Single axis Tracking of bifacial PV

modules at Savona Campus

by
Reza Sadeghi

THE UNIVERSITY OF GENOA

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in:
Energy Engineering

Advisors:
Professor Marco Fossa
Dr. Mattia Parenti

Co-Advisor
Dr. Samuele Memme
October 2023
 Acknowledgments
I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Professor Marco Fossa for his unwavering guidance, scholarly
insights, and invaluable support throughout this research journey. His dedication to fostering
academic growth and his patient mentorship have been instrumental in shaping the trajectory of
this work. I am also deeply appreciative of the guidance and expertise provided by my advisor, Dr.
Mattia Parenti, whose thoughtful contributions have enriched the depth of my exploration.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the esteemed faculty members of the Energy
Engineering Department at the University of Genova. Their extensive knowledge and commitment
to excellence have provided me with an inspiring learning environment. The collective wisdom
and guidance of these high-level professors have played a pivotal role in nurturing my academic
development.
Furthermore, I am grateful for the resources and opportunities provided by the Savona Campus.
The dynamic and innovative atmosphere of the campus has been a stimulating backdrop for my
research endeavors. The collaborative spirit among fellow students and faculty members has truly
enhanced my academic experience.
Finally, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and friends, whose unwavering
encouragement and belief in my abilities have been a constant source of motivation.

This work would not have been possible without the collective support and encouragement of all
those who have contributed to my academic journey. Thank you.

Reza Sadeghi

2
 Abstract
Bifacial photovoltaic (PV) modules capture light from both front and back sides, enhancing energy
output and cost-efficiency compared to monofacial PV systems. However, predicting bifacial PV
system performance is complex due to various variables. Existing simulation models, though
numerous, lack extensive validation through real-world data, leading to uncertainty and challenges
for investors. This study introduces a simulation model to assess energy production in fixed-tilt
and horizontal single-axis tracking (HSAT) bifacial PV systems considering different albedo
values, focusing on a real project in Savona, Liguria, Italy. This comprehensive analysis considers
various factors affecting system performance, providing critical insights for renewable energy
project decisions.
This study explores the performance of bifacial photovoltaic (PV) systems through a series of
simulations and analysis, first of all the influence of albedo on bifacial gain has been investigated.
Results indicate that the system production increases from 5 to 15% for albedo values between 0.2
and 0.4. Furthermore, a significant difference was observed when comparing the real case
(including near shading) with the ideal case (excluding nearby objects and buildings). The ideal
case produced 10931 kWh/yr, while the real case resulted in 10232 kWh/yr, evidencing a 6.37%
decrease in energy production.
Finally, it was found that bifacial PV modules with Horizontal Single Axis Tracking (HSAT)
outperformed those with a fixed tilt, even in non-ideal configuration and presence of shading.
Setting a conservative value of albedo of 0.25 the bifacial modules with HSAT produced 10232
kWh/yr, while the fixed-tilt bifacial modules yielded 9089 kWh/yr, resulting in a 12.18% increase
in energy production for the HSAT system.

3
 Sommario
I moduli fotovoltaici bifacciali catturano la luce da entrambi i lati, aumentando l'efficienza
energetica e riducendo i costi di produzione dell'elettricità rispetto ai sistemi fotovoltaici
monofacciali convenzionali. Tuttavia, prevedere le prestazioni dei sistemi fotovoltaici bifacciali è
complesso a causa delle numerose variabili che incidono sulla produzione di energia. Il presente
studio introduce un modello di simulazione per valutare la produzione di energia nei sistemi
fotovoltaici bifacciali a inclinazione fissa e nel sistema fotovoltaico bifacciale a tracciamento
orizzontale su un singolo asse (HSAT), concentrandosi su un progetto reale a Savona, Liguria,
Italia. Questa analisi tiene conto dei vari fattori che influenzano le prestazioni del sistema, fornendo
informazioni fondamentali per le decisioni relative ai progetti di energia rinnovabile.
Questa ricerca esplora le prestazioni dei sistemi fotovoltaici bifacciali attraverso una serie di
simulazioni e analisi. In primo luogo, è stata indagata l'influenza dell'albedo sul bifacial gain. I
risultati indicano che la produzione del sistema aumenta dal 5% al 15% per valori di albedo
compresi tra 0,2 e 0,4. Inoltre, si è osservata una differenza significativa confrontando il caso reale,
che include l'ombreggiamento degli elementi circostanti, con il caso ideale, che esclude oggetti ed
edifici nelle vicinanze. Nel caso ideale, è stata calcolata una produzione di 10.931 kWh/anno,
mentre nel caso reale 10.232 kWh/anno, ovvero una diminuzione del 6,37% nella produzione del
sistema. Infine, è stato determinato che i moduli fotovoltaici bifacciali con inseguimento solare su
un singolo asse orizzontale (HSAT) hanno prestazioni superiori rispetto a quelli con una
inclinazione fissa anche in configurazione non ideale e in presenza di ombreggiamento.
Impostando un valore cautelativo di albedo pari a 0.25 i moduli bifacciali con HSAT hanno
prodotto 10.232 kWh/anno, mentre quelli con inclinazione fissa hanno reso 9.089 kWh/anno,
risultando in un aumento del 12,18% nella produzione di energia per il sistema HSAT.

4
 Table of contents

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 2

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Sommario ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Table of contents ............................................................................................................................. 5

Nomenclature ................................................................................................................................ 10

List of figures ................................................................................................................................ 14

List of tables .................................................................................................................................. 19

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 21

1.1 Energy market ..................................................................................................................... 24

1.2 Global warming .................................................................................................................. 27

1.3 Photovoltaics Cells and Modules ........................................................................................ 31

1.3.1 Module cost .................................................................................................................. 33

1.4 Bifacial photovoltaics - Motivations & challenges ............................................................. 36

1.5 Tracking systems ................................................................................................................ 38

1.5.1 Tracking PV farm vs. fixed-tilt bifacial farm .............................................................. 40

1.5.2 E/W vs. N/S Tracking bifacial farm design ................................................................. 41

5
Background ................................................................................................................................... 45

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 45

2.2 General information on solar radiation ............................................................................... 45

2.2.1 Solar irradiance ............................................................................................................ 47

2.2.2 Air mass and atmospheric attenuation of solar radiation ............................................. 49

2.2.3 The position of the sun in the sky ................................................................................ 51

2.1.4 Reflection and albedo .................................................................................................. 52

2.3 Photovoltaic concept ........................................................................................................... 56

2.3.1 Solar cell structure ....................................................................................................... 57

2.3.2 Solar module ................................................................................................................ 60

2.4 Bifacial cell ......................................................................................................................... 61

2.4.1 Cell structure ................................................................................................................ 61

2.4.2 Bifacial module ............................................................................................................ 63

2.4.3 Cell efficiency .............................................................................................................. 65

2.4.4 Electrical model ........................................................................................................... 66

2.4.5 Bifacial solar systems .................................................................................................. 67

2.4.6 Bifacial gain ................................................................................................................. 69

Simulation ..................................................................................................................................... 71

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 71

3.1.1 Overview of the simulation model............................................................................... 72

3.2 Optical model ...................................................................................................................... 74

3.2.1 Module installation parameters .................................................................................... 74

3.2.2 sun’s position ............................................................................................................... 76

3.2.3 Direct irradiance Idir ..................................................................................................... 77

3.2.3.1 Existing approaches of backside irradiance modeling .............................................. 80

6
 3.2.3.2 2D View factor for rear side. .................................................................................... 82

3.2.3.3 Ray tracing ................................................................................................................ 87

3.2.4 Diffuse irradiance Idiff .................................................................................................. 89

3.2.5 Reflected irradiance Irefl. .............................................................................................. 92

3.1.6 View factor FA1 → A2 ..................................................................................................... 93

3.3 Electrical model .................................................................................................................. 97

3.3.1 One Diode Model for Module Power .......................................................................... 98

3.3.2 Two-diode Model......................................................................................................... 99

3.3.4 Module power Pmpp ...................................................................................................... 99

3.3.5 Annual energy yield Y ............................................................................................... 102

3.4 Bifacial gain BF ................................................................................................................ 103

3.5 Software for energy yield prediction ................................................................................ 103

3.6 Horizontal Single-Axis Tracking (HSAT) ........................................................................ 104

3.6.1 NREL's formula ......................................................................................................... 105

3.6.2 Rotation angle's relationship with tilt and azimuth .................................................... 106

3.6.3 Optimum solar tracking rotation angle ...................................................................... 107

3.6.3.1 Calculating the incidence angle .............................................................................. 108

3.6.4.1 Solar position angle................................................................................................. 110

3.6.4.2 Solar elevation angle (θe) ....................................................................................... 112

3.6.4.3 Solar hour angle (ω): ............................................................................................... 112

6.3.4.4 Solar Incidence Angle (θ) ....................................................................................... 113

6.3.4.5 Tracking offset angle (α)......................................................................................... 114

3.6.4.6 Tilt angle (β): .......................................................................................................... 115

Case Study Simulation ................................................................................................................ 119

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 119

7
 4.1.1 Objective of the Evaluation ....................................................................................... 120

4.2 PVsyst: A Comprehensive Evaluation Tool ..................................................................... 121

4.2.1 Overview of PVsyst ................................................................................................... 121

4.2.2 Simulation Methodology ........................................................................................... 122

4.2.2.1 Weather and irradiance ........................................................................................... 123

4.2.2.2 Sun’s position.......................................................................................................... 125

4.3 System Configuration and Design .................................................................................... 126

4.3.1 Savona Campus BPV Site Layout ............................................................................. 126

4.3.2 Module Specifications ............................................................................................... 128

4.3.3 Albeo .......................................................................................................................... 129

4.3.3 Tracking System ........................................................................................................ 130

4.3.4 Module type ............................................................................................................... 131

4.3.4.1 I/V and P/V curves .................................................................................................. 132

4.3.5 Inverter type ............................................................................................................... 134

4.3.5.1 Efficiency curve of input power ............................................................................. 137

4.3.5.2 Efficiency curve of output power ........................................................................... 137

4.3.5.3 Efficiency and Performance Analysis of the inverter ............................................. 138

4.4 Simulation Outputs and Performance Metrics .................................................................. 139

4.4.1 Energy Yield Analysis ............................................................................................... 139

4.4.2 Loss assessment ......................................................................................................... 142

4.4.2.1 Near shading assessment......................................................................................... 144

4.5 Comparative Analysis of Bifacial PV System Performance............................................. 146

4.5.1 Albedo Variability Assessment.................................................................................. 146

4.5.2 Near Shading vs. No Near Shading Comparison ....................................................... 147

4.5.3 Fixed Tilt vs. HSAT Evaluation ................................................................................ 150

8
 4.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 152

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 153

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 157

9
 Nomenclature

Symbols Meaning Units

AU Astronomical unit -
AM Air mass coefficient -
Direct optical path length light takes through km
the atmosphere
Shortest possible optical path length light km
takes through the atmosphere
Global horizontal irradiance /
Diffuse horizontal irradiance /
Beam (direct) horizontal irradiance /
Diffuse irradiance factor %
Total irradiance on tilted plane /
Direct irradiance on tilted plane /
dir

diff Diffused irradiance on tilted plane /

refl Ground-reflected irradiance on tilted plane /

Inefl External current density A/cm
V External voltage V
Parallel resistance Ω
Series resistance Ω
Current through diode 1 /cm
Current through diode 2 A/cm

10
 Light generated photo current A/cm
Bifaciality factor %
,!/" Front/rear side photo current A/cm

dir ,!/" Direct irradiance on module front/rear side /

def ,!!," Diffuse irradiance on module front/rear side /

df !/"

#$% , f/r Reflected irradiance on module front/rear /

side
,!/" Total irradiance on module front/rear side /
( Vector in the direction of the sun -
() Normal vector of module -
Length from module center to side edge of
ground surface
Length from module center to rear edge of
ground surface
Length from module center to front edge of

*
ground surface
Length from module center to side edge of

*
reflective sheet
Length from module center to rear edge of

*
reflective sheet
Length from module center to front edge of

+,
reflective sheet
Distance between module rows
+) Distance between adjacent modules
-" Horizontal surface
. Surface perpendicular to the Sun
/0# , Direct irradiance on the surface normal to the /
Sun
2 Circumsolar brightening coefficient -
2 Horizon brightening coefficient -
3)4 !/" Azimuth angle of module front/rear side: ∘
678 //9 Tilt angle of module front/rear side ∘
2:; →:= View factor from area to arean -
> Area of index ?
r Distance between differential areas
11
@ABB Maximum power point power
CDE Open circuit voltage C
CFGBH Open circuit voltage measured at STC V
8> Short circuit current A
>→ Short circuit current measured at STC A
CI Maximum power point voltage V
CI→J Maximum power point voltage measured at C
STC
ABB Maximum power point current A
ABB Maximum power point current measured at

22
STC
Fill Factor %
Irradiance at STO /
KLMNO,I/P Nominal opening cell temperature of ∘

QI,P R p.
moncfacial/bifacial module
Annual energy yield of manofucinl/bifacial

2
module
Bifacial gain %
ST Relative gain in module output power %

Greek
Letters

UV Zenith angle of the sun ∘

3 Azimuth angle of the sun 。
6 Elevation angle of the sun 。
3) Azimuth angle of the module ∘
6M Tilt angle of the module ∘
USMY /r
ℎ[
Angle of incidence respective module m

\ ∘
front/rear side module elevation
Declination angle

] Latitude -
^ Longitude -
_ Hour angle ∘
12
 Φ/0# Direct radiant power
Δ Atmospheric brightness factor -
b Constant equaling 1.041 -
3AHB Mnximum power point tempernture 1/∘C

cI ∘
coefficient
Module ternpernture
c-IP Ambient tempenature ∘
3 Albedo coefficient of surface -
^de Local time mone -
fooll,f/r Efficiency of bifacial cell front/rear side %
U / Angles between surface normal and line ∘

Δ 2
connecting differential aress
Relntive inaceuracy of bifncinl gain %

Acronyms
GDP Gross domestic product
LCOE Levelized cost of electricity.
ITRPV International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic
PV Photovoltaics
ISC International solar energy research center
Si Silicon
AR Anti reactive
SiNx Silicon-nitride
LID Light induced degradation
IBC Interdigitated back contact
EVA Ethyl-vinyl-acetate
MPP Maximum power point
VF View Factor
STC Standard Test Conditions
UTC Coordinated universal time
VMBM Vertically mounted bifacial module

13
 List of figures

Figure 1-1 According to forecasts by the Scientific Advisory Board, the global energy
mix is projected until 2100 [1]. ..................................................................................................... 22
Figure 1-2 The global electricity demand and production, measured in thousands of
terawatt-hours, spanning the period from 2018 to 2040 [2]. ........................................................ 25
Figure 1-3 The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released because of energy use,
measured in gigatons, from 2010 to 2050. .................................................................................... 26
Figure 1-4 The growth in Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) by 50% from the
Present to 2050 [35]. ..................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 1-5 Long-term changes in CO2 concentrations and temperature increase:
Baseline Scenario, 1980-2100. ..................................................................................................... 29
Figure 1-6 Visualization of changes in annual temperatures from 1990 to 2050 under
the Baseline scenario [17]. ............................................................................................................ 29
Figure 1-7 The progression of cumulative capacity and yearly production trends [18]. .............. 32
Figure 1-8 Trends in the cost of solar panels for different sectors. .............................................. 33
Figure 1-9 The bifacial module harnesses light from both its front and back sides.
Savona Campus. ............................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 1-10 Global distribution of market shares for monofacial and bifacial
monocrystalline solar cells [20]. ................................................................................................... 37
Figure 1-11 A schematic representation of a single-axis tracking bifacial solar PV
includeing both E-W facing (a), and (N-S) facing (b) orientations [21]. ..................................... 39
Figure 1-12 Global trends in yearly energy yield [21]. ................................................................ 41

