of the PV system were annually. In Cameroon (Ayompe and Duffy, 2014), used
18.86%, 81.15% and 13.18%, respectively. Economic performance satellite-derived solar radiation dataset so as to assess the energy gen­
analysis of a 1 MW grid-connected photovoltaic system was carried out eration potential of photovoltaic systems in 33 locations across ten re­
by (Pillai and Naser, 2018). The system under study was optimized to gions. The study shows that amorphous silicon had the highest
match the daily peak load using four economic indices. It was reported performance ratio, capacity factor and energy output in all the studied
that the designed system was 43% less than the present actual price of locations. In a different study (Salvo et al., 2017), proposed the Dis­
LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy). In India (Sukumaran and Sudhakar, counted cash flow analysis (DCFA) which simulate the entire life of the
2017), studied the effectiveness of a 12 MWp grid-connected PV system PV system from the procurement date to the end of its life so as to obtain
sited at Cochin Airport. The overall performance of the plant was the most probable market value (Sharma and Chandel, 2013). also
deemed to be satisfactory with 86.58% performance ratio and a capacity studied the performance analysis of 190 kW solar PV plants in India. The
factor of 20.12%. In another study, the technical and economic feasi­ study showed that maximum energy occurs in March, September and
bility of a 50 MW solar PV was performed by (Obeng, Gyamfi, Derkyi, October while the minimum occurs in January. The annual average
Kabo-bah, & Peprah, 2019). PVsyst and RETScreen software were capacity factor, performance ratio and system efficiency were obtained
employed in the investigation. The findings of the research showed that as 9.27%, 74% and 8.3%, respectively. Another study in Bangladesh by
there exist no barriers to the development of the project. In an attempt to (Mondal and Islam, 2009) analyzed the techno-economic feasibility for
perform the techno-economic assessment of a medium scale microgrid 500 kW grid-connected solar photovoltaic system with the aid of
photovoltaic system in South Africa (Adefarati and Obikoya, 2019), used HOMER and RETScreen computer tools. The authors presented their
ten selected locations across nine provinces of the country and result in terms of unit cost of electricity production, Internal Rate of
concluded that an efficient means of accomplishing a sustainable energy Return (IRR), equity payback, cost-benefit ratio and estimated total
development lies in the exploitation of solar resources. In an attempt to annual greenhouse gas reduced (Batman et al., 2012). performed a
access a Grid-connected Photovoltaic thermal (GCPVT) system utilizing feasibility study of grid-connected photovoltaic system to analyze the
nanofluid as base in Bangi (Al-Waeli et al., 2018), noted that cost of temperature as well as power output data in order to obtain the solar
energy, payback, efficiency, capacity factor and annual yield factor are power generation potential (Allouhi et al., 2019). have performed en­
0.196 USD/kWh, 7–8 years, 14.25%, (17.82–25.52)% and ergetic, economic and environmental (3E) analysis of three different
technologies of a photovoltaic system which are: (polycrystalline (p-Si),
monocrystalline (m-Si) and amorphous on microcrystalline (a-Si/μc-Si))
Table 1 PV technologies. The authors concluded that the energetic aspect of the
Proposed thirteen solar PV sites, their locations and proposed installed capacity. analysis showed that p-Si modules outperform the m-Si and a-Si/μc-Si
Sites Name of a State in which Latitude & Proposed modules in terms of capacity factor, performance and conversion effi­
company handling the project is Longitude Installed ciency. The economic assessment revealed that the levelized costs of
the site located Capacity energy of each of the technology were estimated to be 9.02, 10.13 and
[MW]
12.13 cents€/kWh, respectively. The environmental analysis showed
S1 Pan Africa Solar Kankia (Katsina 12.4622◦ N, 75 that average CO2 emission reduction for each of the technology were
state) 7.8286◦ E
estimated as 1.316, 1.286 and 1.051 tons of CO2, respectively. In
S2 Nigerian Solar Ganjuwa 10.7491◦ N, 100
capital partners (Bauchi state) 9.9999◦ E
another work (Al-Matin et al., 2019), evaluated levelized cost of energy
S3 Afrinergia Power Kokowa 8.5389◦ N, 50 (LCOE) for PV technology across three selected ASEAN member states
Limited (Nasarawa 7.7082◦ E and used the capital cost of subsystem components to generate unique
state) learning curves for each countries (Elamim et al., 2019). carried out the
S4 Motir Dusable Udi (Enugu 6.3159◦ N, 100
performance evaluation and economic analysis of two photovoltaic
state) 7.4208◦ E
S5 Nova Solar 5 Farm Katsina (Katsina 12.5139◦ N, 100 systems connected to the grid with 4.08 kWp capacity. The outcome of
Limited state) 7.6114◦ E the study reveals that pc-Si (polycrystalline Silicon) outperform its mc-Si
S6 Kvk Power Nigeria Yabo (Sokoto 12.5794◦ N, 100 (multicrystalline Silicon) with final yield of 5.26 h/day, capacity factor
Pvt Limited state) 4.8925◦ E of 21.93%, performance ratio of 83%, LCOE of 0.068€/kWh and
S7 Middle Band Solar Lokoja West 7.8023◦ N, 100
One Limited (Kogi state) 6.7333◦ E
payback period of 12 years.
S8 LR Aaron Power FCT 9.0765◦ N, 100 In terms of modules selection for optimal performance (Balo and
Limited 7.3986◦ E Şağbanşua, 2016), used the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to select
S9 Nova Scotia Power Dutse (Jigawa 11.7024◦ N, 80 the best solar panel for photovoltaic system design using electrical
Development state) 9.3340◦ E
output power as the most important criterion in the selection process. A
Limited
S10 CT Cosmos Kaduna West 10.1590◦ N, 70 probabilistic approach based on capacity factor estimation was pro­
8.1339◦ E posed by (Ogunjuyigbe et al., 2018) in order to select the optimum
S11 Oriental Kakowa 12.1000◦ N, 50 photovoltaic module. The study recommended the module with the
Renewable (Jigawa state) 9.5600◦ E highest average capacity factor as the optimum module in the study
Solutions
S12 Quaint Abiba Manchor 10.5222◦ N, 50
location. Similar studies have been performed in locations like Noor­
Power Limited (Kaduna state) 7.4382◦ E iabad in China (Jamil et al., 2017), Iran (Edalati et al., 2015) and Serbia
S13 Anjeed Innova Kafanchan 9.5849◦ N, 100 (Milosavljević et al., 2015).
Group (Kaduna state) 8.2924◦ E Following the aforementioned literature, different authors have
Sum Total 1075
investigated the feasibility of different proposed solar farm sites in terms

3
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Table 2 the lowest. Also, the table reveals that site S6 is the site with the highest
Technical specification of Proposed (Panasonic solar) PV modules (Panasonic, ambient temperature resource while site S12 has the lowest ambient
2020). temperature. The table also shows that sites 4–8, 13 (100 MW) have the
S/n PV Module Parameters Ratings highest proposed installed capacity while sites 3, 11&12 has the least
1 Nominal Maximum Power (Pmax) 335Wp
installed capacity (50 MW).
2 Opt. Operating Volatge (Vmp) 59.9V
3 Opt. Operating current (Imp) 5.6A 3. Methodology
4 Open circuit voltage (Voc) 71.5V
5 Short circuit current (Isc) 6.05A
6 Module Efficiency(M% ) 20% In this section, the technical performance is determined in terms of
7 Operating temperature(Top ( − ), Top ( + )) − 40 ◦ C ~ +85 ◦ C reference yield, final yield, performance ratio and capacity factor is
8 Maximum System voltage(Vms ) 1000V presented while the economic performance were evaluated in terms of
9 Max. Series fuse rating(Imsf ) 15A cost of energy and payback period.
10 Power Tolerance(Ptol ) ±3%
11 Cell Type Mono-crystalline silicon
12 Temperature Coefficient (Pmax) (γ) − 0.258%/◦ C
3.1. Technical/energy performance modeling
13 Temperature Coefficient (Voc) (β) − 0.235%/ C
◦