14
Figure 1-13 Comparison of Percentage Gain in Yearly Energy Yield Between East-
West Tracking Bifacial PV Farm and North-South Tracking Bifacial PV Farm [21].................. 42
Figure 1-14 Illustrative representation of optimal PV farm design [21]. ..................................... 43
Figure 2-1 A comparison between solar irradiation and established global energy
resources [36]. ............................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 2-2 The energy spectrum of sunlight in the upper atmosphere and at sea level
[39]. ............................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 2-3 The standard spectra of solar irradiance: terrestrial AM1.5 and
extraterrestrial AM0. The data for these spectra have been obtained from SMARTS
[41]. ............................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 2-4 Solar Position Angles - θz (Zenith Angle), γs (Solar Azimuth Angle), αs
(Solar Elevation Angle) [42]......................................................................................................... 52
Figure 2-5 Comparison of Spectral and Diffuse Reflection Mechanisms. ................................... 53
Figure 2-6 Spectral and effective albedo values of frequently encountered surfaces [46]. .......... 54
Figure 2-7 Spectral reflectance of sand across various wavelengths of incident light for
different moisture levels [44]. ....................................................................................................... 55
Figure 2-8 A cross-section of a conventional monofacial solar cell [53]. .................................... 57
Figure 2-9 The configuration of a typical industrial p-type Cz-silicon solar cell,
featuring a selective emitter and full surface back contact [55]. .................................................. 58
Figure 2-10 Two-diode model of a standard solar cell with the illumination dependent
current source Jph [56]. .................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 2-11 Schematic representation of the layers in a standard solar module [59]. .................. 60
Figure 2-12 Structure of a bifacial n-type Cz-silicon solar cell. Notice the light sensitive
rear side with local contacts. ......................................................................................................... 61
Figure 2-13 A cross-sectional views of a industrial bifacial solar cell. Subfigure (a) is n-
type silicon, while subfigure (b) is p-type silicon variants. .......................................................... 62
Figure 2-14 Bifacial PV modules featuring three distinct junction box designs. ......................... 64
Figure 2-15 Front (left) and rear (right) views of a bifacial module featuring a
reconfigured junction box designed to minimize shadowing losses. ............................................ 65
Figure 2-16 Two-diode model of a bifacial solar cell................................................................... 67
Figure 2-17 A field configuration comprising three rows of twelve bifacial solar
modules. ........................................................................................................................................ 68

15
Figure 2-18 Schematic depicting the obstruction of ground-reflected irradiance by a rear
module row. .................................................................................................................................. 69
Figure 3-1 Key Components of the MoBiDiG Model and Their Interactions. POA
represents "Plane of Array," and DC stands for "Direct Current". ............................................... 73
Figure 3-2 The stand-alone module setup, defining module installation parameters, and
indicating the position of the sun. ................................................................................................. 75
Figure 3-3 Module arrangement in a field and definition of field installation parameters
and other simulation Inputs. .......................................................................................................... 76
Figure 3-4 A horizontal surface Ahor and a smaller surface AS perpendicular to
incoming sunlight both receive the same amount of direct radiant power Idir [71]. ..................... 78
Figure 3-5 The view factor concept (VF), and the Visualization of the Ray Tracing (RT)
Concept in Irradiance modeling (b). ............................................................................................. 82
Figure 3-6 A rear irradiance map of a bifacial module comprising 60 cells, generated
using the 2D view factor model. ................................................................................................... 83
Figure 3-7 A side view of the bifacial system, focusing on the ground segment used to
calculate the view factor to the backside. ..................................................................................... 85
Figure 3-8 The relationship between the bifacial gain and the number of ground
segments. ....................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 3-9 The key geometrical parameters for a standard horizontal single-axis tracker
featuring a rotation axis oriented from north to south. ................................................................. 87
Figure 3-10 Displays two representations of sky irradiance: (a) Single hour sky
irradiance and (b) Cumulative sky irradiance. The dark red line at the center denotes the
sun's path on the 23rd of March 2023 in Savona, Italy. These plots were generated using
the tool available at https://drajmarsh.bitbucket.io/. ..................................................................... 89
Figure 3-11 Geometry used to calculate the view factor between two surfaces. .......................... 94
Figure 3-12 The one-diode equivalent circuit for a PV cell, highlighting the five
essential parameters. ..................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 3-13 The two-diode equivalent circuit for a PV cell. ........................................................ 99
Figure 3-14 The arrangement of a single-axis solar tracking surface [103]. .............................. 106
Figure 4-1 Meteorological data overview for Savona, Italy. ...................................................... 124
Figure 4-2 The solar path, indicated by the azimuth and elevation angles, in the context
of Savona, Liguria, Italy. ............................................................................................................ 125
Figure 4-3 The solar path, indicated by the azimuth and elevation angles, in the context
of Savona, Liguria, Italy. ............................................................................................................ 126
16
Figure 4-4 Layout of buildings around Savona trackers. ............................................................ 127
Figure 4-5 Trackers orientation regarding the North-South axis. ............................................... 128
Figure 4-6 Plane orientation of PV modules............................................................................... 128
Figure 4.7 The limitation angles of trackers. .............................................................................. 129
Figure 4-8 The various materials of surface and their consequent albedo. ................................ 130
Figure 4-9 The information of bifacial PV modules installed on the trackers............................ 131
Figure 4-10 Bifacial PV Module Details: Measuring 1980 mm x 1000 mm with 72 Cells
in Series. ...................................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 4-11 The current-voltage curve regarding the open circuit voltage and short
circuit current. ............................................................................................................................. 132
Figure 4-12 The power-voltage curve at cells temperature of 25°C. .......................................... 133
Figure 4-13 Relative efficiency with respect to STC diagram illustrating the module's
performance. ............................................................................................................................... 134
Figure 4-14 The input data of working principles of Inverter used in the Savona site............... 135
Figure 4-15 The output side of the inverter, linking PV-generated DC power to the AC
grid. ............................................................................................................................................. 136
Figure 4-16 Efficiency curve illustrating the inverter's performance characteristics based
on input power (KW) and efficiency. ......................................................................................... 137
Figure 4-17 Efficiency curve depicting the inverter's performance characteristics in
relation to output power (KW) and efficiency. ........................................................................... 138
Figure 4-18 The relationship between input DC power (KW) and the corresponding AC
power output, showcasing the inverter's conversion efficiency. ................................................ 139
Figure 4-19 Annual energy production comparison between array reference energy for
PR and array nominal energy at STC. ........................................................................................ 140
Figure 4-20 Comparison of array reference energy for PR and array nominal energy at
STC for each month. ................................................................................................................... 140
Figure 4-21 Comparison of global horizontal irradiance and effective energy output for
each month .................................................................................................................................. 141
Figure 4-22 A comprehensive table presenting monthly performance metrics for the
Savona, Liguria, Italy. ................................................................................................................. 142
Figure 4-23 Critical factors where losses within the PV system occur and the
significance of optimizing energy yield. ..................................................................................... 143

17
Figure 4-24 Array Losses - encompasses specific losses that contribute to reducing the
system's energy generation potential. ......................................................................................... 144
Figure 4-25 Iso-Shading diagram -shading losses throughout the year. ..................................... 144
Figure 4-26 Array losses category. ............................................................................................. 145
Figure 4-27 System production vs. albedo, the annual energy production of the system
(in kWh/yr) for various Albedo values ranging from 0.1 to 0.9. ................................................ 146
Figure 4-28 Specific production vs. albedo, the specific production values (in
kWh/kWp/yr) as they relate to different Albedo values, ranging from 0.1 to 0.9. ..................... 147
Figure 4-29 Two arrays of BPV modules without considering surroundings. ........................... 148
Figure 4-30 Two arrays of BPV modules. .................................................................................. 148
Figure 4-31 Ideal vs. Real Case Comparison, the system production between the ideal
case and the real case. ................................................................................................................. 149
Figure 4-32 Two rows of BPV modules considered without tracking system in PVsyst. .......... 150
Figure 4.33 The optimized tilt angle calculated by PVsyst based on the plane orientation
(azimuth angle) ........................................................................................................................... 150
Figure 4-34 Performance comparison, the performance comparison between Bifacial
PV modules with a fixed tilt of 35 degrees and an albedo of 0.25 versus HSAT....................... 151

18
 List of tables

Table 2-1 provides approximate albedo ranges for various surfaces [44]. ................................... 55
Table 2-2 Bifacial factor and the base material of common bifacial solar cells [62]. .................. 63
Table 3-1 Advantages and drawbacks of bifacial simulation approaches [83]. ........................... 81
Table 3-2 Coefficients utilized to calculate F1 and F2 relative to ε [90]...................................... 92
Table 3-3 Indices employed in calculating the output power of monofacial and bifacial
modules. ...................................................................................................................................... 100
Table 3-4 Overview of simulation models and sub-models for predicting energy yield in
bifacial PV systems. .................................................................................................................... 104
Table 3-5 Earth-sun angles ......................................................................................................... 116
Table 3-6 sun-observer angles .................................................................................................... 116
Table 3-7 Collector-sun angles ................................................................................................... 117

19
20
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Energy remains a key factor for the social and economic development of a society. The reliable
and sustainable provision of energy is crucial for powering industries, improving living standards,
and enabling technological advancements. However, the world is faced with an increasingly
complex challenge in finding ways to adopt and implement proactive environmental practices
while also meeting the unstoppable rise in energy consumption on a global scale.
The World Energy Council, a leading international organization in the field of energy, emphasizes
the urgent need for sustainable energy solutions [1]. As we striving to meet the growing energy
demands of a modern society, it becomes imperative to balance these needs with the preservation
of our environment. This is particularly true in the face of climate change and the pressing need to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the primary factors driving the surge in energy consumption is the current lifestyle patterns
prevalent across the globe. Rapid urbanization and population growth contribute to increased
energy usage in various sectors, such as transportation and housing [1]. The electrification of
transport systems, including the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, presents both
21
opportunities and challenges. While electric vehicles offer a promising solution to reduce carbon
emissions from the transportation sector, their widespread implementation requires a substantial
increase in electricity generation capacity [2].
Similarly, the heating systems in residential and commercial buildings heavily rely on energy
sources that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. The transition towards more sustainable
heating solutions, such as geothermal or solar-powered systems, is vital to mitigate the
environmental impact of energy consumption [1]. Additionally, the proliferation of new electrical
appliances in households, from smart devices to advanced home entertainment systems, further
adds to the overall energy demand.
As many countries are growing and more and more people live on our planet, countries using more
energy than ever before. But the problem is, this is mostly getting this energy from things like oil,
coal, and gas, which are running out and not good for the environment. That's where renewable
energies come in. These are ways to get energy from things that won't run out, like the sun and the
wind. People are already using these renewable energies a lot, and it looks like they will become
even more important in the future, as shown in Figure 1.1.

Other renewablrs

Solar
thermal
Solar power

Wind

Biomass

Hydro

Nuclear energy

Gas

Coal

Oil

Figure 1-1 According to forecasts by the Scientific Advisory Board, the global energy
mix is projected until 2100 [1].

As our world changes, and more countries need more energy, it is needed to find better ways to
get it. Renewable energies are those better ways, and they're becoming more and more important.
Despite the advancements in energy-efficient technologies, there is still a need for greater
awareness and adoption of energy-saving practices [4]. Many individuals and businesses are slow

22
to embrace energy efficiency measures, resulting in unnecessary energy waste. Promoting
education and incentivizing energy-saving behaviors can play a crucial role in curbing excessive
energy consumption [5,3].
Furthermore, the expanding industrial sector is a significant contributor to the rising demand for
electricity. Industrial processes, particularly those that involve heavy machinery and large-scale
production, consume substantial amounts of energy [1]. As industries continue to grow and
expand, it is imperative to focus on optimizing energy use, investing in clean and renewable energy
sources, and implementing sustainable practices to minimize the sector's environmental impact
[6].
Considering these factors, a substantial rise in the demand for electricity is foreseen in the coming
years [1]. This escalating demand poses challenges for energy producers, policymakers, and
environmentalists alike. Meeting the future energy needs of a rapidly developing society requires
a multi-faceted approach that prioritizes renewable energy sources, energy efficiency measures,
and the implementation of innovative technologies [7].
To address the growing energy demand sustainably, there is an urgent need to invest in renewable
energy infrastructure. The development and deployment of solar, wind, hydroelectric, and
geothermal energy sources can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels and decrease greenhouse gas
emissions [7]. Additionally, advancements in energy storage technologies, such as high-capacity
batteries, can provide a more stable and reliable grid for renewable energy integration [8].
Moreover, governments and international organizations must implement policies and regulations
that incentivize the adoption of renewable energy and energy-saving practices [5]. Financial
incentives, tax breaks, and subsidies can encourage individuals, businesses, and industries to
embrace clean energy solutions. Simultaneously, regulatory frameworks should prioritize
environmental sustainability, setting emissions standards and promoting the responsible use of
resources.
Collaboration between governments, industries, and research institutions is also crucial in finding
innovative solutions to the energy challenge. Investments in research and development can lead to
breakthroughs in energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, and grid integration.
Additionally, sharing best practices and knowledge across borders can accelerate progress towards
a more sustainable and energy-efficient future [9].

23
1.1 Energy market
In recent years, the global energy market has undergone significant transformation, driven by a
confluence of technological advancements, policy shifts, and environmental imperatives. The
energy market's landscape has been reshaped by the accelerated adoption of renewable energy
sources, such as solar and wind, as countries strive to reduce carbon emissions and enhance energy
security. These developments have not only disrupted traditional energy generation paradigms but
have also instigated the emergence of decentralized energy systems and innovative business
models. The integration of smart grid technologies, energy storage solutions, and demand response
mechanisms has further paved the way for a more resilient and flexible energy infrastructure. This
shift towards decentralized and digitized energy systems has empowered consumers to become
prosumers, engaging in energy generation, consumption, and even trading. This paradigm shift in
the energy market has spurred the rise of energy communities, enabling localized energy sharing
and optimization.
While renewables have gained substantial traction, the energy market continues to grapple with
challenges related to intermittency, grid integration, and regulatory frameworks. Striking a balance
between the deployment of clean energy sources and maintaining grid stability remains a focal
point of research and policy discussions. Moreover, the evolving energy market dynamics have
raised questions about market design, pricing mechanisms, and the role of traditional utilities in
this new energy landscape.
Researchers and policymakers are also closely monitoring the role of energy storage technologies,
including batteries and advanced storage systems, in enhancing grid reliability and enabling greater
utilization of intermittent renewable sources. The interplay between energy storage, renewable
energy generation, and market dynamics presents a complex but promising avenue for achieving
a sustainable and resilient energy future. Hence, the energy market is undergoing a transformative
phase characterized by the proliferation of renewables, decentralization, and digitization. This
transformation brings both opportunities and challenges, necessitating a multidisciplinary
approach to address technical, economic, and policy aspects. As the energy market continues to
evolve, it is imperative for stakeholders to collaborate in shaping a future that is environmentally
sustainable, economically viable, and inclusive of diverse energy market participants. Because of
the way of living now, with more electric cars and heating systems, plus new electrical gadgets in
homes, and a slow shift to using energy more efficiently, and factories growing, it will be needed
24
a lot more electricity in the next years. You can see this in Figure 1.2 (a). Right now, in 2023
Figure 1.1(b), coal still makes most of our electricity, and gas comes next. This picture gives us a
clear idea of how things are going in the energy market, and this is something that will look into
more in the Energy Market section of this thesis.

(a) Electricity Needs Across Different Areas from 2018 to 2040

(b) Types of Energy Sources Used for Generating Electricity from 2018 to 2040

Figure 1-2 The global electricity demand and production, measured in thousands of
terawatt-hours, spanning the period from 2018 to 2040 [2].

25
Looking at Figure 1.1(b), it's clear that for a sustainable future, it is needed more clean energy to
produce electricity. This means using less of the dirty fuels like coal, gas, and oil. Hydro, wind,
and solar power are vital sources that can help us achieve this change. These alternatives are
important not only for the environment but also for how to buy and sell energy, which is what the
energy market is all about. To boost the growth of new solar power plants globally and connect
them better to the electricity grid, it's important to make sure that the cost of solar electricity is the
same as or even lower than the cost of energy from usual sources. This includes considering
various ways to store energy for solar technology, so that the power from solar plants keeps
flowing even when the sun isn't shining. This step is crucial for both the energy market and the
environment, as it ensures that solar energy becomes a sustainable and reliable choice.
This goal can be achieved by either making solar systems cheaper to run for their entire lifespan
(including storing energy) or by creating solar panels that work well and don't cost too much. This
way, the amount of electricity the solar system produces over its lifetime can be increased [2]. This
is important for making solar energy a better option in terms of both cost and efficiency.
These methods of generating electricity play a substantial role in the substantial CO2 emissions
worldwide, significantly contributing to the escalating issue of global warming, according to data
from the International Energy Agency (IEA). As demonstrated in Figure 1.3, CO2 emissions have
consistently risen since 1990, drawing attention to the urgency of addressing this concern.

Outlook Baseline 450 ppm Core

GtCO2 e
450 ppm Delayed Action 450 ppm Accelerated Action
90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Figure 1-3 The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released because of energy use, measured in
gigatons, from 2010 to 2050.

Remarkably, there was a stabilization of emissions in 2019 after two consecutive years of increase
in 2017 and 2018. The IEA attributes this reduction in CO2 emissions during 2019 mainly to the
26
decline in emissions from electricity generation within advanced economies. This positive shift
can be largely attributed to the increasing utilization of renewable energy sources, which is
significantly impacting both sustainability and the energy market landscape. Nevertheless, the goal
remains to not only halt the escalation of CO2 emissions but to actively diminish them. The
outcomes observed in 2019, as highlighted earlier, distinctly underscore the capacity of renewable
energy production to drive forward these sustainable objectives.

The plans outlined in this Environmental Outlook, designed to limit global temperature rise to 2°C,
indicate that:

• Emissions need to reach their highest point before 2030. In the Delayed Action scenario,
there's a short wait before global emissions start to decrease. This means that after 2035,
there must be a quick shift from current practices to have a fair chance of still achieving
the 2°C target.
• To avoid spending too much, it's likely that we'll exceed the planned concentration level
(450 ppm) around the middle of the century. Afterward, work to reduce it to the planned
level by the end of the century. However, this approach might have effects on the
environment by causing faster temperature changes in the coming years. The Accelerated
Action scenario, while more expensive, suggests a smaller overshoot compared to the other
two scenarios, which means less risk for the environment.

1.2 Global warming

The world's emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are still going up. In 2010, the amount of
carbon dioxide (CO2) released because of energy use hit a record 30.6 gigatons (Gt), even with the
recent economic problems. If do not doing more than what is now, the Environmental Outlook
Baseline scenario predicts that GHG emissions will go up by another 50% by 2050. In line with
this trend, as highlighted in Figure 1.4, global GHG emissions are anticipated to surge by 50%
from the present to 2050. This notable increase is primarily propelled by the escalating demand
for energy and the robust economic expansion experienced by pivotal emerging economies. This
is mostly because it is expected a 70% increase in CO2 emissions from using energy, mainly
because the use about 80% more energy overall. The emissions from transport might double
because more people in developing countries will use cars and planes. In the past, most of these

27
emissions came from rich countries. But in the future, a big part will come from developing
countries that are growing fast. This situation links closely to sustainability and the energy market
because it shows that it is needed to find cleaner and more sustainable ways to produce and use

energy, to make our world healthier and more stable.

Figure 1-4 The growth in Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs) by 50% from the
Present to 2050 [35].

If serious actions do not consider, the Baseline outlook1 predicts that the amount of greenhouse
gases in the air would go up to almost 685 parts per million (ppm) CO2-equivalents by 2050. This
is much more than the 450-ppm needed to have a reasonable 50% chance of keeping the Earth's
temperature rise to 2 degrees (2°C) – a goal set back in 2010 at the UN climate conference in
Cancún. If take a look to the Baseline projection, the planet's average temperature is likely to go
beyond this goal by 2050, and by the end of the century, it could be 3 to 6 degrees higher than
how it was before factories started putting out so much pollution. Such a big temperature rise
would keep changing how much it rains, make glaciers melt, push sea levels higher, and make

1
The term "Baseline outlook" refers to a projection or prediction of future conditions based on the current or existing
trends, policies, and practices. It's a scenario that assumes things will continue as they are without significant changes
or interventions. In the context of your text, the "Baseline outlook" is the projected path for greenhouse gas emissions
and their impacts if no additional ambitious actions or policies are taken to reduce them.
28
extreme weather happen even more often and in worse ways. It might even go past some
important points, causing big natural changes that could be bad or impossible to fix for nature
and people. Figure 1.5 depicts the long-term shifts in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations and
the subsequent rise in temperature. The scenario considered is the Baseline,

Figure 1-5 Long-term changes in CO2 concentrations and temperature increase:

Baseline Scenario, 1980-2100.

Moreover, Figure 1.6 illustrates the alteration in average yearly temperatures spanning the period
from 1990 to 2050. The displayed scenario is based on the Baseline projection, considering the

Figure 1-6 Visualization of changes in annual temperatures from 1990 to 2050 under
the Baseline scenario [17].

29
the expected trends and conditions during this time frame. This all shows why sustainability is so
important – it is needed to act now to prevent these problems.
Technological advancements and changes in how economies are structured are predicted to make
economies more efficient in terms of energy use in the upcoming years. This means that the amount
of greenhouse gas emissions will not increase as fast compared to the growth of the economy,
especially in countries like OECD2 nations and emerging economies like Brazil, Russia, India,
Indonesia, China, and South Africa (often called BRIICS). However, even though these
improvements are happening in different regions, the global increase in the need for energy is
likely to cancel out these local improvements. This raises important sustainability concerns as
aimed to balance economic growth with responsible environmental practices.
Over the upcoming three decades, emissions originating from land use, land use change, and
forestry (LULUCF3) are anticipated to decrease, with forests increasingly capturing carbon from
the atmosphere. By the year 2045, it's projected that the net CO2 emissions linked to land use will
turn negative within OECD countries, indicating a transition towards acting as a net emissions
absorber. In many emerging economies, there's also an observable decline in emissions, a result of
expected reduced deforestation activities. However, in other parts of the world, land use emissions
are forecasted to rise until 2050. This escalation is mainly due to the expansion of agricultural
areas, particularly noticeable in regions like Africa. This complex scenario highlights the intricate
interplay between land use, emissions, and sustainability considerations.
LULUCF plays a crucial role in the global carbon cycle as it can both release carbon dioxide (CO2)
into the atmosphere through activities like deforestation and absorb CO2 through activities like
afforestation and reforestation. This concept is important in understanding the overall impact of
human activities on carbon emissions and the environment.

2
OECD stands for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It's an international organization
made up of 38 member countries, mostly high-income nations, that work together to promote economic growth,
development, and global trade while also focusing on sustainability and responsible policies.
3
It refers to the collective impact of human activities on land, including activities like deforestation, afforestation,
reforestation, and changes in land management practices.
30
1.3 Photovoltaics Cells and Modules

Photovoltaic (PV) modules are fundamental components designed to function effectively in

outdoor conditions over extended periods. These modules can be crafted using various materials
and production techniques. The key factor that determines the success of specific technologies in
the market is the cost of generating electricity from PV systems. The method known as levelized
cost of energy (LCOE) considers expenses related to investment, operation, and the total energy
production throughout a PV system's lifespan. The impact of factors like module price, efficiency,
and longevity on LCOE, combined with material availability, establishes the boundaries for viable
technologies. Enhancing module efficiency, for example, from 21% to 23%, could potentially
reduce the cost associated with the area-dependent aspects of PV system installation by 8.7%. This
underlines the pivotal role of module attributes in influencing the financial feasibility and
practicality of PV technologies. Prolonging the operational lifespan from 25 to 30 years has the
potential to lower the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) by approximately 10%.
Over the last two decades, technological progress has led to remarkable cost reductions in
photovoltaic modules and related components. These advancements have boosted efficiency,
significantly enhanced system reliability and output, resulting in lowered electricity costs. These
improvements are closely tied to the rapid expansion of photovoltaic power plant installations.
Photovoltaics has emerged as one of the world's swiftest-growing energy sectors. The total
photovoltaic capacity installed globally surpassed 760 GW in 2020 [6], with more than 140 GW
added in the same year. The progression of cumulative capacity and yearly production during the
period 1992-2021 is illustrated in Figure 1.6. As depicted, the cumulative installed capacity has
increased a thousand-fold between 2000 and 2020 [17].
In 2021, the yearly production (installed capacity) surged to over 160 GW, and another rise in
annual production is anticipated for 2022. As a result, by 2022, the global cumulative PV capacity
is projected to surpass the terawatt-peak (TW) threshold.
Photovoltaic modules play a pivotal role in photovoltaic systems by transforming solar radiation
into electrical power. Factors such as their cost, efficiency, and longevity are crucial factors
steering the advancement of photovoltaics as a promising avenue for affordable and eco-friendly
electricity. This chapter delves into the impact of photovoltaic module prices, efficiency, and
operational lifespan on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) - taking material availability into

31
account. It also explores the resulting trends in photovoltaic module technology and outlines the
boundaries within which these technologies operate.

Figure 1-7 The progression of cumulative capacity and yearly production trends [18].

The cost of generating electricity from a system, such as photovoltaic systems, is commonly
assessed through a system LCOE analysis, which facilitates the comparison of various production
methods [4–6]. The LCOE metric encapsulates the overall system cost (adjusted to current value)
divided by the total energy generated throughout the system's operational life. Beyond
maintenance, monitoring, and repair expenses, various other costs come into play. These include
administrative costs, property taxes, insurance, land leases, grid fees, balancing costs, asset
management, security expenditures, assorted taxes, and additional costs arising from factors like
inflation and expiring warranties [13,14]. Operating costs comprise both maintenance and these
supplementary expenses. Similar to investment costs, a segment of operating costs is contingent
on the area covered. There are differences in the operating costs of a PV system due to differences
in system size, system configuration, climate, and location. There can also be big differences in
individual years of operation. These differences complicate the determination of average operating
costs. A system tool for calculating operating costs can be found in [15]. The average operating
costs are usually stated in cost per kWp of installed power.

32
1.3.1 Module cost

Module costs are typically established by market prices and expressed as a price per unit of power,
measured under standard test conditions (STC). They are often denoted in units such as USD/Wp
or EUR/Wp. The module's cost can fluctuate across various nations due to factors like tax
regulations, transportation expenses, shipment volumes, reseller margins, and more. Notably, price
disparities between different countries can be substantial. For instance, when compared to module
prices in Germany, prices are 17% higher in Australia, 52% higher in the USA, and 60% higher in
Japan [9]. The price of solar panels has declined substantially over the last decade, Figure 1.8
illustrates important trends about the cost of solar panels that make electricity from sunlight. It
focuses on different areas like homes, installations, large power plants, and businesses. Over the
years, the cost of solar panels for homes has gone down by about half. At the same time, the use

Figure 1-8 Trends in the cost of solar panels for different sectors.

of solar energy in the US has increased a lot - more than 20 times! In recent years, there has been
a small drop in how much it costs to have solar panels at home. This happened because of problems
in getting all the materials because of the pandemic. The price of solar energy in the US is expected
to keep going down in the next years, as more factories start making solar panels here. The picture
also shows four lines that tell us about prices in different parts of solar power. It is interesting to

33
see how things have changed and how they might change in the future. The module cost pertains
to the expense of unit power (measured under standard test conditions), usually calculated in
USD/Wp. Some Balance of System (BOS) components' costs are linked to the unit's power (such
as inverters, transformers, switchboards, etc.), while the cost of other BOS components is
associated with the area needed per unit of power (like the necessary supporting structure area,
cable length, etc.). Consequently, a segment of the BOS cost is inversely related to the module's
efficiency. Hence, opting for less efficient (though more economical) modules may not necessarily
decrease investment expenses [18]. This understanding underscores the significance of three
principal drivers in photovoltaic technology: PV module cost, PV module efficiency, and PV
module service life. In numerous regions across the globe, large-scale solar installations have
become more cost-effective than all alternative methods of generating power. This trend is
expected to persist, leading to the gradual replacement of older, less environmentally friendly
power plants that rely on coal and natural gas.

In today's market, premium monocrystalline solar panels generally come with a price tag ranging
between $1 and $1.50 per Watt, making a 400-Watt solar panel cost between $400 and $600,
depending on the purchase method. On the other hand, less efficient polycrystalline panels are
usually cheaper at around $0.75 per Watt, setting the cost of a 400-Watt panel at approximately
$300. The method of procurement plays a role in panel cost, with full-service installers offering
lower rates compared to individual purchases from retail stores. It's important to recognize that
solar modules account for less than 20% of the total expenses for a home installation. Opting for
lower-priced (and potentially lower-quality) panels might not significantly reduce the overall
project cost. There are two main approaches for determining solar system expenses:

1. Price per watt ($/W): This metric is useful for comparing various solar offers.

2. Cost per kilowatt-hour (cents/kWh): This metric is useful for comparing solar costs to
grid energy expenses.

Price per watt ($/W): Typically, a fully installed solar system costs between $3 and $5 per watt
before applying incentives such as the 30% tax credit. For instance, a 5,000-Watt solar system (5
kW) would amount to a total cost ranging from $15,000 to $25,000.

34
Larger and relatively straightforward projects often fall within the $3-$4 range for price per watt.
Leveraging incentives like tax credits and rebates can further reduce this cost metric. However,
certain factors could lead to a higher price per watt in the range of $4 to $5:

• Smaller system size

• Unconventional roof material or layout

• Utilizing premium panel and inverter models

• Employing multiple arrays instead of a single array

• Incorporating additional work such as panel box upgrades, trenching, or roof repair

Cost per kilowatt-hour (cents/kWh): Determining the cost per watt for a solar system is quite
straightforward – it involves dividing the system's total cost by the number of watts within the
system. This metric, known as price per watt ($/W), allows for a direct comparison of different
solar quotes, even if they differ in total wattage or solar panel brands. Generally, the average cost
per watt for a solar system is around $2.75. However, this figure can change if a project necessitates
additional factors like ground mounting, main panel upgrades, or an electric vehicle charger
installation. Another metric to gauge the cost-effectiveness of solar energy is its price per kilowatt-
hour (kWh). While the price per watt focuses on the solar system's size, the price per kWh reflects
the cost of the system per unit of energy it generates over a specific period. This concept is
sometimes referred to as the levelized cost of energy (LCOE). To provide context, a kilowatt-hour
(kWh) signifies a unit of energy equivalent to consuming 1,000 watts – or 1 kilowatt – of power
within an hour. For comparison, an energy-efficient clothes dryer consumes about 2 kWh of
electricity per load, while central air conditioning utilizes around 3 kWh per hour. While price per
watt aids in comparing solar bids, the solar energy cost per kWh serves to showcase the value of
solar energy in comparison to purchasing electricity from a utility provider. For instance, the
average cost of a solar system acquired through solar.com ranges from 6 to 8 cents per kWh,
depending on factors like system size, equipment type, and local incentives.

35
1.4 Bifacial photovoltaics - Motivations & challenges

Bifacial PV modules capture sunlight from both their front and back sides, transforming it into
electricity, as illustrated in Figure 1.9. This notion positions bifacial modules as a promising
technology for diminishing the LCOE by augmenting the electricity output of bifacial PV systems
throughout their lifespan, in contrast to standard (monofacial) PV systems. Particularly

Figure 1-9 The bifacial module harnesses light from both its front and back sides.
Savona Campus.

in the current landscape, with industrial solar cells typically adopting a bifacial design due to their
treated rear sides, the manufacturing cost of bifacial solar modules barely escalates when compared
to monofacial modules [19]. The additional energy produced by bifacial PV systems due to light
absorption on their backside is termed the "bifacial gain," and you can find a more detailed
explanation about this in chapter 2. Moreover, bifacial systems offer another advantage - they have
the potential to even out the electricity generation pattern, a crucial aspect for effective integration
into the grid. This characteristic can enhance the stability and reliability of the power supply.
Although initial bifacial PV installations have demonstrated significant increases in energy
generation, ranging from 4% to 30%, the widespread adoption of bifacial technology has been
36
hindered by several factors. One major challenge was the absence of a standardized method for
characterizing the I-V (current-voltage) behavior of bifacial PV devices, along with the need for a
revised definition of the nameplate power to incorporate the extra energy generated from the
module's rear side. These issues have contributed to the slower integration of bifacial technology
into the global PV market.

Starting from the early months of 2019 and following various recommendations, the
characterization of bifacial devices, including both cells and modules, has been standardized by
the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Additionally, the dynamic rear side of
bifacial modules introduces a higher dependency on numerous factors compared to monofacial PV
systems. These factors include the albedo (which has minimal impact on monofacial systems), the
type of racking system used, the quantity of modules and rows in the PV array, the elevation of
the PV setup above the ground, and the occurrence of self-shadowing. A cutting-edge concept with
potential to further reduce LCOE is the bifacial module, designed to absorb light from both sides.
This is achieved using solar cells with localized rear contacts and transparent rear passivation. This
allows light to enter the cell from both sides, resulting in increased current and higher power output
compared to standard cells. Bifacial solar cell production can be smoothly integrated into existing
manufacturing lines due to its compatibility.

Figure 1-10 Global distribution of market shares for monofacial and bifacial
monocrystalline solar cells [20].

37
Additionally, the independent energy yield of a bifacial module can rise by up to 30%, thanks to
extra irradiance from the ground that enhances cell current and overall electricity generation. This
elevated performance has spurred the rise of bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells' market share,
as projected by the International Technology Roadmap for Photovoltaic (ITRPV) in Figure 1.11.