14 Temperature Coefficient (Isc) (α) +0.055%/◦ C

15 Model Number(Nmd ) VBHN335KJ01
16 Degradation rate (Dg ) 3% (first year), 0.45%/year
17 Area (Apv ) 1.67sqm
of their technical and economic viability using different parameters and
different photovoltaic technologies. However, this kind of investigation
is site-specific as various factors influencing the technical and economic
viability are influenced by the region in which it is located. To the best
knowledge of the authors, this has not been performed in Nigeria,
neither is it in the public domain. Since the Nigeria government is now
interested in the grid integration of solar power as part of the national
energy mix, it is necessary to conduct a concrete scientific study that
would promote the optimal investment in grid integration of solar en­
ergy in Nigeria. Therefore, this study seeks to perform an assessment of
some proposed grid-tied solar farms in different parts of Nigeria with
respect to some technical and economic indices such as final system
yield, performance ratio, capacity factor, levelized cost of energy and
payback period. Also, sensitivity analyses are conducted to understand
the possible influence of global horizontal irradiance on capacity factor,
impact of ambient temperature on performance ratio, the effect of solar
energy derations on levelized cost of energy, the effect of an increase in
installed capacity on the capacity factor and performance ratio as well as
the impact of different photovoltaic modules on capacity factor and
performance ratio of the proposed sites in Nigeria. This study is
important as it provides first-level and a guide to would-be investors,
engineers, policy makers, relevant government agencies etc. This can aid
the decision making process.
2. Study locations and data collections
The locations of the thirteen (13) sites proposed for solar farms in
Nigeria, the name of a company that has been assigned for each of the
project and the proposed installed capacity for each of the sites are
furnished in Table 1 (NEWS, 2016). The technical specification of the
proposed PV module (Panasonic solar) that best match the solar regime
of the sites is presented in Table 2 while the technical specifications of
the fourteen (14) different solar PV modules that were assessed in order
to determine the best module for each of the sites are furnished in
Table 3. The meteorological dataset was obtained from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA, 2019).
The site conditions of the fourteen proposed solar farm are depicted
in Table 4. The table shows that the average irradiation ranges from
5.07 kWh/m2/day to 6.06 kWh/m2/day which corresponds to site S4
(Udi, Enugu state) and S11 (Kakowa, Jigawa state), respectively. The
ambient temperature ranges from 22.73 ◦ C in site S12 (Manchor,
Kaduna state) to 26.94 ◦ C in site S6 (Yabo, Sokoto state). This indicates
that site S11 has the highest solar irradiation resource while site S4 has
There are numbers of indicators commonly used in the evaluation of
energy performance of grid-tied solar PV. These indicators are useful to
predict the average annual energy output of the life of the proposed solar
power plant (SPP) (Obeng et al., 2019). These include reference yield,
final system yield, performance ratio and capacity factor (Attari et al.,
2016; PPA, 2012; Sharma and Chandel, 2013).
The estimate of energy output delivered to the grid is modelled in
(1).
(
dmt
) (
dtp (j)
) (
ddt
)
Esys (j)= 1− * 1− * 1− *G(j)* ηpv,inv * ηinv * ηinv,sb *Parray
100 100 100
(1)
where Esys (j)is the energy output of the solar farm for a dayj, dmt denotes
the deration due to manufacturers tolerance in Wp or %, G(j)is the Global
Horizontal Irradiance in kWh/m2/day. ηpv,inv Is the subsystem efficiency
between the PV array and the inverter taken as 97% (PPA, 2012),
ηinv,sb denotes the efficiency of the subsystem between the inverter and
the switchboard taken as 99%, ηinv is the inverter efficiency taken as 96%
(PPA, 2012)while Parray represents the rated power of the array under
standard test conditions, in Watts. The temperature derating factor dtp (j)
on each day jof the month and can be determined using (2) while
ddt denotes deration due to dirt.
dtp (j) = γ.Ta (j) (2)
where γrepresents the temperature coefficient of Power (Pmax )in %/◦ C
and Ta (j)is the daily ambient temperature of dayj.
It is customary for manufacturers to design PV modules based on cell
temperature at STC. This will cause an increase in the module output
power with a temperature below 25 ◦ C and a decrease in the output
power with a temperature above 25 ◦ C. Hence, the effective cell tem­
perature is obtained as given in (3).
Tc = Ta + TSTC (3)
Where Tc is the cell temperature and TSTC is the STC temperature which
equals 25 ◦ C.
The flowchart indicating the stepwise process involved in the
determination of these technical indicators is furnished in Fig. 3.
The reference yield is the total in-plane irradiance divided by the PV
reference irradiance and can be determined using (3)
G(j)(kWh/m2 )
Yr = (4)
GSTC
where G(j)is the global solar radiation of the location under consider­
ation and GSTC represents the Global solar irradiance at standard test
condition (STC).
The array yield (Ya,d )is obtained as the ratio of the output energy
delivered by the PV modules(EDC,d ) over a specific period to the rated
power of the installation (ppv,rated ). It can be obtained as given in (5)

4
 O.R. O et al.
Table 3
Technical specification of the fourteen solar PV modules.
S/ Parameters Solar Modules specification
n
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14

1 Pmax 400 335 400 395 330 400 340 400 420 315 410 385 400 400
2 Vmp 65.8 59.9 38.7 40.7 34.6 40.6 34.2 36.9 40.2 33.2 38.3 40.2 49.44 41.1
3 Imp 6.08 5.6 10.3 9.70 9.55 9.86 9.94 9.58 10.4 9.46 10.7 9.58 8.09 9.74
4 Voc 75.6 71.5 47.2 48.74 41.3 49.3 41.1 39.0 48.8 40.1 46.9 48.0 60.4 50.4
5 Isc 6.58 6.05 10.9 10.19 10.3 10.4 10.6 11.6 11.0 9.91 11.3 10.08 8.59 10.18
6 M% 22.6 20 18.1 19.6 19.8 19.3 19.9 20.0 18.9 18.9 18.9 19.4 15.6 19.7
7 Top ( − ) - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 - 40 – 40 - 40
Top ( + ) +85 +85 +85 +85 +90 +90 +85 +85 +85 +85 +85 +85 +85 +85
8 Vms 1000 1000 1000 1500 1000 1500 1000 1000 1500 1500 1000 1500 1500 1500
5

9 Imsf 20 15 20 20 25 20 20 25 20 20 20 20 20 20
10 Ptol ±5% ±3% 5W ±3% ±3% ±3% ±3% ±2% ±3% ±3% ±3% ±3% ±3% ±3%
11 Cell-type MCS MCS PCS MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS MCS
12 γ − 0.29 − 0.258 − 0.37 − 0.37 − 0.35 − 0.36 − 0.36 − 0.43 − 0.370 − 0.375 − 0.39 − 0.417 − 0.429 − 0.37
13 β − 176.8 − 0.235 − 0.29 − 0.28 − 0.27 − 0.26 − 0.26 − 0.31 − 0.286 − 0.280 − 0.29 − 0.306 − 0.31 − 0.29
14 α 2.9 +0.055 +0.05 +0.04 +0.04 +0.02 +0.04 +0.044 +0.057 +0.045 +0.04 +0.046 +0.035 +0.05
15 Dg 0.5% 3% (1st), 2.5% (1st), 2% 0.5% 2% (1st), 2.5% (1st), 0.7% 2% (1st), 3% (1st), 0.9% (1- 3% 1% (1- 3% (1st), 0.7%
0.45% 0.5% (1st), 0.35% 0.6% 0.55% 0.63% 10th),0.53% (1st), 10th),0.67% (2–10),0.67%
0.54% 0.7%
16 Apv 1.76 1.67 2.20 2.01 1.66 2.07 1.70 1.99 2.22 1.64 2.10 1.98 2.56 2.03
17 Nmd SPR- VBHN335KJ01 CS3W–400P Q.PEAK REC330NP LG400N2W–V5 DD06M.08 SW400 LR4- MSE315SQ8K Solaria Power HiA- TS-M400 TSM-
MAX3- DUO L- (II) XL 72HPH- XT 410C-PD S385HI 400DE15H(II)

Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

400 G5.2- 420M
395
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Table 4 Eideal = Parray × G(j) (8)

STC
Proposed thirteen solar PV sites, average irradiation and ambient temperature.
Sites Average Irradiation (kWh/ Ambient temperature Peak Power In this regard, the daily, monthly and yearly performance ratio
m2/day) (◦ C) [MW] obtainable from the sites is depicted in equations (9), (11) and (13)
S1 5.87 24.73 75
respectively:
S2 5.77 24.82 100 Esys,d
S3 5.41 24.51 50 PRd = (9)
S4 5.07 24.82 100
Eideal,d
S5 5.87 25.59 100
S6 5.91 26.94 100 Eideal,d = Parray STC × G(j) (10)
S7 5.28 25.13 100
S8 5.42 23.96 100 Nd
∑
S9 5.82 25.20 80 Esys,d
S10 5.67 22.79 70 PRm = d=1 (11)
S11 6.06 26.12 50 Eideal,m
S12 5.63 22.73 50
S13 5.42 22.98 100 Nd
∑
Eideal,m = Eideal,d (12)
d=1
EDC,d
Ya,d = (5) ∑
Nm
PPV,rated Esys,m
The final yield (Yf,d ) is obtained as the ratio of the total AC energy PRy = m=1 (13)
Eideal,y
(Esys,d ) during a specific period to the rated power (ppv,rated ) of the
installation. It normalizes the energy produced with respect to system ∑
Nm
size (Obeng et al., 2019) and can be calculated as given in (6) Eideal,y = Eideal,m (14)
m=1
Esys,d
Yf ,d = (6)
ppv,rated where Parray STC denotes the output power of the array under standard
test conditions, and G(j) is the solar irradiation inkWh/m2 , Nd and
The performance ratio (PR) is the ratio of actual energy yield (Esys )
Nm represents the number of days in a month and the number of months
over a particular period to the ideal energy output (Eideal ) of the array for
in a year respectively, Esys,d and Esys,m denotes the daily and monthly
that same period. These can be estimated using (7) & (8) as follows:
output of the actual energy yield while Eideal,d , Eideal,m and Eideal,y is the
PR =
Esys
(7) daily, monthly and yearly output of the ideal energy yield respectively.
Eideal Capacity factor (Cf ) is obtained as the ratio of the actual AC energy

Fig. 3. Flowchart representing the process of determining energy yield, performance ratios and capacity factors of the sites under study.

6
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Table 5
Technical specification of the proposed solar PV farms (Fathi et al., 2017).
Item Equipment Name Specification Cost ($/unit)

1 PV modules 0.61/W
2 Inverters 500 kW 70,000/500
kW
3 Combiner boxes 10 input, 1 1300/Comb
output box
4 Mounting system Galvanized Al 100/kW
5 DC power distribution cabinet 10,000/
lightning protection cabinet
6 Boosting transformer 0.4/11 kV 25,000
7 Environment monitor 40,000
8 Monitoring system SCADA System 25,000
9 Cable and protective material 25/kW
10 AC and DC cable 20/kW
11 Communication cable 30/kW

⎧ Icap
⎪
⎪ Tnm =
⎪
⎪ Pm
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( )
⎨ Vms ∑
N sm
Nsm = fix Voc(j) ≺ Vms (16)
⎪
⎪ Voc j=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ( )
⎪
⎩ Npm = ceil Tnm
⎪
Nsm

where Icap represents the installed capacity of the solar farm, Tnm is the
total number of modules and Pm is the module maximum power.
Nsm denotes the number of series modules, Voc represents the open-
circuit voltage, Vms is the maximum system voltage and Npm is the num­
ber of parallel modules.
Equation (16) shows that the sum total of the open-circuit voltage of
a series string must be less than the maximum system voltage designed
by the manufacturer. Fig. 4, Q5 represents the new number of parallel
modules, Q4 is the new total number of modules, Q3 is the expected
compensating value in order to make a complete series and parallel
connection while Q2 denotes the difference between the total number of
modules and the product of Nsm and Npm given rise to Q1 . PV panels were
inclined at 0◦ horizontal surface and at optimum tilt angle for each site.

3.2. Economic models of the PV system

The foreknowledge of the economic viability of a solar farm project is

Fig. 4. Flowchart depicting the process of series and parallel modules selection
in a solar farm.
germane to any would-be investor. Therefore, the economic models are
considered in this study in terms of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
and the payback period (PBP) of the project. Table 5 depicts the tech­
nical specification used for each of the solar PV farms with their unit
costs.

output (EAC ) over a particular time period to the amount of AC energy 3.2.1. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
each of the solar farms would generate if it operates at full capacity The levelized cost of energy of a photovoltaic system is the aggregate
given the same time period. Capacity factor can be obtained monthly, cost of installation and operation of the system expressed in per
yearly as the case may be using the relation in (15): kilowatt-hour of the prevailing currency. It can be expressed as follows
as given in (17) (AlAjmi et al., 2016)
Esys
Cf = (15)
PPV,rated *hi ∑
N
Ct/
(1 + r)t
(17)
t=0
where hi is the number of hours in the period under study. LCoE =
∑N
Et
t
(1+r)
t=0
3.1.1. Series and parallel modules specification
To obtain the specifications of the PV array, in this study a model was where Ct is the net cost of the project for time t (years) in dollars, N is the
developed to obtain the total number of modules, a number of series and project life in years, r is the discount rate andEt is the solar energy
parallel modules using (15). The flowchart depicting the stepwise produced in kWh. It should be noted that Ct can be determined using the
calculation in the determination of series-parallel module specification following relations:
is furnished in Fig. 4. This procedure is generic and can be employed to
Ct = Ci + CO&Mt (18)
obtain values of the number of series and parallel modules of any solar
photovoltaic farm across the globe.

7
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Fig. 5. Flowchart representing the balance of power (%) at the end of the
25th year.

where Ci is the cost of initial investment and CO&Mt is the operation and
maintenance cost. CO&Mt are a combination of the cost of an employee,
cost of electricity consumption, and the cost of cleaning the PV panels as
represented in (19):
CO&M t = Cem + Cec + Cc + Crinv (19)

where Cem is the cost of an employee, Cec is the cost of electricity

consumed, Cc is the cost of cleaning and Crinv represents the cost of
replacement of inverter respectively. In this study, two engineers, five
technicians and three securities personnel are used as a benchmark on a
5 MW basis. The minimum wage set by the Federal Government of
Nigeria (FGN, 2019) is used as a salary of the security officers while the
technicians and engineers are remunerated on the scale of Level 7 step 1,
and Level 10 step 1 respectively as obtained in (FGN, 2019). The cost of
electricity consumption is based on the price per kWh in each DisCos
covering the areas where the solar farms are to be situated. A discount
Fig. 6. Flowchart used in determining the optimum tilt angle for each site.
rate of 5% and annual PV output degradation given in Table 2 was
applied to all the sites. The cost of energy for the distribution companies
was obtained from the recent review order released by the Nigerian yearly energy rated output in kWh.
electricity regulatory commission (NERC, 2020a; 2020b; 2020c; 2020d;
2020e) and converted to its dollar equivalent obtained from the central 3.2.2. Payback period
bank of Nigeria (CBN, 2019). Nigeria inflation rate of 13.71% (CBN, Payback period (PP ) is the length of time it takes for an investment to
2020) was applied to the financial analysis of this study. recover its cost (Obeng et al., 2019). It is the required time for the
Also, the solar energy produced for the lifetime of the system in kWh accumulated revenue to be the same as the total initial investment and
(Et ) can be evaluated using equation (20): can be evaluated using:

Et = St (1 − d)t (20) PP (i) =

Cti (i)
(21)
Crev (i)
where d represents the degradation rate of the PV panels (%) and St the

8
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Table 6
Solar modules performance and the proposed sites.
Sites Param eters Solar Modules Performance