To calculate the LCOE of bifacial modules and assess their profitability, it's crucial to accurately
determine the increase in energy production. Unfortunately, there's currently no available
commercial tool to calculate the annual energy yield of a bifacial module array. Calculating the
energy output of bifacial modules is more intricate compared to standard modules. It hinges on
factors such as module installation height, ground reflection, spacing between rows and
neighboring modules in the same row, and the modules' self-shadowing on the ground. Existing
simulation tools only partially address this complexity, primarily focusing on single-module
installations. Hence, this thesis presents the development and introduction of a model designed to
simulate the annual energy yield of bifacial modules. This model is aimed at accurately quantifying
the energy production gain achieved by bifacial modules. Chapter 2 provides an introduction to
the essential theoretical knowledge, followed by Chapter 3, which outlines the methodology and
discusses the results of the conducted simulations.

1.5 Tracking systems

Introducing a tracking system is another approach to lowering the levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
within a photovoltaic (PV) system. The objective is to optimize energy production within a given
area of a solar farm. This can be achieved through cost-effective measures such as enhancing the
total irradiance of fixed-tilt farms using bifacial modules or elevating the direct irradiance on
monofacial modules through solar tracking. These technologies are gaining traction, with bifacial
modules projected to hold around 40% of the market share by 2028 [21]. Additionally, since 2015,
approximately 70% of newly installed PV systems have incorporated solar-tracking [22]. Although
the idea of employing solar tracking for bifacial PV modules is intriguing, a concern arises
regarding whether the advantages of bifaciality would hold true in such a configuration. The worry
is that aiming to maximize direct sunlight might cast pronounced shadows on the ground,
potentially diminishing the contribution from ground albedo. Fortunately, recent location-specific
case studies offer promising insights into the potential of combining bifacial PV modules with
38
solar-tracking [22,23]. For instance, when considering the same white-paint albedo, single-axis
tracking of standalone bifacial PV modules showcased an energy yield increase ranging from 20%
to 90% across various months. This is in comparison to fixed-tilt bifacial and monofacial modules.
Likewise, another research work on tracking systems highlighted a 70% rise in annual energy yield
through single axis tracking of standalone bifacial modules with highly reflective albedo
collectors, in comparison to fixed monofacial counterparts [24]. In Figure 1.12, a visual

representation is provided to showcase the arrangement of a single axis tracking bifacial solar PV
farm. This design consists of panels facing east-west and panels facing north-south. The orientation

Figure 1-11 A schematic representation of a single-axis tracking bifacial solar PV

includeing both E-W facing (a), and (N-S) facing (b) orientations [21].

of the panels affects the path that the sun's rays follow, which is influenced by both the latitude of
the location and the time of day. This variation in solar path highlights the adaptability of single-
axis tracking systems to different geographical locations, making one of the orientations more
advantageous in specific regions. This illustration underscores the importance of optimizing panel
orientation to maximize energy capture from the sun, contributing to improved efficiency and
energy production in bifacial solar PV systems.
Also, a recent research work [25] showcased that both bifaciality and tracking offer distinct
advantages depending on geographical locations. Bifaciality provided an up to 44% advantage
compared to single-axis tracking, which offered an 18% energy gain over fixed monofacial
counterparts. Numerous studies in the existing literature illustrate the promising prospects of
39
standalone bifacial and/or tracking PV panels through both experimental [26, 27] and
computational [22, 29] investigations. A growing consensus indicates that bifaciality and tracking
can enhance the incident irradiance on a module. Several research teams have combined irradiance,
light collection, and electro-thermal models to showcase that the bifacial gain and resulting LCOE
reduction are influenced by the geographic location. It's essential to optimize module tilt and row
separation to maximize bifacial gain [30,31]. Along with standalone PV modules, several research
groups have investigated monofacial/bifacial PV farms both in fixed and/or mobile configurations.
Studies have shown that the bifaciality of single-axis mobile PV arrays could enhance their
performance by about 12% [32]. Additionally, a recent research work reported approximately a
10% bifacial gain for single-axis mobile PV systems [33]. Moreover, a study utilizing a
mathematical model demonstrated that single-axis tracking of monofacial, and bifacial PV arrays
could increase energy yield by up to 15% and 26%, respectively, when compared to standard
monofacial fixed-tilt systems [34].

1.5.1 Tracking PV farm vs. fixed-tilt bifacial farm

Let us now explore, Figure 1.12, whether opting for a single-axis tracking PV farm presents
advantages over a fixed-tilt farm in specific global locations.
The energy surplus or deficit of a tracking PV farm compared to a fixed-tilt PV farm varies based
on the geographical position, as illustrated in Fig. 1.12. The east-west (E/W) tracking bifacial PV
farm exhibits superior performance over the north-south (N/S) fixed-tilt bifacial PV farm,
especially near the equator and at lower latitudes, showcasing an approximate 45% improvement.
This trend is most pronounced in desert regions like the Sahara, Atacama, Australian, and Kalahari,
where abundant direct light irradiance favors the E/W tracking approach, resulting in heightened
energy gains. However, in areas with a lower fraction of direct light and higher diffuse fractions,
such as latitudes exceeding 45° and Northeast China, the fixed-tilt bifacial farm demonstrates

40
comparable or slightly better energy gains. Considering the additional land area required, along
with higher initial and operational costs, and operational costs.

Figure 1-12 Global trends in yearly energy yield [21].

1.5.2 E/W vs. N/S Tracking bifacial farm design

The comparison between a conventional East-West (E/W) single-axis tracking PV farm design
and a North-South (N/S) single-axis tracking configuration. Unlike the E/W tracking PV that
adjusts hourly to follow direct sunlight, the N/S tracking farm tracks the seasonal changes in sun
path, resulting in relatively smaller variations throughout the day. Considering that N/S fixed-tilt
bifacial farms exhibit higher energy generation than E/W tracking farms at higher latitudes, it is
anticipated that the N/S tracking farm will outperform the fixed-tilt bifacial farm. Figure 1.14
illustrates a global analysis comparing the E/W and N/S tracking farms. As anticipated, the N/S
tracking farm shows better performance in regions with a high fraction of diffuse light, such as
Northern Canada and Siberia. Additionally, in comparison to the E/W tracking farm, the negative
percentage yearly energy gain is even higher for the N/S tracking farm (Figure 1.12) than for the
N/S fixed-tilt bifacial PV farm (Figure 1.10) at higher latitudes tracking farm, the negative

41
percentage yearly energy gain is even higher for the N/S tracking farm than for the N/S fixed-tilt
bifacial PV farm at higher latitudes.

Figure 1-13 Comparison of Percentage Gain in Yearly Energy Yield Between East-
West Tracking Bifacial PV Farm and North-South Tracking Bifacial PV Farm [21].

An East-West (E/W) single-axis tracking bifacial PV farm generates up to ~45% higher yearly
energy yield than an N/S facing fixed-tilt bifacial PV farm for locations at |latitude| < 30°, as
demonstrated in Fig. 1. 10. A higher fraction of direct light leads to higher energy gain. An E/W
tracking monofacial farm vs. fixed-tilt bifacial farm shows similar global trends with maximum
energy gain reaching ~10% near the equator (Fig. S1). However, fixed-tilt bifacial farm
outperforms tracking monofacial farm by ~5 − 15% for |latitude| > 30° (Fig. S2). As shown in Fig.
1. 14, an E/W single-axis tracking bifacial PV farm tracks the hourly movement of the Sun whereas
an N/S single-axis tracking bifacial farm mostly tracks the seasonal/monthly movement of the Sun.
The former provides up to ~15% more energy for locations close to the equator (|Latitude| < 50°)
and the latter generates up to 5% for locations close to the poles (|Latitude| > 50°).
Figure 1.6, provides a visual summary of our key conclusion, emphasizing that an E/W single-axis
tracking bifacial PV farm offers the most effective design for the majority of regions (|Latitude| <
50°) across the globe. The energy gain concerning fixed-tilt bifacial, or N/S tracking farms varies
based on factors such as the incident direct light fraction and the solar path at the specific
geographical location of the solar PV farm, as depicted in Figure 1.12. Furthermore, to minimize
42
the LCOE of a farm, an optimal pitch can be determined according to the estimated essential
module to land cost ratio (7 ) for the particular deployment site. Thus, in terms of energy
maximization, opting for a bifacial tracking PV system appears to be a viable and rewarding choice
for most locations worldwide.

Figure 1-14 Illustrative representation of optimal PV farm design [21].

43
44
 CHAPTER 2

Background

2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the looking into the fundamental aspects of photovoltaics, with a particular
emphasis on bifacial systems. The initial section elucidates solar radiation and its primary
attributes. Additionally, scrutinizing the principle of photovoltaic conversion and explore the
diverse parameters capable of influencing its functionality. Furthermore, various configurations of
bifacial solar cells and modules are examined, encompassing the I-V characterization of bifacial
devices. Ultimately, introducing the key parameters delineating bifacial PV systems.

2.2 General information on solar radiation

The Sun, as our solar system's largest and sole nuclear fusion reactor, serves as the foundation of
all life on Earth and the origin of nearly all forms of energy harnessed by humanity, either directly
or indirectly. The Sun's energy warms the Earth's surface, leading to heat and pressure transfers in
weather systems that drive wind currents, subsequently generating electricity through wind
turbines. This energy also initiates water evaporation, leading to rainfall, reservoir formation, and
hydroelectric power generation. Even the burning of fossil fuels is essentially a method of tapping
45
into the power of sunlight, which was initially captured by plants through photosynthesis, stored
in chemical bonds, and transformed into fossil fuels like coal, oil, or natural gas over millions of
years of geological processes. However, the most direct approach to harnessing sunlight is through
photovoltaic systems, where sunlight is immediately transformed into electricity via panels
equipped with semiconductor cells. The Sun stands as a paramount source of primary energy, as
depicted in Figure 2.1. This visualization is based on calculations conducted by esteemed
institutions like the German Aerospace Center (DLR). Their findings illustrate that the annual solar
irradiation received by Earth surpasses global electricity consumption by several thousandfold.
This ample solar energy influx showcases the immense potential for harnessing the Sun's power
to meet the planet's energy needs.

A NNUAL SOLAR
IRRADIATION
TO THE EARTH

GLOBAL ANNUAL
ENERGY CONSUMPTION

SOLAR (CONTINENTS) COAL

WIND GAS
B IOMASS OIL
GEOTHERMAL N UCLEAR
OCEAN & WAVE PRIMARY ENERGY
C ONSUMPTION
H YDRO

Figure 2-1 A comparison between solar irradiation and established global energy
resources [36].

Given that the electricity produced by photovoltaic systems is closely tied to solar irradiation, it is
crucial to precisely gauge the extent of solar irradiation reaching the Earth's surface and gain a
comprehensive grasp of the underlying physics of sunlight, including its interaction with the
atmosphere. Fossil fuels are typically quantified based on their overall reserves, reflecting the total
amount available for extraction. In contrast, renewable energies are evaluated in terms of their

46
annual potential, representing the sustainable energy they could generate on a yearly basis. This
distinction in measurement approaches underscores the fundamental difference between these
energy sources. This concept is visually captured in Figure 2.1, which draws on data from sources
like DLR, IEA WEO, and EPIA's calculations to vividly juxtapose the two categories and highlight
their unique characteristics.

2.2.1 Solar irradiance

The Earth receives an abundant supply of solar irradiation, far surpassing the global energy
requirements. This immense potential is vividly illustrated by the fact that each square meter of
Earth's surface, on average, is exposed to sufficient sunlight to generate 1,700 kWh of energy
annually through current technology. The sheer scale of solar energy reaching the planet is
staggering, as it could fulfill the world's energy needs thousands of times over. This solar data is
meticulously collected across the globe. For instance, the US National Solar Radiation database
encompasses three decades of solar and meteorological data from 237 locations in the USA.
Similarly, the European Joint Research Centre (JRC) compiles and shares European solar
irradiation data from 566 sites. The solar constant, quantified at 1.367 kW/m2, designates the solar
irradiance that permeates Earth's atmosphere from the Sun at one Astronomical Unit (AU). An AU
represents the average span between the Earth and the Sun [37, 38].
The geographic distribution of sunlight plays a crucial role in energy generation. Regions with
abundant sunshine, particularly sub-tropical areas, emerge as prime locations for harnessing solar
power. While Europe experiences an average annual energy receipt of around 1,200 kWh/m2, the
Middle East boasts significantly higher values, ranging from 1,800 to 2,300 kWh/m2. Although
only a portion of solar irradiation can be converted into electricity, this efficiency loss does not
entail wastage like in the case of burning fossil fuels. Nonetheless, it impacts the cost-effectiveness
of photovoltaic (PV) systems.
EPIA's analysis reveals that Europe could potentially satisfy its entire electricity consumption by
covering a mere 0.34% of its land area with photovoltaic modules, an expanse comparable to the
size of the Netherlands. The International Energy Agency (IEA) calculations project that
dedicating 4% of the world's arid desert regions to PV installations could adequately meet the
planet's primary energy demand. The untapped potential is vast, encompassing roofs, building

47
surfaces, unused land, and desert expanses. Significantly, by 2025, the installation of solar panels
on appropriate rooftops and facades could fulfill 40% of the European Union's electricity needs.
These insights emphasize the vast scope of untapped solar energy potential and the transformative
impact it could have on meeting global energy needs. Nonetheless, merely a portion of the solar
irradiance reaches the Earth's surface. Figure 2.2 illustrates the extraterrestrial light's spectrum, the
spectrum of light reaching the Earth's surface, and the spectrum that can be harnessed by silicon-
based photovoltaic cells with single junctions.

At upper atmos

At sea level
Wavelength at which photon energy
equals silicon bandgap.

Theoretical single junction sol

response (maxumum 31% efficient

Figure 2-2 The energy spectrum of sunlight in the upper atmosphere and at sea level
[39].

As depicted in Figure 2.2, the light intensity at sea level is merely a fraction of the intensity present
outside Earth's atmosphere. When sunlight traverses through the atmosphere, primarily composed
of oxygen and nitrogen, it encounters various phenomena. Some portion of the solar irradiance
gets absorbed, another is reflected, and still, another is diffusely scattered by gas molecules and
clouds.

48
2.2.2 Air mass and atmospheric attenuation of solar radiation

The solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is lower than the solar constant of 1360.8 W/m2.
This is due to the scattering and absorption of light in the atmosphere. Atmospheric scattering is
caused by molecules in the air and water, as well as dust particles. On the other hand, atmospheric
absorption primarily stems from ozone (O3), water vapor (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2)
absorbing light [40]. The interaction of light with the atmosphere alters the solar spectrum,
prompting the establishment of standard solar spectra to evaluate different photovoltaic
technologies. Illustrated in Figure 2.3 are two irradiance distribution spectra of the sun: AM0 and
AM1.5. AM0 (ASTM E-490) represents the sun's spectrum devised for extraterrestrial use, such
as PV applications in space. On the other hand, AM1.5 (ASTM G-173) characterizes the sun's
spectrum employed for ground-based applications on Earth. For AM1.5, the standard defines the
receiving surface as a plane inclined at 37° toward the equator, oriented to face the sun at an
altitude of 41.81° above the horizon. These standard spectra data are sourced from the SMARTS
2.9.5 program [41].

Figure 2-3 The standard spectra of solar irradiance: terrestrial AM1.5 and
extraterrestrial AM0. The data for these spectra have been obtained from SMARTS
[41].

The atmosphere's composition also dictates the ability of light to pass through, with different
wavelengths experiencing varying degrees of reduction in intensity. Consequently, as light
journeys through the atmosphere, its intensity diminishes due to absorption or reflection by air
molecules. This results in spatial and temporal variations in solar irradiance. The intensity
decreases with higher latitudes and over the course of the day, as the time difference from solar
49
noon increases. The Air Mass (AM) coefficient quantifies the intensity reduction associated with
the distance light must traverse through the atmosphere. To quantify the attenuation in intensity
resulting from the atmospheric journey, it is turn to the Air Mass (AM) coefficient. This
coefficient, represented by "AM" followed by a numerical value, encapsulates the normalized
optical path length that sunlight undertakes through the atmosphere. This normalization is
anchored against the shortest path length achievable, typically measured vertically at the Equator.
The mathematical formulation for the Air Mass coefficient reads as follows:

7= =
h
hi GFe j=
(2.1)

This coefficient is intimately tied to the solar zenith angle (θz), which denotes the angle formed
between the Sun's position and the vertical axis. In essence, the Air Mass coefficient encapsulates
the intricate interplay of sunlight's path length and the celestial geometry, succinctly capturing the
complex process through which solar radiation navigates the Earth's atmospheric realm. Sunlight
is made up of two main types: direct and diffuse radiation. Direct radiation travels in a straight line
from the Sun to the Earth's surface. It's like a beam of light that can be blocked by objects, creating
shadows. On the other hand, diffuse radiation is sunlight that has been scattered by particles in the
air. It doesn't have a specific direction and can't be completely blocked by objects, so it doesn't
create shadows.