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14

S1 Cf (%) 18.82 19.38 19.14 18.80 18.90 18.85 18.85 18.68 18.80 18.77 18.69 18.56 18.49 18.80
Pr (%) 77.16 79.46 78.47 77.09 77.50 77.29 77.30 76.58 77.08 76.98 76.65 76.09 75.83 77.08
S2 Cf (%) 18.52 19.07 18.84 18.50 18.61 18.56 18.55 18.38 18.50 18.48 18.40 18.26 18.20 18.50
Pr (%) 77.17 79.48 78.49 77.10 77.52 77.31 77.31 76.60 77.10 77.00 76.67 76.10 75.84 77.10
S3 Cf (%) 17.39 17.90 17.69 17.38 17.47 17.42 17.42 17.27 17.38 17.36 17.28 17.16 17.10 17.38
Pr (%) 77.28 79.58 78.64 77.25 77.66 77.45 77.45 76.77 77.25 77.15 76.83 76.27 76.01 77.25
S4 Cf (%) 16.27 16.75 16.55 16.26 16.35 16.30 16.30 16.15 16.26 16.24 16.17 16.05 15.99 16.26
Pr (%) 77.22 79.52 78.55 77.16 77.59 77.38 77.37 76.68 77.17 77.06 76.74 76.17 75.92 77.16
S5 Cf (%) 18.76 19.33 19.07 18.73 18.84 18.78 18.78 18.60 18.73 18.70 18.62 18.48 18.41 18.73
Pr (%) 76.94 79.27 78.18 76.80 77.24 77.02 77.02 76.25 76.80 76.70 76.36 75.76 75.50 76.80
S6 Cf (%) 18.80 19.38 19.08 18.74 18.86 18.80 18.80 18.59 18.75 18.72 18.63 18.48 18.41 18.74
Pr (%) 76.60 78.96 77.74 76.36 76.83 76.59 76.59 75.74 76.36 76.25 75.90 75.27 74.99 76.36
S7 Cf (%) 16.93 17.44 17.22 16.91 17.00 16.96 16.96 16.80 16.91 16.89 16.82 16.69 16.63 16.91
Pr (%) 77.14 79.45 78.44 77.05 77.48 77.27 77.26 76.55 77.05 76.95 76.63 76.05 75.79 77.05
S8 Cf (%) 17.45 17.96 17.76 17.44 17.54 17.49 17.49 17.35 17.45 17.42 17.35 17.23 17.17 17.45
Pr (%) 77.41 79.69 78.80 77.40 77.82 77.61 77.61 76.96 77.41 77.31 77.00 76.45 76.20 77.41
S9 Cf (%) 18.64 19.20 18.95 18.62 18.72 18.67 18.67 18.49 18.62 18.59 18.51 18.37 18.30 18.61
Pr (%) 77.05 79.36 78.33 76.95 77.38 77.16 77.15 76.42 76.95 76.84 76.51 75.92 75.66 76.94
S10 Cf (%) 18.31 18.84 18.66 18.33 18.42 18.37 18.37 18.23 18.32 18.30 18.23 18.11 18.05 18.32
Pr (%) 77.67 79.92 79.15 77.75 78.13 77.94 77.94 77.36 77.74 77.65 77.36 76.83 76.59 77.75
S11 Cf (%) 19.33 19.92 19.63 19.28 19.40 19.34 19.34 19.14 19.28 19.26 19.17 19.02 18.95 19.28
Pr (%) 76.81 79.15 78.01 76.63 77.08 76.85 76.85 76.04 76.63 76.52 76.18 75.57 75.30 76.63
S12 Cf (%) 18.18 18.71 18.53 18.20 18.29 18.24 18.24 18.11 18.20 18.18 18.11 17.99 17.93 18.20
Pr (%) 77.71 79.96 79.20 77.80 78.19 77.99 77.99 77.42 77.80 77.71 77.41 76.89 76.66 77.80
S13 Cf (%) 17.47 17.98 17.80 17.48 17.57 17.53 17.53 17.39 17.48 17.46 17.39 17.28 17.22 17.48
Pr (%) 77.63 79.89 79.09 77.69 78.09 77.89 77.89 77.30 77.69 77.60 77.30 76.77 76.53 77.69
Dg25(%) 87.5 86.2 85.5 85.04 87.5 89.6 83.1 82.5 84.8 81.8 83.05 80.2 79.95 80.65

In equation (21), Cti represents the total capital investment of The angle between the solar beam and the surface normal is the angle
respective sites and Crev is the estimated annual revenue for each of the of incidence θgiven by (26)
sites, andiis the index for each of the proposed solar farm site. ( )
sin L sin δ cos β − cos L sin δ sin β cos Z + cos L cos δcoshcosβ
θ = cos− 1
+coshsinβ cos Z + cos δsinhsinβsinZ
3.3. Modeling of optimum tilt angle
(26)

The model used in obtaining the tilt angle in this study is described in Where βis the tilt angle and Zis the solar azimuth angle.
equation (22) – (28) and the flowchart represented in Fig. 6. In order to convert the radiation on the horizontal surface to the
The declination angle is the angle between the sun’s direction and radiation on the tilted surface, equation (27) is employed.
the equatorial plane (Abood, 2015). It varies from +23.45◦ at
midsummer in the northern hemisphere to − 23.45◦ in Northern winter Rb =
GBt cos φ
= (27)
and is represented by (22) GBn cos θ
[ ]
360 Where GBt is the radiation on tilted surface and GBn is the radiation on
δ = 23.45∘ sin (n + 284) (22)
365 horizontal surface
GBt = GBn *Rb (28)
Where nis the day number.
The angle through which the earth has rotated since solar noon is the
hour angle. It gives a positive result at evening time and a negative result 4. Results and discussions
at morning time and it is denoted by equation (23)
In this section, we discuss the results of the technical assessment of
h = (localtime − 12)*15∘ (23) the system, economic implication and the sensitivity analyses performed
The angle between the solar beam and the horizontal is the solar across the thirteen sites using MATLAB R2015a.
altitude angle and is represented in equation (24)
4.1. Technical assessment of the proposed site
α = sin− 1 (sin L sin δ + cos L cos δ cosh) (24)
This subsection presents the results of the impact of PV module on
Where Lis the latitude of the location under study, δis the declination performance ratio, design specifications, energy output and energy yield
angle and his the hour angle. of the proposed site.
The angle between the solar beam and the normal is the solar zenith
angle. Since solar zenith angle φand solar altitude angle αare com­ 4.1.1. Impact of different photovoltaic modules on capacity factor and
plementing each other, φ = 90 − α performance ratio of the proposed solar farms in Nigeria
The solar azimuth angle represents the angle between the solar beam Using the methodology presented in the flowchart of Fig. 3, fourteen
and the longitude meridian (Abood, 2015)and is denoted by equation (14) different solar photovoltaic manufacturers’ data (SunPower,
(25) Panasonic, Canadian Solar, Hanwha Q cells, REC Group, LG, Trina Solar,
( (
sinh
)) Solar World, LONGi Solar, Mission Solar, Solaria, Hyundai, Topsun,
z = sin− 1 cos δ * (25) Tallmax indexed from M1 to M14), respectively were used in this study to
cos α
obtain the photovoltaic module with optimum performance in each of

9
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Fig. 7. Impact of modules temperature coefficient of power on capacity factor.