Measuring the amount of these radiations using terms like direct horizontal irradiance (BHI) for
direct sunlight and diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI) for scattered sunlight. When combine these
two, it will get the total sunlight on a horizontal surface of 1 square meter, which is called global
horizontal irradiance (GHI). It's a way to understand how much sunlight is reaching the Earth's
surface. This complex relationship is represented by:

GHI = BHI + DHI (2.2)

The quantity of diffuse irradiance can be described using the factor for diffuse irradiance, denoted
as fD, which is defined as:

= 100 .
mn
omn
(2.3)

Of greater significance for generating electricity from solar power is the complete solar irradiation
on an inclined surface, denoted as Itot. This measurement incorporates a third component:
50
irradiance reflected from the ground. Furthermore, there is another variation – the diffuse
component of solar radiation is diminished. When the receiving surface is titled, radiation from
certain parts of the sky can no longer directly reach the surface of the plane. The expression for Itot
is as follows:
Itot = Idir + Idiff + Irefl (2.4)

In this equation, Idir, Idiff, and Irefl represent the direct, diffuse, and reflected elements of solar
irradiation on a sloped surface with an area of 1 m2. The reflected sunlight from the ground holds
a crucial role in electricity generation, especially when employing bifacial photovoltaic modules.

2.2.3 The position of the sun in the sky

The position of the sun in the sky significantly influences the amount of irradiance that a
photovoltaic (PV) device receives, along with other contributing factors. Therefore, accurately
determining the sun's position for a particular location and time is critical for effectively modeling
PV system performance. The angles used to define the sun's position in the sky are as follows:
• Solar Zenith Angle (θz): This angle measures the vertical angle between the sun and the
observer's zenith (the point directly above the observer). It is zero when the sun is directly
overhead and increases as the sun moves towards the horizon.
• Solar Azimuth Angle (γs): The solar azimuth angle indicates the direction of the sun in
the horizontal plane, typically measured clockwise from the north direction. It defines the
angle between the sun's rays and a line pointing north.
• Solar Elevation Angle (αs): This angle is the complement of the solar zenith angle. It
measures the height of the sun above the horizon. When the sun is on the horizon, the solar
elevation angle is zero, and it increases as the sun moves higher in the sky.

51
These angles are essential for predicting the intensity and direction of solar radiation on a PV
panel, helping to optimize its energy capture. The accurate calculation of these angles contributes
to precise PV system design and energy yield predictions. Figure 2.3 illustrates the importance of
the solar zenith angle (θz), solar azimuth angle (Az), and solar elevation angle (α) in determining
the sun's position in the sky. These angles play a crucial role in defining the intensity and direction
of solar radiation incident on photovoltaic panels, ultimately impacting their energy output and
overall efficiency [42].

Figure 2-4 Solar Position Angles - θz (Zenith Angle), γs (Solar Azimuth Angle), αs
(Solar Elevation Angle) [42].

The sun's position can be precisely calculated using a highly accurate algorithm outlined in [42].
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has employed this algorithm to develop the
Solar Position Algorithm (SPA) using the C programming language. This algorithm can compute
the solar zenith and azimuth angles within a time span from the year 2000 to 6000, with remarkable
uncertainties of +/- 0.0003 degrees. These calculations are based on specific details such as date,
time, and Earth location [43].

2.1.4 Reflection and albedo

Albedo, as defined by Dobos [44], refers to "the portion of incoming radiation that gets reflected
from a surface." This characteristic is intricate, influenced by soil attributes as well as various
external environmental factors. Of these, the nature of the vegetation coating the soil, the quantity
of organic matter present, soil moisture levels, and the chemical composition of the soil materials
52
carry the most weight in shaping albedo [44, 45]. Remarkably, the albedo of a dry surface tends to
exceed that of a moist soil with identical chemical composition [45]. Furthermore, albedo isn't
static; it shifts with the altering angles of incident solar radiation, fluctuating in sync with the
seasons and the course of a day [37, 38]. Typically, albedo is greater when the sun hangs at lower
angles in the sky.
The ratio of reflected light to incoming light is what defines the albedo, a unitless measure ranging
from 0 to 1. NASA's Earth Observatory 4reports that the Earth's average albedo is approximately
30%, a value determined by satellite observations from space. However, this value can
significantly vary based on the specific geographic location and the ground characteristics of that
area. The albedo of the ground beneath photovoltaic (PV) modules plays a crucial role in PV
system performance, particularly for bifacial PV systems, as will be elaborated in this thesis. Thus,
obtaining a precise measurement of ground albedo is imperative for accurately modeling bifacial
PV systems.
The reflection of incident light by a surface involves two mechanisms: spectral and diffuse
reflection, illustrated in figure 2.5. The dominant mechanism depends on the surface's roughness.
Specular reflection, occurring on smooth surfaces, involves mirror-like reflection, often seen in
metals or water bodies, giving a glossy look to the surface. Here, light from a single direction
reflects into another direction, with the incident ray angle equaling the reflected ray angle. On

Figure 2-5 Comparison of Spectral and Diffuse Reflection Mechanisms.

4
The NASA Earth Observatory, established in 1999, serves as NASA's primary platform for sharing satellite imagery and various scientific data
related to climate and the environment with the general public.
53
the other hand, diffuse reflection, originating within the surface, involves the reflection of an
incident ray by rough surfaces like sand or paper. In this case, the reflection occurs at multiple
angles, providing the surface a matte appearance.
Furthermore, the albedo of a reflecting surface can exhibit different spectral characteristics. Figure
2.6 illustrates the spectral and effective albedo values for commonly used surfaces [46]. Notably,
snow and white sand demonstrate high effective albedo values of 67% and 80%, respectively,
while surfaces like red brick, green grass, roofing shingle, and construction concrete have lower
effective albedo values, typically below 30%. It's important to note that albedo values can vary
depending on both surface type and geographical location. According to [47, 48], for specific
surface types, albedo can be modeled as a function of two factors: the solar zenith angle and the
diffuse fraction of light (as described in section 2.2.5). However, significant variations in albedo
over the course of the day are most prominent during early morning and late afternoon. During the
day, when most power production occurs, the albedo remains relatively stable.

Figure 2-6 Spectral and effective albedo values of frequently encountered surfaces
[46].

Surface reflectance varies across different wavelengths of incident solar radiation, contributing to
the coloration of the surface. This variation in albedo concerning wavelength is illustrated in Figure

54
2.7 for sand, highlighting the decrease in albedo as moisture content increases. Given this
variability, it's crucial to distinguish between spectral and total albedo. Spectral albedo pertains to
reflectance at specific wavelengths, while albedo is computed by integrating the spectral
reflectivity across all wavelengths in the visible spectrum, multiplied by the radiation [44].

Figure 2-7 Spectral reflectance of sand across various wavelengths of incident light
for different moisture levels [44].

The albedo, denoted as α, represents an average of spectral albedo values across all wavelengths
throughout the entire year. It serves as a measure of a surface's overall ability to reflect incoming
light. This value falls within the range of 0 to 1, where 0 indicates a blackbody, which theoretically
absorbs 100% of incident radiation, and 1 signifies a perfectly white surface with ideal reflection,
where 100% of incident radiation is reflected. Approximate ranges of albedo of various surfaces
are summarized in table 2.1.

Table 2-1 provides approximate albedo ranges for various surfaces [44].

Surface type Albedo range

Blackbody 0
Forest 0.05 - 0.2
Grass and crops 0.1 - 0.25
Dark-colored soil 0.1 - 0.2
Sand 0.2 - 0.4
Mean albedo of Earth 0.36
Granite 0.3 - 0.35
Fresh snow 0.9
55
 Water 0.1 - 1
Absolute white surface 1

In this thesis, the model is simplified by assuming that the ground beneath the modules behaves
as an ideal diffuse reflective surface. This means that light is uniformly reflected in all directions.
It will neglect the diurnal and seasonal variations in the albedo, as well as its dependence on the
incoming light's wavelength. Therefore, when it refers to "albedo" in this context, it will denote
the average albedo of a given surface over all wavelengths throughout the year. This simplification
is reasonable because, for most of the day, albedo variations are relatively small. These variations
tend to occur during the early morning and late evening when solar radiation intensity is weak,
resulting in minimal impact on energy production. Thus, this simplification should not introduce
significant errors into our simulations.

2.3 Photovoltaic concept

Photovoltaics (PV) refers to the process of converting sunlight into direct electrical current using
semiconductor materials, with silicon being the dominant choice in the photovoltaic industry,
commanding a market share of over 90% [49]. The fundamental principles of this technology have
been well-established for years and are extensively documented in numerous books [50, 51, 52].
These texts provide comprehensive explanations of the technical terms involved in the process,
including semiconductors, doping, p-n junctions, band diagrams, and recombination, among
others. For the purpose of this thesis, it will not delve further into the intricate workings of a solar
cell or the specific chemical and physical processes taking place inside it. Furthermore, since this
thesis does not center on enhancing solar cell efficiency through novel processing techniques, and
it will not provide detailed insights into the production process steps. The primary objective of the
forthcoming chapters is to underscore the key distinctions between standard and bifacial solar
cells, modules, and installations, respectively.
The photovoltaic conversion process involves the conversion of solar energy, carried by photons,
into electrical energy using specialized devices. Semiconductors serve as a prime example of such
devices, with solar cells being a common embodiment. Solar cells typically consist of
semiconductors like p-doped crystalline silicon (Si). In these cells, a thin n-doped region is

56
strategically created to establish a p-n junction. When photons strike a solar cell, they may possess
sufficient energy to liberate an electron from the outer shell of a Si atom, initiating a process that
leads to the formation of an electron-hole pair. Here, a "hole" signifies the absence of an electron,
while an "electron" is set loose within the bulk structure [53]. Thanks to the electric field within
the p-n junction, the resulting electrons and holes migrate to their respective regions within the
cell (electrons move to the n-region, and holes move to the p-region). Subsequently, these charge
carriers are collected as an electrical current through an external circuit, generating a current flow
because of the photovoltaic effect.

Figure 2-8 A cross-section of a conventional monofacial solar cell [53].

The heart of photovoltaic systems is the solar cell, responsible for generating electrical current. In
our experiments for this thesis, utilizing semiconductor materials, primarily silicon (Si). When
photons from incoming solar radiation possess an energy level greater than silicon's bandgap, they
can elevate electrons to higher energy bands. This excitation creates an electrical current, which
can subsequently flow when connected to an electrical load. In the forthcoming sub-chapters, it
will focus on crystalline silicon cell technology, which dominates the market with a current share
of 90% and is anticipated to remain a dominant player for at least the next decade, as indicated by
[54].

2.3.1 Solar cell structure

The heart of photovoltaic systems is the solar cell, responsible for generating electrical current. In
our experiments for this thesis, the utilizing semiconductor materials, primarily silicon (Si). When
photons from incoming solar radiation possess an energy level greater than silicon's bandgap, they
57
can elevate electrons to higher energy bands. This excitation creates an electrical current, which
can subsequently flow when connected to an electrical load. In the forthcoming sub-chapters, there
will be focus on crystalline silicon cell technology, which dominates the market with a current
share of 90% and is anticipated to remain a dominant player for at least the next decade, as
indicated by [54]. A multitude of technologies and silicon solar cell designs have emerged from
various research centers and universities, each striving to attain the highest cell efficiency. Despite
this diversity, all silicon-based solar cells share a common foundation, centered around a p-n
junction. They generally exhibit a similar fundamental structure, comprising a base, an emitter,
front and rear contacts, and an anti-reflective layer. Figure 2.6 provides a visual representation of
this structure. This commonality in structure serves as a testament to the fundamental principles
underpinning silicon solar cell technology, even amidst various innovations and optimizations.

Figure 2-9 The configuration of a typical industrial p-type Cz-silicon solar cell,
featuring a selective emitter and full surface back contact [55].

The base layer of a solar cell can be fabricated from either p-type or n-type silicon. Typically, in
the production of industrial standard mono-crystalline silicon solar cells, boron-doped p-type
wafers are widely used, representing over 80% of Czochralski (Cz) crystal production for PV. This
trend is mainly due to historical reasons, as pointed out by Libal and Kopecek [55], and it's further
influenced by the approximately 20% lower production costs associated with p-type wafers. Figure
2.9 provides a visual representation of a standard solar cell structure, which includes a p-type base
layer, a selective emitter, an anti-reflective (AR) layer constructed from silicon-nitride (SiNx), and
a full aluminum back surface field (Al-BSF) and aluminum rear contact.
58
In order to gain insights into the operation and characteristics of a solar cell and to facilitate the
prediction and simulation of internal processes from an electrical perspective, various models have
been developed over time. These models account for the diverse physical phenomena transpiring
within the cell. By employing an electrical model, the intricate behavior of a solar cell can be
replicated using fundamental electrical components with well-understood properties and functions,
such as electrical resistance or a diode. Among the most precise and widely utilized models for
solar cell simulation is the two-diode model, which represents an advanced iteration of the single-
diode model. Figure 2.10 illustrates the schematic equivalent circuit of a monofacial solar cell
utilizing two diodes, D1 and D2.

Figure 2-10 Two-diode model of a standard solar cell with the illumination
dependent current source Jph [56].

While "D2 is employed to represent Shockley-Read-Hall recombination currents in the space

charge region, ... D1 accounts for recombination currents occurring elsewhere" [56], such as
Shockley-Read-Hall and Auger recombination in the base and emitter, or surface recombination
in the front and rear. RP symbolizes the parallel resistance, functioning as a shunt, while the
resistance across the entire circuit is encapsulated within RS. The interdependence between the
external voltage V and current J can be expressed as:

J = Jrs t Ju t Ju t
vwxyz
y{
2.5

The photo current JPh signifies the current generated by the incident light and shows a linear
dependence on solar irradiance [57]. However, for the sake of brevity, the detailed expressions of
the currents JD1 and JD2, which traverse the two diodes, are not provided in this thesis, as they

59
have been comprehensively elucidated in prior literature [56, 57, 58]. Moving forward, the
remaining component of the external current J is the current coursing through the shunt.

2.3.2 Solar module

The next step in the solar energy generation chain is the production of the solar module, which is
the energy generating unit in a solar system. Solar modules are a packaged assembly of typically
6x10 interconnected solar cells, with peak powers ranging from 230 W to 320 W. The 60 solar
cells are encapsulated from both sides by a transparent ethyl vinyl-acetate (EVA) foil with an
additional white sheet at the back and a glass panel in the front, as shown in figure 2.11. The white
back-sheet helps reflect the portion of the irradiance falling in the space between the solar cells, a
part of which is totally reflected by the front EVA foil into the solar cells, where it can generate
additional carriers. Some modules also have an aluminum frame, mechanically stabilizing the
module and facilitating standard mounting methods, such as on the rack. A junction box in the
back serves as the electrical connection to the other modules of the solar system and typically
contains three bypass-diodes, which in case of strong shading, bypasses a string of solar cells, to
prevent damaging the shaded solar cell.

Figure 2-11 Schematic representation of the layers in a standard solar module [59].

60
2.4 Bifacial cell
2.4.1 Cell structure

Bifacial solar cells have a distinct structural feature that distinguishes them from their standard
counterparts. Unlike conventional cells, bifacial cells lack non-transparent aluminum back surface
fields (Al-BSF) and contacts that obstruct incident light. In these cells, both the front and back
contacts are localized. Additionally, a layer of SiNx is applied to the rear to diminish reflection,
while the n+ BSF serves to repel majority carriers produced in the base layer, thus passivating the
rear side. This design permits light to enter the solar cell from the rear, primarily generating
majority carriers near the rear surface. For those minority carriers generated close to the rear of the
solar cell – holes in the case of a p-type or electrons in the case of an n-type base – they must
traverse the cell to reach the front contacts. This necessitates a high carrier lifetime, which is crucial
for achieving substantial bifacial factors. This requisite carrier lifetime and diffusion length can be
achieved using either very high-quality, albeit expensive, p-type wafers or standard n-type wafers.
This factor elucidates the shift by cell manufacturers from p-type to n-type wafers, especially for
high-efficiency applications such as bifacial and interdigitated back contact (IBC) solar cells. The
front side of bifacial cells remains largely unchanged compared to standard ones, except for the
use of boron instead of phosphorous to dope the emitter in n-type base layer cells, a crucial
modification for achieving the necessary positive doping of the emitter. Figure 2.12 illustrates the
structure of a bifacial n-type Cz-silicon solar cell, which was elucidated above.