Table 7 Table 8
Summary of design specifications of the PV systems. Mean annual ambient temperature, Annual probable energy export to the grid,
Sites Total Number of Modules Series modules Parallel modules
performance ratio and a capacity factor of the locations under study at 0◦ panels
inclination.
S1 223886 13 17222
S2 298519 13 22963 Site GHI/year Ambient Energy Performance Capacity
S3 149266 13 11482 kWh/ Temperature (GWh) Ratio (%) factor (%)
S4 298519 13 22963 m2/y (◦ C)
S5 298519 13 22963 S1 2142.2 24.73 127.28 79.46 19.38
S6 298519 13 22963 S2 2108.2 24.82 167.04 79.48 19.07
S7 298519 13 22963 S3 1976.1 24.51 78.39 79.58 17.90
S8 298519 13 22963 S4 1850.6 24.82 146.71 79.52 16.75
S9 238810 13 18370 S5 2142.2 25.59 169.29 79.27 19.33
S10 208962 13 16074 S6 2156.3 26.94 169.75 78.96 19.38
S11 149266 13 11482 S7 1927.8 25.13 152.69 79.45 17.44
S12 149266 13 11482 S8 1979.7 23.96 157.28 79.69 17.96
S13 298519 13 22963 S9 2125.1 25.20 134.51 79.36 19.20
S10 2070.4 22.79 115.48 79.92 18.84
S11 2210.5 26.12 87.21 79.15 19.92
the proposed solar farm sites. Capacity factor (Cf), performance ratios S12 2054.9 22.73 77.11 79.96 18.71
(Pr) and degradation rate were used as technical indices in each of the S13 1976.6 22.98 157.44 79.89 17.98
proposed sites and the results are presented in Table 6. The process of
calculating the balance of power obtained from the degradation was
with the lowest temperature coefficient of power (− 0.258%/◦ C) pro­
described in Fig. 5. Different modules have different yearly degradation
duces the highest capacity factor and performance ratio among all the
rate. The result shows that the LG module has the highest balance of
modules. However, module index M8 (Solar World) with the highest
power at the end of the 25th year with 89.6%, Sun Power and REC Group
coefficient of power (− 0.43%/◦ C) and Module index M13 (Topsun) with
were the second with 87.5% while Panasonic solar came third with
a temperature coefficient of power of (− 0.429%/◦ C) produces lowest
86.2%. It can be observed that Solar module index M2 (Panasonic) has
capacity factor. This unveils the effect of different values of deration due
the highest capacity factor and performance ratio while module index
to different manufacturer’s tolerance.
M13 (Topsun) has the least value of capacity factor and performance
ratio. In view of this, it is obvious that Panasonic solar ranked best in two
4.1.2. System design specifications
of the three considered criterias, as such we have recommended Pana­
The results of the design specification of the proposed solar farms
sonic solar for this analysis. Hence, solar module index M2 is recom­
which indicates the series and parallel system modules using the step-
mended for the proposed solar farms in all the locations under study for
wise process shown in Fig. 4 are presented in Table 7. The total num­
optimal performance of the proposed solar farms. With capacity factor
ber of modules in the entire sites varies from 149,266 to 298,519. The
as a technical index, the result in Table 5 also reveals that technical
maximum number of modules that could be connected in series so as not
performance of a site depends on the choice of technology of the module
to violate the maximum system voltage of the Panasonic solar module
employed. For example, Panasonic solar module gives the highest value
was determined to be 13 in all the sites. However, the number of
of capacity factor among the modules.
modules operating in each parallel connection ranges from 11482 to
The relationship between the modules temperature coefficient of
22,963 across various sites.
power and the capacity factor was explored using the data of Kankia site
(S 1) and the result is given in Fig. 7.
4.1.3. Energy output assessment
The figure reveals that the temperature coefficient of power is nearly
The results obtained based on the horizontal global irradiance, en­
inversely proportional to the capacity factor. This indicates that solar
ergy output, performance ratio as well as capacity factor for each of the
panel with a higher temperature coefficient may likely return a lower
proposed sites are depicted in Table 8. The table reveals that the total
capacity factor and performance ratio. For example, Panasonic solar,

10
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Table 9
Monthly optimum tilt angles of thirteen sites.
Sites Monthly optimum tilt angles (◦ )

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

S1 36 24 18 6 0 0 0 0 12 24 30 36
S2 30 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 30 36
S3 30 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 30 30
S4 30 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 24 30
S5 36 24 18 6 0 0 0 0 12 24 30 36
S6 36 24 18 6 0 0 0 0 12 24 18 30
S7 30 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 24 30
S8 30 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 30 30
S9 30 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 24 30 30
S10 30 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 30 36
S11 36 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 24 30 36
S12 30 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 30 36
S13 30 24 12 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 30 30

Table 10 Table 11
Mean annual ambient temperature, Annual probable energy export to the grid, Capacity factor and performance ratios in the literature.
performance ratio and capacity factor of the locations under study at optimum
Country/location Capacity factor Performance ratio
tilt angle. (%) (%)
Site GHI/year Ambient Energy Performance Capacity Morocco (Attari et al., 2016) 14.84 58–98
kWh/ Temperature (GWh) Ratio (%) factor (%) Norway (Adaramola and Vågnes, 2015) 10.58 83.03
m2/y (◦ C) India (Padmavathi and Daniel, 2013) 15.69 61–78
S1 2456.8 24.73 145.91 78.19 22.15 Malaysia (Ya’acob, Hizam, Khatib and 32 85
S2 2241.5 24.82 165.98 74.05 18.90 Radzi, 2014)
S3 2433.5 24.51 95.04 78.29 21.64 Serbia (Milosavljević et al., 2015) 12.88 93.6
S4 2333.4 24.82 182.85 78.36 20.82 Iran (Edalati et al., 2015) mc-Si – 23.20 mc-Si – 80.81
S5 2457.2 25.59 192.11 78.18 21.87 p-Si – 23.81 p-Si – 82.92
S6 2452.8 26.94 191.74 78.17 21.83 Suriname (Raghoebarsing and Kalpoe, 15.5 74.5
S7 2169.6 25.13 187.34 78.31 21.33 2017)
S8 2294.3 23.96 170.28 74.22 19.38 Brazil (de Lima et al., 2017) 19.2 82.9
S9 2261.1 25.20 141.58 78.27 20.15 Lesotho (Mpholo et al., 2015) 17.2 70.0
S10 2470.7 22.79 135.30 78.23 22.00 Crete (Kymakis et al., 2009) 15.26 67.36
S11 2527.1 26.12 98.74 78.14 22.48
S12 2465.3 22.73 96.44 78.24 21.96
S13 2488.2 22.98 194.78 78.28 22.17 with the highest capacity factor gives rise to the highest energy output.
This means that, sites with the same installed capacity can have different
energy output with respect to their capacity factor value.
Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) ranges from 1850.6 kWh/m2/yr in The results in Table 8 were obtained with 0◦ tilt angle/inclination.
site S4 (Udi, Enugu state) to 2210.5 kWh/m2/yr in Site S11 (Kakowa, Thereafter, monthly optimum tilt angle was obtained for each site and
Jigawa state). This shows that Site S11 has the highest GHI resource are furnished in Table 9 and corresponding annual total irradiance per
while Site 4 is the site with the lowest solar irradiation resource among year, energy, performance ratio and a capacity factor of each site were
the proposed sites. Annual average ambient temperature values vary obtained and recorded in Table 10.
between 22.73 ◦ C in site S12 (Manchor, Kaduna state) and 26.94 ◦ C in The result in Table 9 shows that monthly optimum tilt angles range
site S6 (Yabo, Sokoto state). In like manner, the annual energy output from 0◦ to 36◦ in all the thirteen sites. The table also reveals that a
that could be exported to the grid from the solar farms will range be­ monthly optimum tilt angle from May to August in all the sites under
tween 78.39 GWh in site S3 (Kokowa, Nasarawa state) and 169.29 GWh study is 0◦ .
in site S5 (Katsina site, Katsina state). Capacity factor results range from The comparison of results in Tables 8 and 10 reveals that there exists
16.75% in site S4 (Udi, Enugu state) to 19.92% in S11 (Kakowa, Jigawa a very strong relationship between solar tilt/inclination angle and its
state). This is expected as site S4 has the highest horizontal global Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI). More irradiation is harvestable at
irradiation while site S11 presents the least value. In terms of perfor­ optimum tilt angle (as shown in Fig. 9) than when panels are placed only
mance ratio, Table 8 also reveals a range of values between 78.96% in at a horizontal plane.
site S6 and 79.96% in site S12. The result of the capacity factor revealed The results of the capacity factor and performance ratios in this work
that Site S1 (Kankia, Katsina State) has the capacity to generate energy were compared with some results from other countries (depicted in
at its full power output with about 1697.7 h of operations in a year while Table 11) as obtained in the literature. The table shows that the values
sites S2 to S13 has the capacity to produce energy (hours of operation) obtained for the different proposed sites in Nigeria (Table 8) are com­
for about 1670.5, 1568.0, 1467.3, 1693.3, 1697.7, 1527.7, 1573.3, parable with the other sites around the world. This implies that Nigeria
1681.9, 1650.4, 1745.0, 1639.0 and 1575.0 h a year, respectively. The has great solar energy prospect similar to other countries that have
result in Table 8 also reveals that there exists a strong relationship be­ advanced in solar energy production. This information indicates op­
tween the annual capacity factor and the probable solar energy export to portunities abound in the solar energy sector in Nigeria and that country
the grid. For instance, in sites S3, S11 & S12 with the same proposed could be a good attraction for solar power investors.
installed capacity (50 MW), site 11 with the highest capacity factor
value also has the highest value of probable energy from solar, while site 4.1.4. Energy yields
3 with the lowest capacity factor value also returns the least probable The annual average result for the reference, array and final yields for
solar energy value. In the same vein, in sites S4, S5, S6, S7, S8 and S13 the thirteen locations are presented in Fig. 8.
with 100 MW proposed capacity, the lowest value of probable solar It is evident that site S11 in Kakowa, Jigawa state has the highest
energy occurs in site S4 which has the least capacity factor while site S5

11
O.R. O et al.
Fig. 8. Annual Reference (Yr), array (Ya), and final yields (Yf) across the locations under study.
Fig. 9. Levelized cost of electricity generation and the levelized cost of elec­
tricity from the grid for different locations under study.
annual average reference yield of 6.061 kWh/kWp while site S4 (Udi in
Enugu state) has the least annual average reference yield with a value of
5.075 kWh/kWp. Similarly, the average daily array yield ranges from
sites S4 and S11 are 4.3781 kWh/kWp and 5.2037 kWh/kWp respec­
tively. The implication of these is that the annual array yield will vary
between 1598.007 kWh/kWp/year and 1899.351 kWh/kWp/year. The
average daily energy output varies between 4.0361 kWh/kWp in site S4
(Udi, Enugu state) and 4.7972 kWh/kWp in site S11 (Kakowa, Jigawa
state). This will result in annual energy output (final yield) between
1473.177 kWh/kWp/year and 1750.978 kWh/kWp/year.
4.2. Economic analyses for the sites
This section presents the result of the economic analyses performed
12
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149
across the entire sites. The results in Table 12 show the 25 years ex­
pected average annual electric energy production in kWh/kWp/year,
the capital cost of respective solar farms sites in $/kWp, the operating
system life of the solar modules in years and the annual operation and
maintenance cost in $/kWp.
The result in Table 12 shows that the capital cost varies from $758.1/
kWp in sites 2, 4–8 &13 to $810.02/kWp in sites 3, 11&12. Sites with the
same amount of installed capacity record equal capital cost. Annual
operation and maintenance (O&M) cost ranges from $12.56/kWp in
sites 5, 9&11 to $12.92/kWp in sites 3, 7&8 while the average annual
electricity production logged values between 1390.6 kWh/kWp/year
(Site 4) and 1653.2 kWh/kWp/year (Site 11). The average annual
electricity production is in agreement with the capacity factor values as
site 11 and 4 also have the highest and lowest capacity factor of 19.92
and 16.75 respectively. The life of the proposed system was taken to be
25years throughout the entire sites.
4.2.1. Levelized cost of electricity
Fig. 9 depicts solar PV levelized cost of electricity generation in
comparison with the levelized cost of electricity from the grid for the 13
locations (i.e. the electricity price of the prevailing distribution com­
panies (DisCo) where the proposed solar farms are to be situated at
$/kWh).
The figure (Fig. 9) revealed that the levelized cost of energy (which
are the sale price of electricity exported to the grid) from the solar farms
site ranges between $0.0524/kWh in site S1 (Kankia, Katsina State) and
$0.0607/kWh in site S4 (Udi, Enugu State). Other sites logged a lev­
elized cost of energy of $0.0534/kWh, $0.0597/kWh, $0.0525/kWh,
$0.0526/kWh, $0.0585/kWh, $0.0568/kWh, $0.0529/kWh, $0.0542/
kWh, $0.0534/kWh, $0.0607/kWh and $0.0567/kWh corresponding to
sites in Ganjuwa, Kokowa, Katsina, Yabo, Lokoja west, Abuja, Dutse,
Kaduna west, Kakowa, Manchor and Kafanchan, respectively. The
electricity price from each DisCo (i.e. existing grid electricity) ranges
from $0.1393/kWh in KEDC to $0.1572/kWh in EEDC. One of the
interesting results deduced from Fig. 9 is that the levelized cost of energy
obtained from solar power generation is much lower compared to that of
the existing grid purchase. This is because the projects were conceived as
generating stations and as such the cost of storage such as battery was
not taken into consideration in this work. This, therefore, provides this
O.R. O et al. Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149

Table 12
Annual energy production, capital cost, operating system life of the solar mod­
ules and annual operation and maintenance cost of the proposed site over 25
years.
Sites Parameters Value

S1 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1608.5

Capital cost ($/kWp) 759.43
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.58
S2 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1583.3
Capital cost ($/kWp) 758.1
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.81
S3 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1486.0
Capital cost ($/kWp) 810.02
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.92
S4 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1390.6
Capital cost ($/kWp) 758.1
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.78
S5 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1604.6
Capital cost ($/kWp) 758.1
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.56
S6 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1609.0
Capital cost ($/kWp) 758.1 Fig. 10. Simple payback for different locations understudy.
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.90
S7 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1447.3
Capital cost ($/kWp) 758.1
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.92
S8 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1490.8
Capital cost ($/kWp) 758.1
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.92
S9 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1593.7
Capital cost ($/kWp) 759.1
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.56
S10 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1563.7
Capital cost ($/kWp) 759.81
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.90
S11 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1653.2
Capital cost ($/kWp) 810.02
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.56
S12 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1461.8
Capital cost ($/kWp) 810.02
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.90
S13 annual electric energy production (kWh/kWp/yr) 1492.2
Capital cost ($/kWp) 758.1 Fig. 11. Capacity factor and Global Horizontal Irradiance.
System Life (Years) 25
Annual O&M cost ($/kWp) 12.90
10.20, 10.23, 10.19, 10.24, 10.19, 10.38 and 10.19 years respectively.
This signifies that at most in 11 years, the entire proposed sites would
technology with a low maintenance cost when compared to existing have recovered all the cost. This is considered a good prospect since the
generation technology. payback period is far less than the lifecycle of the PV modules which
The LCOE result of this study was compared to that obtained in the stand at about 25 years. From the economic perspective, it makes sense
literature and was found to be comparable with that of earlier work for investors to get involved. Also, it gives the government sufficient
presented in Table 10. For example (Ayompe and Duffy, 2014), used a basis to attract investment in these projects.
capital cost of 1500€/kWp to obtain a cost of energy of 11.38€c/kWh at
a 5% discount rate and 17.29€c/kWh with a discount of 10%. 4.3. Sensitivity analysis of proposed grid integrated solar photovoltaic in
Nigeria
4.2.2. Payback period
The payback period for each of the 13 sites was calculated and the Sensitivity analysis is an important section of a study as it allows one
result is presented in Fig. 10. to gain insight into the dependency of a given system characteristic on
It is easy to see that, the simple payback period ranges between 10.18 some defined input variables. This section, therefore, discusses the re­
years and 10.42 years. These values were obtained for sites S7 (in Lokoja sults of the sensitivity analysis performed on the technical and economic
West) and S8 (site S11 in Kakowa), respectively. Other sites like Kankia, parameters evaluated in this study.
Ganjuwa, Kokowa, Udi, Katsina, Yabo, Dutse, Kaduna west, Manchor
and Kafanchan have a corresponding value of 10.23, 10.20, 10.37,