Figure 2-12 Structure of a bifacial n-type Cz-silicon solar cell. Notice the light
sensitive rear side with local contacts.

61
Bifacial solar cells, designed to capture sunlight and convert it into electrical current from both
their front and rear sides, offer a distinctive approach. The concept of bifacial solar cells originated
from a US patent by H. Mori [60]. The primary goal of this design was to enhance the diffusion
length of minority carriers by harnessing charges via a second PN junction situated near the rear

surface. The implementation of rear-side metallization, illustrated in Figure 2.13, is pivotal in

realizing the design of bifacial cells.
a- n-PERT

(a) PERC+

Figure 2-13 A cross-sectional views of a industrial bifacial solar cell. Subfigure (a) is n-
type silicon, while subfigure (b) is p-type silicon variants.

Moreover, bifacial solar cells are distinguished by a parameter known as the "bifacial factor" or
"bifaciality." This factor quantifies the relationship between the cell's rear and front responses
under Standard Test Conditions (STC) and is typically expressed as a percentage [61]. The bifacial
factor (ϕ) can be defined for various cell characteristics such as short-circuit current (Isc), open-

62
circuit voltage (Voc), power output (Pmax), and efficiency (η). These definitions are provided
below, where the subscript f indicates the front and r signifies the rear:
ϕIsc = Iscr / Iscf (2.5)
ϕVoc = Vocr / Vocf (2.6)
ϕPmax = Pmaxr / Pmaxf (2.7)
ϕη = ηr / ηf (2.8)

In the context of this thesis, the bifacial factor (ϕ) employed in the electrical model is defined as
the minimum value between (ϕIsc, ϕPmax).
Presently, a variety of bifacial cell designs exist, with the most prevalent ones in industrial
production being bifacial PERC, n-type PERT, and Si-heterojunction cells. Additional bifacial cell
variations are founded on the p-type PERT and IBC-cell concepts. Table 2.2 provides a summary
of the typical bifacial factors and efficiencies of these solar cells. It is evident that some bifacial
cells exhibit high bifaciality (>90%), while others display lower bifaciality (<80%). This
discrepancy in the bifacial factor arises from multiple factors, including the extent of metal
coverage on the backside, rear surface texture, anti-reflective coating, rear side doping and
passivation, bulk resistivity, and the solar cell's carrier lifetime [62].

Table 2-2 Bifacial factor and the base material of common bifacial solar cells
[62].

2.4.2 Bifacial module

Much like monofacial (conventional) solar cells, deploying bifacial solar cells in outdoor
conditions and large-scale power plants requires the lamination of bifacial cells. This lamination

63
serves to safeguard the cells against outdoor elements, ensuring their long-term performance and
reliability. Bifacial modules are composed of several electrically interconnected bifacial cells.
Because the back of bifacial modules is an active area for collecting sunlight, they utilize structures
like glass/glass or glass/transparent back sheets. Currently, the glass/glass structure is favored for
various reasons, including its known durability and mechanical stability [63].
Given the active backside of bifacial PV modules, the design of the junction box is a crucial
consideration to avoid shading the sensitive rear area. This has led to the creation of various
junction box designs, as depicted in figure 2.14. In Figure 2.14 (a), a bifacial module features a
junction box situated on the backside at the top center, partially shading some solar cells. In figure
2.14 (b), an enhanced junction box design divides the single junction box into three distributed
ones, minimizing space usage and thereby eliminating shading of the sensitive area. Lastly, figure
2.14 (c) presents another improved junction box design located at the top edge of the bifacial
module, outside the sensitive area. It is important to note that this design is feasible only for
frameless bifacial PV modules.

(a) Top of the bifacial PV module with the junction box on the backside shading partially solar cells. N-type PERT bifacial module
made by

(b) Top of the bifacial PV module with an improved junction box design, three distributed junction boxes without any shading of the
sensitive area on the backside.

(c) Top of the frameless bifacial PV module with an improved junction box design, a single junction box is located at the edge of the
solar panel without any shading of the sensitive area on the backside. P-type PERT bifacial module made by the institutes (ISC
Konstanz, Solaround and Fraunhofer CSP).

Figure 2-14 Bifacial PV modules featuring three distinct junction box designs.

64
Similar to their solar cells, bifacial modules exhibit slight variations compared to standard modules
to facilitate the absorption of light from the rear side. The white sheet traditionally found on the
back of standard solar modules, which could hinder rear side irradiation in bifacial modules, is
removed. It's replaced with either a transparent back sheet for modules with a glass back sheet or
an additional glass panel for glass-glass modules. This alteration allows sunlight to reach the rear
side of bifacial solar cells. In standard modules with a white back sheet, light that enters the space
between the cells is partly reflected by the white sheet and then completely reflected onto the cells'
front side by the front glass foil. This arrangement enables some utilization of the light that falls
between the cells. However, this effect cannot be harnessed in bifacial modules, as they lack the
reflective white back sheet. Consequently, the front-side power of a bifacial module is further
reduced compared to a standard module. Additionally, standard junction boxes (as shown in Figure
2.14) would obstruct a portion of the rear.

Figure 2-15 Front (left) and rear (right) views of a bifacial module featuring a
reconfigured junction box designed to minimize shadowing losses.

2.4.3 Cell efficiency

Bifacial solar cells exhibit a slightly lower front power output compared to their standard
counterparts featuring full surface rear contacts. In standard cells, photons that traverse the cell
without absorption on their initial pass are typically reflected by the rear contact, granting them a
second opportunity to generate an electron-hole pair. However, in bifacial solar cells, which lack
a full surface rear contact, fewer photons are redirected back into the cell for this secondary chance,
leading to a marginal reduction in overall power output.
Nonetheless, this decrease is offset by the relatively high levels of solar irradiation reaching the
rear side of bifacial solar cells. This rear illumination generates electron-hole pairs, primarily in
proximity to the rear surface. It's essential to note that the rear sides of bifacial solar cells do not
65
perform as efficiently as their front sides. Standard bifaciality factors for n-type wafers typically
range between 85% and 95%. The bifaciality factor, denoted as fB, quantifies the ratio between the
rear side efficiency (ηcell, r) and the front side efficiency (ηcell, f) and is calculated as follows:

= 100
|cell ,}
|cell ,~
2.9

The primary reason for the lower efficiency observed in the rear side of bifacial cells is the
generation of minority carriers in close proximity to the rear surface. These carriers must traverse
the cell to reach the emitter at the front side, where they can subsequently be transferred to the
front contact. Due to the extended distance these minority carriers must travel within the cell,
there's an increased likelihood of recombination occurring, resulting in a slight drop in efficiency.
Consequently, higher-quality wafer materials exhibit reduced recombination rates for carriers
generated by rear-side solar irradiation. This reduction enhances the rear side efficiency and pushes
the bifaciality factor closer to 100%, ultimately improving the overall performance of bifacial cells.

2.4.4 Electrical model

By making a slight adjustment to incorporate the current produced by the rear-side irradiance,
bifacial cells can be effectively characterized using the two-diode model previously introduced in
chapter 2.3.1. It has been established that the front-side photocurrent Jph, f and the rear-side
photocurrent Jph, r exhibit linearity [64, 65]. Therefore, the total photocurrent can be determined
by simply adding these two components together. Consequently, the modified two-diode model
for bifacial cells can be expressed with the following equation:

J = Jrs,% + Jrs,# t Ju t Ju t
vwxyz
y{
2.10

66
This means that the electrical model of a bifacial solar cell must incorporate a second illumination-
dependent current source that runs parallel to the existing one. As a result, the schematic
representation of the two-diode model needs to be adjusted accordingly.

Figure 2-16 Two-diode model of a bifacial solar cell.

2.4.5 Bifacial solar systems

Bifacial solar systems introduce a new dimension of complexity to these considerations. Unlike
their monofacial counterparts, bifacial systems harness sunlight from both the front and rear sides
of the modules, potentially enhancing energy yield. However, this enhancement also introduces a
set of unique challenges, particularly in understanding and optimizing their performance within a
field installation.
In a bifacial solar park, the relationship between shadows, optical gain, and electrical performance
becomes intertwined. Shadows cast by modules not only affect the performance of neighboring
modules but also impact rear-side irradiance, which can vary significantly across the installation.
This variation leads to electrical mismatching concerns, as modules on the periphery of the field
typically experience fewer shadows and higher rear-side irradiance, resulting in higher power
output compared to their counterparts in the center.
The careful planning and precise calculation of shadows and their impact on both the optical and
electrical aspects of bifacial solar systems are pivotal for maximizing their efficiency and energy
production. Therefore, understanding how to mitigate the effects of shading, manage electrical
mismatching, and optimize bifacial systems becomes a critical consideration in solar park design
and operation. Solar systems typically consist of multiple solar modules, with installations
involving just one module being exceedingly rare and thus not within the scope of consideration.

67
Field installations of standard solar modules, which include multiple modules per row and
potentially multiple rows of modules, present various electrical and optical challenges. Electrical
design challenges encompass issues such as the electrical mismatch of serially connected modules,
the determination of the number of maximum-power-point (MPP) trackers to employ, and various
safety concerns arising from the high currents present in the field. Optically, one of the most
significant issues is mutual shading between PV modules, necessitating a minimum distance
between module rows to reduce the power density per unit area.
These challenges become more intricate when employing bifacial modules. Merely identifying the
times of the day and the module row distances at which modules are no longer shaded by front
module rows is insufficient with bifacial modules. Bifacial modules utilize rear-side irradiance,
which is diffusely reflected by the ground. This irradiance is diminished by shadows cast by the
modules onto the ground, as depicted in figure 2.17, illustrating a hypothetical bifacial field
installation with twelve modules in three rows. Consequently, it is imperative to calculate the
precise locations of module shadows throughout each day of the year to ascertain the reduction in
rear-side irradiance due to module shadows on the ground. This optical phenomenon exacerbates
electrical mismatching within the solar park, as edge modules receive less shadow beneath them
than those in the center, resulting in higher rear-side irradiance and increased power output.

Figure 2-17 A field configuration comprising three rows of twelve bifacial solar
modules.

Furthermore, the rear-side irradiance, in addition to being diminished by the module shadows cast
on the ground, encounters further reduction due to blockage by other module rows. The solar
irradiation diffusely reflected by the ground, which would otherwise reach the rear side of the
bifacial module, is obstructed by the modules in the row positioned behind it. This double-
obstruction effect results in a decrease in the solar irradiance reaching the module's rear side,
68
subsequently reducing its power output. This phenomenon is vividly represented in figure 2.18,
which illustrates two module rows. The green region indicates the reflected solar irradiance
reaching the rear side of the module, the red region signifies the irradiance blocked by the
additional module row, and the yellow region shows the irradiance that would not have reached
that module’s rear side, even in the absence of a second row.

Figure 2-18 Schematic depicting the obstruction of ground-reflected irradiance by a

rear module row.

2.4.6 Bifacial gain

The glass/glass (or glass/transparent back sheet) structure of bifacial modules allows them to
capture light from both their front and rear sides, resulting in significantly increased electrical
power generation compared to monofacial modules [66, 67]. The enhanced specific energy yield
of bifacial PV systems in comparison to monofacial systems is quantified by the bifacial gain (BG),
defined as follows:

€%• = ‚ ‡ ˆ 100
ƒ„ …ƒ†
Ġ
(2.10)

• BG is the bifacial gain.

• yb is the specific energy yield (kWh/kWp) of a bifacial PV system.
• ym is the specific energy yield (kWh/kWp) of a monofacial PV system.
BG serves as a parameter that reveals the proportion of energy yield from the rear side of a bifacial
module in relation to the yield produced by a monofacial module possessing equivalent front side
STC power and operating conditions. It's important to note that when making comparisons
between bifacial and monofacial PV modules, the current definition of BG doesn't consider
69
variations in module technology and temperature coefficients. Therefore, it is advisable to conduct
comparisons between monofacial and bifacial modules of the same technology and temperature
coefficient. This approach ensures a fair assessment, accounting for differences in configurations,
albedo, and module designs.

70
 CHAPTER 3

Simulation

3.1 Introduction
As demonstrated in the preceding chapter, numerous bifacial PV installations have been deployed
in diverse locations, featuring various mounting configurations and system scales to assess the
potential of bifacial technology. These assessments primarily hinge on the quantification of
bifacial gains. Understanding these gains and utilizing them in levelized cost of energy (LCOE)
calculations is instrumental in gauging the economic viability of such systems.
Given the multifaceted factors influencing the energy output of bifacial systems, particularly the
elusive nature of bifacial gains, it is expedient to develop mathematical models and conduct
simulations across a spectrum of scenarios and geographic contexts. This approach is more
pragmatic than exclusively relying on experimental setups with physical PV test systems.
Furthermore, these simulations serve a dual purpose: they facilitate the optimization of bifacial PV
system performance while harnessing the full spectrum of their advantages.
The development of comprehensive and precise models for bifacial systems, along with the
rigorous validation of these models using empirical data, is a pivotal step towards establishing the
bankability of bifacial technology. This, in turn, can propel the successful integration of bifacial
71
PV systems into the broader PV market. Notably, as bifacial PV systems possess the capacity to
achieve lower LCOE values compared to their monofacial counterparts, their widespread adoption
holds the potential to significantly bolster the global contribution of PV technology to electricity
generation.
However, in contrast to standard monofacial PV systems, simulating the energy yield of bifacial
PV systems proves notably more intricate. This complexity arises primarily from the need to model
rear irradiance, a facet influenced by an array of parameters that hold comparatively less
significance in monofacial systems. These parameters encompass variables such as installation
height, ground albedo, inter-row shadowing, the fraction of diffuse irradiance, and the system's
scale, whether it's a stand-alone unit or an array. Consequently, this chapter is dedicated to an
exhaustive exploration of existing methodologies for modeling both front and rear side irradiance
in bifacial modules. Furthermore, within the context of this work, a comprehensive description is
provided for the developed simulation model designed to predict the energy yield of bifacial
systems. We will delve into the optical and electrical models, along with the functions utilized in
the simulation, in chapters 3.1 and 3.2. Following that, in chapter 3.3, we'll showcase the diverse
outcomes stemming from the simulations we've conducted.

3.1.1 Overview of the simulation model

In 2015, Shoukry's Master thesis at ISC Konstanz marked the beginning of scientific work on
bifacial energy yield simulations [68]. Since then, these simulation models have evolved and are
known as the MoBiDiG-model (Modeling of Bifacial Distributed Gain), as referenced in
publications [69, 70]. This section provides an overview of the MoBiDiG model and its primary
sub-models, which are implemented using the Python programming language.
The development within the scope of this project involves substantial enhancements to the existing
simulation model and its sub-models. Specifically, all sub-models needed for energy yield
simulation, including optical, thermal, and electrical models, have been reviewed and extended.
Furthermore, these sub-models have been validated using real-world data from various locations
and configurations. It's important to note that, in bifacial simulations, the optical model is typically
considered the core sub-model.

72
The initial version of MoBiDiG used a quasi three-dimensional (3D) view factor as an optical
model. However, two additional optical models have been incorporated: a two-dimensional (2D)
view factor for efficient simulations of large bifacial power plants and ray tracing for more
advanced simulations that consider detailed factors like mounting racks, frames, and shading from
specific objects.
The simulation process for PV systems with MoBiDiG, including bifacial technology, involves
multiple steps, as summarized in the bullet points based on figure 3.1:

Figure 3-1 Key Components of the MoBiDiG Model and Their Interactions. POA
represents "Plane of Array," and DC stands for "Direct Current".

• First, a file is read with information about things like sunlight, temperature, and wind. This
file can have data for every minute or every hour.
• Sometimes, if all the sunlight data are not present, so a special method is used to figure it
out.
• Calculating how much sunlight hits the solar panels from different angles.
• Checking if anything is blocking the sunlight, like other rows of solar panels in front.
• Also check how hot the solar panels get and if that affects their power.
• Using all this information to figure out how much electricity the solar panels can make at
a certain time.
73
 • If needed, checking if the electricity flows correctly.
• Considering other things like dirt on the panels or changes in the wires.
• Finally, calculating how much electricity the solar panels make over a period.