13
O.R. O et al.
Fig. 12. Performance ratio and Ambient temperature.
Fig. 13. Annual Electricity production and Levelized cost of Energy for the
proposed sites.
4.3.1. Impact of global horizontal irradiance on the capacity factor
In an attempt to determine the effect of Global Horizontal Irradiance
(GHI) on the capacity factors of the proposed sites, the capacity factor of
each site was observed with respect to their corresponding yearly
average global horizontal irradiance. The results displayed in Fig. 11
shows that site S4 with the lowest irradiance of 5.0756 kWh/m2/day
also produce the least capacity factor of 16.75% while the site in
Kakowa, Jigawa state (site S11) with the highest irradiance value of
6.0610 kWh/m2/day gives the highest capacity factor of 19.92%. This is
expected as GHI is expected to vary directly as the capacity factor. This
depicts that the GHI value of a site is a key determinant of the capacity
factor of the same site. Therefore, sites with higher GHI should be
considered in order to get a maximum capacity factor of the site. Using
capacity factor as the technical index, the result in Fig. 11 reveals that
technical performance depends on the availability of global horizontal
solar Irradiation. For example, site S11 with the highest GHI gives the
highest capacity factor while site S11 with the lowest GHI gives the
lowest capacity factor.
4.3.2. Effect of ambient temperature on the performance ratio
The impact of ambient temperature on the performance ratios of the
14
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149
Fig. 14. Yearly energy deration and cost of energy.
proposed sites was explored. The yearly mean ambient temperature of
each site as well as its corresponding performance ratio are depicted in
Fig. 12. It is can easily be seen that site S6 with the highest ambient
temperature of 26.96 ◦ C possess the least performance ratio while site
S12 with the least ambient temperature of 22.73 ◦ C has the highest
performance ratio. It shows that higher temperature values have an
adverse effect on the performance of a solar farm. Therefore, in the se­
lection of a solar farm site, the prevailing ambient temperature must be
taken into consideration in order to obtain the high efficiency of the
system.
4.3.3. Effect of electricity production on levelized cost of energy
The relationship between levelized cost energy and electricity pro­
duction is shown in Fig. 13. It is evident that the levelized cost of energy
depends heavily on the annual energy production of a solar farm. A
higher annual electric energy production reduces the cost of energy
while lower annual electric energy production raises the cost of energy.
Site S4 with the lowest electricity production has the highest cost of
energy. However, site S11 with the highest electricity production
(1653.2 kWh/kWp) does not present the least cost of energy while site
S1 with a production of 1608.5 kWh/kWp produce the least cost of
energy because of its lower capital cost ($/kWp) compared to site S11.
Therefore, it can be inferred that electricity production and capital cost
of a site are two important factors in determining the levelized cost of
energy of a site. Using LCOE as the economic index, Fig. 13 shows that
LCOE is dependent on electricity production (which depends on the
availability of sunlight and the module technology selected) and the
capital cost of the system. The figure reveals that an inverse relationship
exists between electricity production and LCOE. For example, site 4 with
the least electricity production has the highest cost of energy while site 1
with the least cost of energy due to its lower capital cost has the highest
annual electricity production.
4.3.4. Effect of solar energy deration on the levelized cost of energy
To demonstrate the effect of yearly energy deration on the levelized
cost of energy, this research used the proposed solar farm in Kankia (Site
1) for the investigation. The choice of selection of the site under
consideration is arbitrary. It is chosen for the sake of uniformity across
the sensitivity analyses in this study. The yearly energy output of the
solar farm was obtained using the Panasonic degradation factor in
Table 2 and its impact on the cost of energy was observed. The result in
Fig. 14 shows that as solar energy output degrades yearly there is a
O.R. O et al.
Fig. 15. Effect of increase in installed capacity on (a) Capacity factor and (b) Performance ratio.
corresponding hike in the cost of energy. The proposed 75 MW solar
farm which has the capacity to produce 127.28 GWh of energy in the
first year with a cost of energy of 0.0523 $/kWh will thereafter produce
114.22 GWh of energy at the rate of 0.0583 $/kWh in the 25th year of
operation. This implies that the photovoltaic modules can produce
useful energy beyond 25 years if proper maintenance of the entire sys­
tem is taken into consideration. The cost of energy varies yearly with
respect to the yearly energy produced in kWh/kWh/year. Fig. 14 can be
referred to as the “X-curve” of solar energy of the given site. This graph
varies from site to site and it could give an idea of the profitability of a
site over the lifetime of a given site. This study further observes that the
corresponding value of the point of intersection of the two parameters in
Fig. 12 to the system life is approximately equal to the payback period of
the proposed investment in site 1. Pgh denotes the graphical value of the
payback period.
4.3.5. Effect of increase in installed capacity on capacity factor and
performance ratio
To investigate the effect of an increase in the installed capacity of a
site on the capacity factor and performance ratio, the proposed 75 MW
solar farm in Kankia (site 1) was employed for the study. The installed
capacity was increased by 100, 200 and 300% and the effect on the two
technical parameters was carefully observed and the results are dis­
played in Fig. 15.
The outcome of the study shows that the increase in installed ca­
pacity has no significant impact on the capacity factor and performance
ratio of the site as depicted in Fig. 15 (a) and (b), respectively. Both
remain at 19.38% and 79.46%, respectively with an increase in installed
capacity.
5. Conclusion
The technical and economic assessment of proposed solar farms has
been performed for thirteen (13) different locations of Nigeria. The
impact of different photovoltaic modules on capacity factor and per­
formance ratio, the possible influence of solar electricity production on
the levelized cost of energy, the impact of global horizontal irradiance
on capacity factor, the effect of ambient temperature on performance
ratio, the effect of solar energy deration on levelized cost of energy and
the effect of an increase in installed capacity on capacity factor and
performance ratio have also been studied. The followings are the
conclusion of the study:
i. Panasonic solar, with the lowest temperature coefficient of power
(− 0.258%/◦ C) produce the highest capacity factor and perfor­
mance ratio among all the modules considered. Solar module
index M2 (Panasonic solar) has the peak value of capacity factor
and performance ratio in all the proposed sites. Hence module
with a lower temperature coefficient of power is a better
15
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149
candidate for obtaining a high capacity factor and performance
ratio of a given site.
ii. Annual average final yield varies between 4.0361 kWh/kWp in
Udi, Enugu State (Site 4) and 4.7972 kWh/kWp in Kakowa,
Jigawa state (Site 11).
iii. Performance ratio ranges between 78.96% in Yabo, Sokoto state
(Site 6)and 79.96% in Manchor, Kaduna state (Site 12) while
capacity factor of the proposed sites ranges between 16.75% in
Udi, Enugu State (Site 4) to 19.92% in Kakowa, Jigawa state (Site
11) in all the sites.
iv. The levelized cost of energy from the solar farms site ranges be­
tween $0.0524/kWh and $0.0607/kWh which corresponds to
Kankia (Site 1) and Udi (Site 4) respectively while the simple
payback period of the system under study ranges between
10.18years and 10.42years corresponding to sites in Lokoja West,
Kogi state & FCT (Site7&8) and Kakowa, Jigawa state (Site 11)
respectively.
v. The global horizontal irradiance value of a site is a key deter­
minant of the capacity factor of the same site. Therefore sites with
higher global horizontal irradiance should be considered in order
to get an optimum capacity factor of the site.
vi. Higher temperature values have an adverse effect on the perfor­
mance ratio of a solar farm. Therefore, in the selection of a solar
farm site, the prevailing ambient temperature must be taken into
consideration such that sites with lower ambient temperatures
are given priority in order to obtain high efficiency of the system.
vii. The cost of energy varies yearly with respect to the yearly energy
produced in kWh/kWh/year. This study, therefore, refers to the
relationship between the yearly energy output and the cost of
energy as the X-curve of solar energy.
viii. An increase in installed capacity of the solar farm site has no
significant impact on the capacity factor and performance ratio of
the site as the two parameters remain 19.38% and 79.46%
respectively.
ix. Solar PV plant technical performance is a function of the avail­
ability of sunlight (GHI) and the choice of module technology,
while the economic performance of a solar PV plant is a function