3.2 Optical model

The optical model used in the simulation comprises various equations, each designed to represent
a specific part or process of the system under consideration. These equations will be elaborated
upon in the upcoming sub-chapters. Given the intricate geometric nature of solar module
installations and the multitude of angles, lengths, and other parameters involved, it will first
establish a comprehensive definition of these geometric values and what they represent in Chapter
3.1.1. Afterward, the simulation's functions will be detailed in Chapters 3.1.2 to 3.1.6.
The primary goal of this thesis is to simulate the annual energy output of both standalone and field-
based installations featuring bifacial solar modules. The focus lies in simulating the optical
component of bifacial solar energy generation. Specifically, it aims to calculate how much solar
irradiance reaches the rear surfaces of these modules.
This endeavor involves several key steps. Also defining the setup of the solar module and
specifying installation parameters. Leveraging the position of the Sun, which depends on the time
and location of the simulated solar system, to calculate various types of irradiances: direct (Idir),
diffuse (Idiff), and reflected (Irefl). These calculations are performed for both the front and rear sides
of the module. By summing these values, and obtaining the total irradiance (Itot).
While determining the total front irradiance (Itot, f) and the direct and diffuse rear irradiances (Idir, r
and Idiff,r) is relatively straightforward, estimating the albedo-reflected rear side irradiance (Irefl,r)
poses complexity. This complexity arises from the specifics of the module installation to be
simulated. Once been calculated front and rear side irradiances; it employs a straightforward model
(introduced in Chapter 3.2) to estimate the module's power output. This, in turn, enables us to
compute the annual energy yield for both monofacial and bifacial modules and determine the
bifacial gain.

3.2.1 Module installation parameters

Figure 3.1 illustrates a single solar module characterized by its width (WM) and length (lM),
positioned at a specific elevation (hM) from the lower edge of the module, aligned with the z-axis.
74
The module's tilt angle, denoted as "Gamma," represents the angle between the module's surface
and the horizontal plane, while its orientation, indicating which cardinal direction it faces, is
represented by the angle "alpha."
The position of the sun, which varies based on the date, time, and location, is described using
two angles: the Sun elevation angle "S" and the Sun azimuth angle "AS." These angles are
depicted in figure 3.2. The "tetaSM" angle is defined as the angle formed between two normal
vectors: one for the Sun ("nS") and the other for the module ("nM").

Figure 3-2 The stand-alone module setup, defining module installation parameters,
and indicating the position of the sun.

For clarity, additional quantities used to describe the module installation in a field will be presented
in another figure. These quantities include the distance between modules in the same row (dM) and
the distance between module rows (dR), as shown in figure 3.4. Other geometric values relevant to
the surface receiving solar irradiation on the module's rear side include LS (the width of the surface
from the module center), L1 (the length from the module center to the rear end of the surface), and
L2 (the length from the module center to the intersection of the module plane with the ground
plane). In cases where white reflective plates or sheets are used beneath the modules to enhance
the albedo coefficient and rear side irradiance, the dimensions of the sheet can be represented by
WS, W1, and W2.

75
 Figure 3-3 Module arrangement in a field and definition of field installation
parameters and other simulation Inputs.

3.2.2 sun’s position

The position of the Sun depends on the date, time, and location and can be described using two
angles: elevation (Gama) and azimuth (Alpha). These angles are calculated using the DIN 5034
algorithm. The Sun's position is influenced by the angle between the equatorial plane of the Earth
and the Earth's rotational plane around the Sun. This angle, known as the declination angle
(Sigma), varies between +23.5 and -23.5 degrees over the year [71]. The parameter J0 is used to
describe this variation and is defined as follows:
‰
= 360∘ ,
day of the year
number of days in a year
(3.1)
The solar declination angle (δ) can be calculated using the following formula:

δ = 0.3948 t 23.2559cos€J ‰ + 9.1∘ •

t0.3915 cos€2J ‰ + 5.4∘ •
t0.1764 cos€3J ‰ + 26∘ • .
(3.2)

The solar altitude also depends on the site's latitude (Phi) and the hour angle (Omega). Omega is
determined using Solar time, which relies on the equation of time (EOT) and mean local time
(MLT). MLT is calculated using Local time, the longitude of the standard meridian for the local
time zone, and the longitude of the site.

76
 7 K = Local time t 4€^ t ^•[min] (3.3)
The equation of time (EOT), which accounts for the difference between Solar time and MLT,
Solar time, and the hour angle (Omega), can be calculated using the following equations:

™šK = 0.0066 + 7.3525cos€ ‰ + 85.9∘ •

+9,9359cos€2 ‰ + 108.9∘ •
+0.3387cos€3 ‰ + 105.2∘ •,
(3.4)

In which,
Solar time = MLT + EOT, then
_ = €12: 00ℎ t Solar time •15∘ /ℎ. (3.5)

Using the previously mentioned equations, it can be determine and describe the position of the
sun using the values of Solar altitude (S) and Solar azimuth (AS), which are calculated as
follows:

6 = arcsin€cos _cos ]cos \ + sin ]sin \•,

180∘ t arccos for Solar time ⩽ 12: 00h

e0ž Ÿ e0ž ¡…e0ž ¢

3 =•
GFe Ÿ GFe ¡

180∘ + arccos for Solar time > 12: 00h.

e0ž Ÿ e0ž ¡…e0ž ¢
(3.6)
GFe Ÿ GFe ¡

3.2.3 Direct irradiance Idir

Direct irradiance (Idir) refers to the solar radiation that reaches a surface directly from the sun
without any scattering or reflections. It represents the intensity of sunlight coming in a straight line
from the sun and is typically measured in watts per square meter (W/m²). Idir is an essential
parameter in solar energy applications as it directly contributes to the generation of electricity in
solar panels [72, 73]. By utilizing information about the Sun's position and measurements of
global, direct, and diffuse horizontal irradiance (GHI, BHI, and DHI), also estimating the total
irradiance received on both the front and rear sides of a solar module. Calculating the direct
irradiance on the front surface of the module, Idir, f, involves a straightforward geometrical
relationship [73, 74].

77
 Figure 3-4 A horizontal surface Ahor and a smaller surface AS perpendicular to
incoming sunlight both receive the same amount of direct radiant power Idir [71].

A horizontal surface with an area Ahor receives the same amount of direct radiant power (Idir) as a
smaller area AS, which is positioned normal (perpendicular) to the incoming sunlight [71]. These
configurations are illustrated in figure 3.4. This relationship can be expressed as:

Φdir = BHIAhor = Idir ,© A© (3.7)

Here, relating the solar irradiation on the horizontal surface, represented as BHI, to the irradiance
on the normal surface, denoted as Idir, s. When the area of the normal surface, AS, is smaller than
the horizontal surface, Ahor, observed that the irradiance on the normal surface (Idir, s) exceeds the
solar irradiation on the horizontal surface (BHI). This relationship can be better understood by
considering equation 3.10 along with the following trigonometric connection:

A© = Ahor sin γ© , (3.8)

Can be given as:

I/0#,© = e0ž ® ¯ BHI

«¬-
(3.9)
z

This principle, where the irradiance on a tilted surface exceeds that on a horizontal surface, plays
a crucial role in PV system design. By angling the solar modules towards the sun, the system's
energy yield can be significantly increased. The direct irradiance on the front side of a tilted
surface, denoted as Idir, f, can be determined by considering the solar incidence angle, denoted as
θSM. This angle is defined in figure 3.1 as the angle between the incoming sunlight represented
by nS and the normal vector of the module, nM. The calculation of Idir, f can be expressed as follows:

78
 I/0#,% = I/0#,© cos θ©[ (3.10)

Where:

n© = €cos α© cos γ© , sin α© cos γ© , sin γ© •² , (3.11)

n[ = €cos α[ sin γ[ , sin α[ sin γ[ , cos γ[ •² (3.12)

And so:

θ©[ = arccos€n© ⋅ n[ •
= arccos€tcos γ© sin γ[ cos€α© t α[ • + sin γ© cos γ[ •.
(3.13)

Substituting equation 3.13 into equation 3.12 yields:

I/0#,% = BHI ,
GFe ´zµ
e0ž ®z
(3.14)

When knowing of BHI (Beam Horizontal Irradiance), this information ca be formed to directly
compute the direct irradiance reaching the front surface of the module, denoted as Idir, f. To achieve
this, the same equation is utilized.

In the calculation of the direct irradiance reaching the rear side of the module, denoted as Idir,r, also
the same equation can be employed. However, there is a distinct adjustment. Here, the normal
vector of the module is reversed, effectively facing backward. This mathematical transformation
can be expressed by simply changing the sign of the normal vector using:

n[,# = tn[,% , (3.15)

In the equations provided, the subscripts "r" and "f" are utilized to represent the normal vectors
corresponding to the rear and front sides of the module, respectively. This new orientation of the
normal vector, designated as "r," is incorporated into equation 3.16 to determine the incidence
angle. Subsequently, this incidence angle is applied in equation 3.17 to compute the direct
irradiance on the rear side, denoted as Idir, r.

79
3.2.3.1 Existing approaches of backside irradiance modeling

Various authors have explored different methods to model the irradiance reaching the rear side of
a bifacial module. A summary of the pros and cons of each simulation approach can be found in
Table 3.1. The primary approaches used to model the backside irradiance are explained below in
detail:
• The concept of view factor (VF), known by various names such as form factor, shape
factor, and configuration factor, plays a crucial role in solving heat transfer problems. It
quantifies the exchange of irradiation between two surfaces (A1 and A2) with different
orientations (α1 and α2) at a distance (S), as illustrated in figure 3.5 (a). VF is defined as
the ratio of irradiation leaving surface A1 and reaching surface A2 over the total emitted
irradiation from A1. Its mathematical form is provided in equation 3.15. View factors
adhere to two fundamental rules: reciprocity and summation. Various software, including
PVsyst [75], have employed the concept of view factor for modeling purposes. The
solutions to VF can be either analytical or numerical, depending on the specific problem at
hand [76].
• Ray tracing (RT) is a technique used to create 2D or 3D images of objects by tracing the
paths of light rays from a source (e.g., the sun) to the object, known as forward ray tracing,
or from the object to the source, known as backward ray tracing, as depicted in Figure 3.5
(b). Backward ray tracing is commonly used due to its computational efficiency compared
to forward ray tracing [76]. This technique, based on the Monte Carlo approach, is
employed by some scientists to quantify the rear irradiance received by bifacial modules
[77]. For instance, open-source software like Radiance has been combined with other tools
like SMARTS and PC1D to estimate power gains in bifacial modules [78]. Furthermore,
organizations like NREL, Sandia National Laboratory, and the University of Iowa have
developed the open-source tool bifacial radiance [79], which utilizes backward ray tracing
from the RADIANCE Software [80] for rear irradiance modeling in bifacial PV systems.

• Empirical modeling approaches have been employed in bifacial simulations, primarily to

predict yearly relative (percentage) bifacial gains rather than absolute energy yields [81,
82].

80
 Table 3-1 Advantages and drawbacks of bifacial simulation approaches [83].
Advantage
1 t View factor can be implemented
fast and easily for much regular ge t
ometry.
2 t View factor are able to some ex t
View factor
tent to produce rear irradiance inho t
mogeneity.
1 t Ray tracing is suitable to model the
rear irradiance inhomogeneity of bi t
facial modules.
Ray tracing
2 t The impact of structures, module
frames can be taken into account
1 t The computation time is much
lower than the view factor and ray t
tracing concept.
Empirical modeling 2 t There is agreement between ex t
perimental and modeled results for a
certain range of mounting configura t
tions.
The figures illustrate fundamental concepts in irradiance modeling. In figure 3.5(a), the view factor
(VF) concept is depicted, illustrating how irradiation moves between surfaces with different
orientations. In figure 3.5(b), the ray tracing (RT) concept is showcased, demonstrating how light
Disadvantage
1 t Accuracy which is depen t
dent on meshing.
2 t Simulation time explodes
with the size of the system.
3 t Difficult to take into ac t
count some irregular geome t
tries and structures.
1 t The implementation of ray
tracing in a simulation tool is
more complicated than view
factor
2 t The computation power
needed for ray tracing is quite
high, hence long simulation
time.
1 t The application of empirical
modeling is only restricted to
some geographical locations.
2 t Only an estimation of bifa t
cial gain can be predicted and
no absolute values of power
for bifacial modules.
3 t Can be used only for fixed
tilt bifacial PV systems, there
is no tracking option of bifacial
PV systems.
81
 (a) Geometrical Parameters for
Calculating Irradiation Transfer Between
Areas (A1) and (A2),Separated by
Distance S, and with Different
Orientations Defined by Their Normal
Vectors n1 and n2 [32].
(b) Backward Ray Tracing Description: View Rays
Emanating from a Virtual Camera Pass Through an
Imaginary Plane Into the Environment and Return
to the Light Source.

rays travel from a virtual camera into the environment and back to the light source, a technique
often used in optical simulations.

Figure 3-5 The view factor concept (VF), and the Visualization of the Ray Tracing (RT)
Concept in Irradiance modeling (b).

3.2.3.2 2D View factor for rear side.

While the 3D view factor approach allows for modeling rear irradiance across both the width and
length of bifacial modules, the 2D view factor approach assumes that the length of the module
rows extends infinitely [84]. In this configuration, irradiance remains constant along the rows,
changing only as you move from one row to another, as depicted in figure 3.6. However, it is
important to note that the 2D view factor model cannot account for edge effects. This 2D view
factor approach was initially proposed by NREL and is implemented in MoBiDiG, the software
used in this thesis. To facilitate a comparison between simulation tools, the commercial software
PVsyst [75] has also adopted a 2D view factor model for bifacial systems. Both the NREL and
PVsyst approaches consider a simplified bifacial PV system with regularly spaced, infinitely long
rows.

Within each row of the bifacial PV module, there are four distinct sources of irradiance, as
indicated by the brown color in figure 3.7 direct sunlight, skylight, ground reflection, and
82
reflection from PV modules located behind. The process of modeling backside irradiance using
the 2D view factor approach is detailed as follows:

Ground-Reflected Irradiance (Eground, x): For a specific row within the bifacial module (e.g., row 6
in figure 3.7), the model initiates the calculation of ground irradiance by dividing the row-to-row
pitch (RD) - as depicted in Figure 3.6 - into (n) segments. For each segment (x), the model
determines the available irradiance. If segment x is unshaded, it accounts for both direct irradiance
(DNI) from the sun and diffuse irradiance from the sky (Esky). Conversely, if segment x is shaded,
only diffuse irradiance from the sky is considered. This process is repeated for all n segments, and
the mathematical representation of this step is as follows:

Figure 3-6 A rear irradiance map of a bifacial module comprising 60 cells, generated
using the 2D view factor model.

When the ground segment (x) is unshaded:

Eground, x = [cos(θz) × DNI + V Fsky, x × Esky] × ρ (3.16)

If the ground segment (x) falls in the shade:

Eground, x = V Fsky, x × Esky × ρ (3.17)

Where ρ represents the albedo of the ground surface, Esky is the isotropic sky diffuse irradiance,
and VFsky, x is the view factor to the sky of the x segment.

Irradiance from the sky (Esky, row): Considering the field of view angle of a specific row, such as
row 6, if that row has visibility to the sky, the diffuse sky irradiance is incorporated in the following
manner:

83
 Esky, row = V Fsky, row × Esky (3.18)
VFsky, row represents the view factor of the given row towards the sky.

Irradiance from the Sun (Esun, row): The backside of the bifacial modules can receive direct
irradiance from the sun, which is determined by the sun's position and the orientation of the
modules. The quantity of direct irradiance captured by a particular row hinge on the angle of
incidence formed between the rear surface and the sun's location. This relationship is
mathematically described as follows:

Esun, row = a × IAMdir × DNI and a = max(0, cos(θAOIback) (3.19)

θAOIback signifies the angle of incidence experienced by the backside surface, while IAMdir
represents the angle of incidence modifier, as determined by the Sjerps-Koomen model discussed
previously.
Reflected Front Side Irradiance (EPV front, row): The rows within the bifacial module receive
reflected irradiance from the front side of the PV modules positioned behind the specific bifacial
module under consideration. In this modeling, only the reflected diffuse irradiance is taken into
account, as direct reflections from the front side are typically absorbed by the front side and not
captured by the backside. The modeling of reflected front side irradiance can be expressed as
follows:
EPV front, row = V Fsky, front × Esky × (1 − IAMdiff) (3.20)

VFsky, front represents the view factor of the front side to the sky, while IAMdiff denotes the angle of
incidence modifier for diffuse irradiance. This modifier is determined using a polynomial equation
introduced in [85].

84
 Figure 3-7 A side view of the bifacial system, focusing on the ground segment used to
calculate the view factor to the backside.