of the electricity production (which depends on the availability of
sunlight and module technology selected) and the capital cost of
the system.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that there is no any conflict of interest con­
cerning the publication of this manuscript.
References
Abood, A.A., 2015. A comprehensive solar angles simulation and calculation using
matlab. Int. J. Energy Environ. 6 (4), 367.
O.R. O et al.
Adaramola, M.S., 2014. Viability of grid-connected solar PV energy system in Jos,
Nigeria. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 61, 64–69.
Adaramola, M.S., Vågnes, E.E., 2015. Preliminary assessment of a small-scale rooftop PV-
grid tied in Norwegian climatic conditions. Energy Convers. Manag. 90, 458–465.
Adefarati, T., Obikoya, G., 2019. Techno-economic evaluation of a grid-connected
microgrid system. Int. J. Green Energy 1–21.
Adrada Guerra, T., Amador Guerra, J., Orfao Tabernero, B., De la Cruz García, G., 2017.
Comparative energy performance analysis of six primary photovoltaic technologies
in madrid (Spain). energies 10 (6), 772.
Africa, P., 2018. Nigeria November_2018_Country Fact Sheet Retrieved from.
Al-Matin, A., Takeda, S., Tanaka, Y., Sakurai, S., Tezuka, T., 2019. LCOE Analysis for
Grid-Connected PV Systems of Utility Scale across Selected ASEAN Countries:
Retrieved from Jakarta.
Al-Waeli, A.H., Sopian, K., Kazem, H.A., Chaichan, M.T., 2018. Nanofluid based grid
connected PV/T systems in Malaysia: a techno-economical assessment. Sustainable
Energy Technologies and Assessments 28, 81–95.
AlAjmi, A., Abou-Ziyan, H., Ghoneim, A., 2016. Achieving annual and monthly net-zero
energy of existing building in hot climate. Appl. Energy 165, 511–521.
Allouhi, A., Saadani, R., Buker, M., Kousksou, T., Jamil, A., Rahmoune, M., 2019.
Energetic, economic and environmental (3E) analyses and LCOE estimation of three
technologies of PV grid-connected systems under different climates. Sol. Energy 178,
25–36.
Attari, K., Elyaakoubi, A., Asselman, A., 2016. Performance analysis and investigation of
a grid-connected photovoltaic installation in Morocco. Energy Rep. 2, 261–266.
Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., 2015. Increasing household solar energy penetration
through load partitioning based on quality of life: the case study of Nigeria.
Sustainable Cities and Society 18, 21–31.
Ayompe, L., Duffy, A., 2014. An assessment of the energy generation potential of
photovoltaic systems in Cameroon using satellite-derived solar radiation datasets.
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 7, 257–264.
Bakhshi-Jafarabadi, R., Sadeh, J., Dehghan, M., 2020. Economic evaluation of
commercial grid-connected photovoltaic systems in the Middle East based on
experimental data: a case study in Iran. Sustainable Energy Technologies and
Assessments 37, 100581.
Balo, F., Şağbanşua, L., 2016. The selection of the best solar panel for the photovoltaic
system design by using AHP. Energy Procedia 100 (100), 50–53.
Batman, A., Bagriyanik, F.G., Aygen, Z.E., Gül, Ö., Bagriyanik, M., 2012. A feasibility
study of grid-connected photovoltaic systems in Istanbul, Turkey. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 16 (8), 5678–5686.
Bhakta, S., Mukherjee, V., 2016. Solar potential assessment and performance indices
analysis of photovoltaic generator for isolated Lakshadweep island of India.
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 17, 1–10.
Cbn, 2019. Retrieved from. https://www.cbn.gov.ng/rates/ExchRateByCurrency.asp?
CurrencyType=$USD.
Cbn, 2020. central bank of Nigeria inflation rates (percent). Retrieved from. https://
www.cbn.gov.ng/Rates/inflrates.asp.
Cubukcu, M., Gumus, H., 2020. Performance analysis of a grid-connected photovoltaic
plant in eastern Turkey. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 39,
100724.
de Lima, L.C., de Araújo Ferreira, L., de Lima Morais, F.H.B., 2017. Performance analysis
of a grid connected photovoltaic system in northeastern Brazil. Energy for
Sustainable Development 37, 79–85.
Edalati, S., Ameri, M., Iranmanesh, M., 2015. Comparative performance investigation of
mono-and poly-crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules for use in grid-connected
photovoltaic systems in dry climates. Appl. Energy 160, 255–265.
Elamim, A., Hartiti, B., Haibaoui, A., Lfakir, A., Thevenin, P., 2019. Comparative study of
photovoltaic solar systems connected to the grid: performance evaluation and
economic analysis. Energy Procedia 159, 333–339.
Fathi, M., Abderrezek, M., Grana, P., 2017. Technical and economic assessment of
cleaning protocol for photovoltaic power plants: case of Algerian Sahara sites. Sol.
Energy 147, 358–367.
FGN. (2019).
FICHTNER, 2017. Transmission Expansion Plan Development of Power System Master
Plan for the Transmisison Company of Nigeria. Retrieved from.
Hrayshat, E.S., 2009. Viability of solar photovoltaics as an electricity generation source
for Jordan. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 2 (1), 67–77.
16
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 4 (2021) 100149
Jamil, I., Zhao, J., Zhang, L., Jamil, R., Rafique, S.F., 2017. Evaluation of energy
production and energy yield assessment based on feasibility, design, and execution
of 3× 50 MW grid-connected solar PV pilot project in Nooriabad. Int. J. Photoenergy
2017.
Kymakis, E., Kalykakis, S., Papazoglou, T.M., 2009. Performance analysis of a grid
connected photovoltaic park on the island of Crete. Energy Convers. Manag. 50 (3),
433–438.
Milosavljević, D.D., Pavlović, T.M., Piršl, D.S., 2015. Performance analysis of A grid-
connected solar PV plant in Niš, republic of Serbia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44,
423–435.
Mondal, M.A.H., Islam, A.S., 2009. Techno-economic feasibility of grid connected solar
PV system in Bangladesh. In: Paper Presented at the 2009 1st International
Conference on the Developements in Renewable Energy Technology (ICDRET).
Mpholo, M., Nchaba, T., Monese, M., 2015. Yield and performance analysis of the first
grid-connected solar farm at Moshoeshoe I International Airport, Lesotho. Renew.
Energy 81, 845–852.
Mukisa, N., Zamora, R., Lie, T.T., 2019. Feasibility assessment of grid-tied rooftop solar
photovoltaic systems for industrial sector application in Uganda. Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments 32, 83–91.
Nasa, 2019. Retrieved from. https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-access-viewer/.
News, P., 2016. Retrieved from. http://www.pmnewsnigeria.com/2016/07/21/14-com
panies-partners-fg-on-1-75bn-solar-power-project/.
Obeng, M., Gyamfi, S., Derkyi, N.S., Kabo-bah, A.T., Peprah, F., 2019. Technical and
economic feasibility of a 50 MW grid-connected solar PV at UENR Nsoatre Campus.
J. Clean. Prod. 119159.
Ogunjuyigbe, A., Ayodele, T., Akpeji, K., 2018. Optimum selection of photovoltaic
modules using probabilistic approach based on capacity factor estimation. Int. J.
Ambient Energy 39 (1), 11–16.
Padmavathi, K., Daniel, S.A., 2013. Performance analysis of a 3 MWp grid connected
solar photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy for Sustainable Development 17 (6),
615–625.
Panasonic, 2020. Panasonic_HIT_Catalogue. Retrieved from. www.eu-solar.panasonic.
net.
Pillai, G., Naser, H.A.Y., 2018. Techno-economic potential of largescale photovoltaics in
Bahrain. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 27, 40–45.
Ppa, 2012. Grid-connected PV systems (No battery storage) system design guidelines for
the pacific islands. SEIAPI Sustainable Energy.
Raghoebarsing, A., Kalpoe, A., 2017. Performance and economic analysis of a 27 kW
grid-connected photovoltaic system in Suriname. IET Renew. Power Gener. 11 (12),
1545–1554.
Salvo, F., Ciuna, M., De Ruggiero, M., Marchianò, S., 2017. Economic valuation of
ground mounted photovoltaic systems. Buildings 7 (2), 54.
Sambo, A.S., Garba, B., Zarma, I.H., Gaji, M.M., 2012. Electricity generation and the
present challenges in the Nigerian power sector. J. Energy Power Eng. 6 (7),
1050–1059.
Sharma, V., Chandel, S., 2013. Performance analysis of a 190 kWp grid interactive solar
photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy 55, 476–485.
Sukumaran, S., Sudhakar, K., 2017. Fully solar powered airport: a case study of Cochin
International airport. J. Air Transport. Manag. 62, 176–188.
The December 2019, 2020. Minor Review Multi Year Tariff Order (MYTO) 2015 and
Minimum Remittance Order for the Year 2020 for Jos Electricity Distribution
Company Plc.
The December 2019, 2020a. minor Review Multi Year Tariff Order (MYTO) 2015 and
Minimum Remittance Order for the Year 2020 for Abuja Electricity Distribution
Company Plc.
The December 2019, 2020b. Minor Review Multi Year Tariff Order (MYTO) 2015 and
Minimum Remittance Order for the Year 2020 for Enugu Electricity Distribution
Company Plc.
The December 2019, 2020d. Minor Review Multi Year Tariff Order (MYTO) 2015 and
Minimum Remittance Order for the Year 2020 for Kaduna Electricity Distribution
Company Plc.
The December 2019, 2020e. Minor Review Multi Year Tariff Order (MYTO) 2015 and
Minimum Remittance Order for the Year 2020 for Kano Electricity Distribution
Company Plc.
Ya’acob, M.E., Hizam, H., Khatib, T., Radzi, M.A.M., 2014. A comparative study of three
types of grid connected photovoltaic systems based on actual performance. Energy
Convers. Manag. 78, 8–13.