All the equations discussed above can be combined into one equation that gives us the total amount
of light reaching the backside of the solar panel using the 2D view factor method. This equation
considers light from the sun, light from the sky, light reflected off the ground, and light reflected
off the front of other solar panels. It is like putting all the pieces of the puzzle together to get the
complete picture of how much light the back of the solar panel receives.

Erear , uvÌ = a ˆ IAMdir ˆ DNI + ∑0ÑÐ VF0 ˆ IAMdiff ,0 ˆ E0 (3.21)

In this equation, VFi represents the view factor for each one-degree segment, and Ei is the total
irradiance seen by that segment. This total irradiance includes contributions from the Esky, row,
Eground, row, EPV front, row. It's important to note that the view factors in the 2D view factor approach
are calculated using the Hottel crossed-string method. This method helps us determine how much
light each segment receives from different sources.
previously mentioned, the row-to-row pitch is divided into "n" segments or meshes. To determine
the minimum number of segments required for accurate results without significantly increasing
computation time, year-long bifacial simulations were conducted using MoBiDiG with varying
85
numbers of ground segments. The results, depicted in figure 3.8, reveal that the bifacial gain
changes with the number of ground segments. However, after reaching around 100 segments, the
bifacial gain remains relatively constant, even with further increases in ground segments. The
initial change in bifacial gain before reaching 100 segments suggests that this number wasn't
sufficient to capture the full information about the bifacial gain. Therefore, for simulations using
the 2D view factor approach, a total of 100 ground segments are considered. Going beyond this
number would primarily lead to longer simulation times without yielding significantly different

results.

Figure 3-8 The relationship between the bifacial gain and the number of ground
segments.

The horizontal single-axis tracker (HSAT) offers a significant advantage by enhancing front
irradiance availability, particularly in regions with high direct normal irradiance (DNI) and low
latitudes, all while mitigating additional balance of system (BOS) costs when compared to two-
axis tracking systems. Such DNI-rich, low-latitude regions, often deserts with high-albedo sandy
ground, are ideal for maximizing the bifacial energy yield of these systems. The bifacial HSAT
operates with a zero-tilt angle and a north-south oriented rotation axis. Consequently, it tracks the
sun's movement from east to west, resulting in dynamic changes in the module's tilt angle (αm).
Its azimuth (γm) points eastward before solar noon and westward after solar noon, as depicted in
Figure 3.9. The optimal tilt angle αm aligns the sun's normal position as closely as possible to
perpendicular to the bifacial module's plane. However, achieving this ideal angle can sometimes
cause partial shading on the front side, particularly when the row-to-row distance (RD) is much
smaller than the collector width (CW). Such shading can reduce a PV system's energy yield and
86
even lead to hot spots, shortening the lifespan of PV modules. To mitigate this, a tracking strategy
known as "backtracking" was introduced, which is now widely used in modern solar trackers.
Backtracking adjusts the ideal tracking angle based on the sun's position and the ground coverage
ratio (GCR), calculated as the ratio between the PV module area and the total ground area.

GCR
ÔÕ
yu
(3.22)

Here, CW represents the collector width, and RD stands for the row-to-row pitch, as illustrated in
Figure 3.4.
The horizontal single-axis tracking algorithm, including backtracking, is integrated into PVlib.
PVlib is a widely supported library for simulating PV systems, embraced by the PV community.
This algorithm is actively utilized to model monofacial and bifacial HSAT systems.

Figure 3-9 The key geometrical parameters for a standard horizontal single-axis
tracker featuring a rotation axis oriented from north to south.

3.2.3.3 Ray tracing

MoBiDiG also employs backward ray tracing as an alternative optical model to determine the
backside irradiance of bifacial modules. This ray-tracing model relies on the open-source software
bifacial radiance, which offers dedicated functions for creating bifacial PV system scenes. Several
other researchers have utilized bifacial radiance for similar purposes [86], [87]. Unlike some other
models, the ray-tracing approach provides the flexibility to calculate rear irradiance across the
entire PV module, encompassing both width and length, akin to the quasi-3D VF approach.
Consequently, it can accurately assess edge effects and offer high-resolution rear irradiance
87
calculations, as depicted in figure 3.9. The process of simulating irradiance for bifacial systems
through ray tracing comprises three primary stages: input, rendering and ray tracing, and output,
as outlined below:
The ray-tracing model's workflow can be divided into three key stages:

1. Inputs: In this stage, the characteristics of the sky are defined, utilizing the Perez model based
on irradiance data, location, and sun position. Furthermore, the PV system scene is generated,
specifying parameters like the number of rows and modules per row, along with defining the
optical properties for each object within the scene, encompassing factors like diffuse reflectivity,
surface roughness, and specular reflectivity.

2. Rendering and ray tracing: During this phase, all the input data is amalgamated into a unified
file. This file serves as the basis for conducting ray tracing at each position within the PV module
for every timestamp of interest.

3. Outputs: The results of the ray tracing are presented in the form of a matrix file. This file
contains data for all the timestamps, including the (x, y, z) coordinates corresponding to each
position where irradiance was calculated, along with their respective irradiance values.
As mentioned in subsection 3.2.1, ray-tracing simulations are inherently computationally
intensive, often taking many hours or even days, particularly when conducted at an hourly time
resolution. To address this challenge, Robinson et al. [88] introduced an alternative strategy known
as the "cumulative sky" approach (refer to Figure 3.10 (b)) as opposed to the traditional "hourly
sky" method (refer to Figure 3.10 (a)). This cumulative approach offers a significant reduction in
simulation time, especially when dealing with comprehensive year-long simulations. Here, the sky
is divided into patches, each with a roughly equivalent solid angle. Radiance or luminance for each
patch is calculated using the Perez all-weather sky model [89].

While some prior bifacial simulation studies have employed ray tracing with the cumulative sky
approach, it's important to note that this method introduces additional inaccuracies, as documented
in [88]. Given the paramount importance of accuracy in the present study, the ray tracing model
was employed with hourly-resolution simulations, unless otherwise specified.

88
 Figure 3-10 Displays two representations of sky irradiance: (a) Single hour sky
irradiance and (b) Cumulative sky irradiance. The dark red line at the center denotes
the sun's path on the 23rd of March 2023 in Savona, Italy. These plots were generated
using the tool available at https://drajmarsh.bitbucket.io/.

3.2.4 Diffuse irradiance Idiff

Calculating diffuse irradiance on a tilted surface is a more complex task compared to direct
irradiance calculations, and various approaches have been developed for this purpose. These
approaches can be broadly categorized as isotropic and anisotropic models. Noorian et al. [73]
provide a comprehensive comparison of these different models.
The simpler of these models is the isotropic model, which assumes that diffuse irradiance has a
uniform intensity across the entire sky hemisphere. In this model, the amount of diffuse irradiance
reaching a tilted surface is determined by the fraction of the sky hemisphere visible to the surface
[74].
Indeed, a tilted surface receives less diffuse irradiance compared to a horizontal surface because it
cannot capture the diffuse irradiance from the entire sky hemisphere, especially the portion behind
it. However, it's important to note that isotropic models, due to their simplifying assumptions, may
introduce imprecisions. As a result, they are typically best suited for rough estimations or when
dealing with highly overcast sky conditions [71].

89
The more sophisticated anisotropic models provide a more accurate description of sky diffuse
radiance. These models consider three main factors in the sky's diffuse irradiance:
1. Anisotropic diffuse irradiance near the solar disk.
2. Brightening effect observed near the horizon.
3. Isotopically distributed diffuse component from the remaining portion of the sky
hemisphere [74].
Among these models, the Perez model stands out as the most precise. According to Noorian et al.
[73], it exhibits the closest agreement with measured tilted data and is widely used worldwide to
estimate short-time step (hourly or less) irradiance on tilted surfaces. This estimation is based on
measurements of global and direct (or diffuse) irradiance on horizontal surfaces. While the Perez
model is more intricate than other models, it will be employed in this thesis for estimating the
diffuse irradiance on both the module's front and rear surfaces. This choice aims to reduce potential
errors in the simulation. To compute the diffuse irradiance on the front side of a tilted surface, Idiff,
f, the Perez model utilizes two parameters: the atmospheric clearness index (symbolized as "ε")
and the atmospheric brightness factor (represented as "Δ") [90]. These parameters are calculated
as follows:

×ØÙÚÛØÙÜÝÞßàá âµ
wã´äzµ
ε= ÛØÙ
wã´äzµ
(3.23)

Δ = AM ,
u¬-
åi
(3.24)

where θSM is the angle of incidence defined in equation 3.16, K is a constant equaling 1.041, E0 is
the solar constant, and AM is the Air Mass defined in chapter 2.2.1, represented as:

AM = .
e0ž ®z
(3.25)

To consider the brightening effects around the solar disk and near the horizon, the circumsolar
brightening coefficient F1 and the horizon brightening coefficient F2 are defined and can be
calculated with:

F = F €ε• + F €ε•Δ + F 8 €ε•θ©[ (3.26)

90
 F = F €ε• + F €ε•Δ + F 8 €ε•θ©[ , (3.27)

Where F11 to F23 are the empirically determined constants shown in Table 3.1. These constants
vary based on the atmospheric clearness index æ, which is divided into eight different atmospheric
clearness classes. The diffuse irradiance on the front of a tilted surface can then be calculated
using:

I/0%%,% = BHI ç €1 + cos γ[ •€1 t F • + F + F sin γ[ é ,

H
è
(3.28)

In which:

a = max€0; cos θ©[ • (3.29)

b = max€0.087; sin γ© • (3.30)

To determine the diffuse irradiance on the rear side of a tilted surface Idiff, r, the module installation
angles α and ɣ are changed using:

α[,# = 180∘ + α[,% (3.31)

γ[,# = 180∘ t γ[,% (3.32)

so that the considered surface is oriented in the opposite direction, simulating the characteristics
of the rear side of a bifacial module.

91
 Table 3-2 Coefficients utilized to calculate F1 and F2 relative to ε [90].

æ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

æ 1.000 1.065 1.230 1.500 1.950 2.800 4.500 6.200

class

t 1.065 t 1.230 t 1.500 t 1.950 t 2.800 t 4.500 t 6.200 t ∞

211
212
-0.008 0.130 0.330 0.568 0.873 1.132 1.060 0.678

213
0.588 0.683 0.487 0.187 -0.392 -1.237 -1.600 -0.327

221
-0.062 -0.151 -0.221 -0.295 -0.362 -0.412 -0.359 -0.250

222
-0.060 -0.019 0.055 0.109 0.226 0.288 0.264 0.159

223
0.072 0.066 -0.064 -0.152 -0.462 -0.823 -1.127 -1.377
-0.022 -0.029 -0.026 -0.014 0.001 0.056 0.131 0.251

3.2.5 Reflected irradiance Irefl.

Reflected irradiance (Irefl) refers to the solar radiation that strikes a surface and is then reflected off
that surface. In the context of bifacial photovoltaic systems, Irefl represents the sunlight that hits
the ground or other surfaces surrounding solar modules and is subsequently reflected onto the rear
side of these modules, contributing to their energy generation. Two distinct methods are employed
to compute the ground-reflected irradiance reaching the front and rear sides of the solar module.
To calculate the reflected irradiance on the module's front side, denoted as Irefl, f, an isotropic
approach is utilized. This choice is made because the limited anisotropic effects present in this
scenario would introduce unnecessary complexity into the calculations without offering significant
improvements in accuracy. Thus, adopting "the isotropic model, which relies on a constant average
albedo measured at the site," is considered suitable [91]. This model can be defined as follows:

Irefl ,% = GHI €1 t cos γ[ •

ì
(3.33)

However, this method yields imprecise outcomes when determining the ground-reflected
irradiance on the rear side of the module, denoted as Irefl, r According to Yusufoglu et al. [29], a
more intricate calculation method is needed. They propose employing the concept of the view
factor, a fundamental concept from heat transfer. Also referred to as the shape factor, configuration
factor, or angle factor, the view factor (FA1 → A2) is a geometric measure that represents the

92
proportion of radiation emitted from one surface, A1, that directly reaches another surface, A2 [92].
It is important to note that this view factor assumes both surfaces are ideal diffuse reflectors, as
discussed in Chapter 2.1.2. The exchange of radiation between these surfaces relies on their
relative orientations and remains unaffected by their material properties or temperature.
Assuming a mean ground albedo " α " and that the ground behaves ideally as a Lambertian
reflector, and provided with the horizontal irradiances GHI and DHI, it can apply the view factor
approach to compute the ground-reflected irradiance on the rear side of the bifacial module,
denoted as Irefl, r. The area beneath and surrounding the module, referred to as As, is divided into
two regions: one outside the shadow, labeled as Ansh, and the other in the shadow, termed as Ash.
In the shadow region Ash, only DHI is reflected because the direct component of solar irradiance
is obstructed by the module, casting a shadow on the ground. Conversely, the reflected portion of
GHI originates exclusively from the region outside the shadow, Ansh. Consequently, Irefl, r can be
determined as the sum of the reflected irradiances from both regions, Ansh, and Ash, represented as
follows:

I#$%í,# = α GHI Fîáßï→îµ + α DHI Fîßï→îµ (3.34)

To address the non-uniformity of the irradiance that reaches the rear side of the module, the view
factors from the two regions to each cell of the module are computed separately. This calculation
is repeated for every time step throughout the entire simulated period. Consequently, this approach
enables a comprehensive spatial and temporal distribution of Irefl, r. The fundamentals of the view
factor, including its calculation and how it accommodates various effects related to shadowing and
blocking, will be thoroughly elucidated in the forthcoming chapter.

3.1.6 View factor FA1 → A2

A view factor, denoted as FA1 → A2, quantifies the portion of radiation leaving one surface (A1) that
directly strikes another surface (A2). It essentially describes the degree to which surface A2 "sees"
surface A1. This factor is a critical parameter in modeling radiative heat exchange between surfaces
and plays a crucial role in determining how much radiant energy is transferred from one surface
to another. In the context of solar energy simulations, the view factor helps account for how

93
sunlight is distributed and reflected between surfaces, making it a vital component in calculating
the energy yield of solar modules and systems.
As discussed in section 3.1.5, the view factor FA1 → A2 represents a geometric measure, specifying
the proportion of radiation emitted from surface A1 that directly reaches surface A2. This factor
can be determined by calculating the integral of the radiation emitted from differential areas dA1,
which subsequently reaches differential areas dA2.

Fî4 →îð = dA dA
GFe ´4 GFe ´ð
î4
ñî ñî ò#ð
(3.35)
4 ð

where r is the distance between the differential areas dA1 and dA2. The angles between the normal
of the surfaces and the line connecting dA1 and dA2 are represented by θ1 and θ2, as depicted in
Figure 3.4.

Figure 3-11 Geometry used to calculate the view factor between two surfaces.

Assuming the ground has a Lambertian character, the view factor approach can be used to
determine the fraction of irradiance leaving the ground with the area As, defined by LS, L1, and
L2 as shown in Figure 3.2, that reaches the rear side of the module with the area AM, r. This
configuration is visualized in Figure 3.11.
To compute the view factor, the coordinates of the modules and surface edges need to be provided
in the x-y-ξ coordinate system. If the module coordinates are initially given in the N-W-Z
coordinate system, they must undergo a rotation of αM around the z-axis to transform them into
the appropriate coordinate system. The module edges are then defined by δ1 and δ2 in the δ-axis
and ξ1 and ξ2 in the ξ-axis, while the surface edges are given by x1 and x2 in the x-axis and y1 and
y2 in the y-axis.

94
Calculating view factors can become highly complex, depending on the specific configuration
being considered. Therefore, view factors for various configurations have been calculated and
compiled in catalogs [93]. The view factor equation required for the configuration addressed in
this thesis involves two differently sized plane rectangular surfaces with parallel boundaries and
arbitrary positions. This means that these surfaces are not necessarily parallel or perpendicular to
each other and can be randomly inclined. This view factor equation was developed by Gross et al.
[41]. One advantage of this equation is that "since for parallel rectangular areas the limits of
integration are independent from each other, it is possible to separate the integration and the
insertion of the limits," as stated in [94]. This separation is advantageous for the numerical
treatment of this problem, and it will explore it further in the following section. Equation 3.31 is
rewritten as:

A Fî4 →îð = ñó ð ñô ð ñõ ð ñö ð g€x, y, δ, ξ•dxdydδdξ

ó ô õ ö
4 4 4 4
(3.36)

Considering

g€x, y, δ, ξ• =
GFe ´4 GFe ´ð
ò#ð
(3.37)

Utilizing the separation of integration and limit insertion results in:

G€x, y, δ, ξ• = ñó ñô ñõ ñö g€x, y, δ, ξ•dxdydδdξ (3.38)

for the integration, resulting in:

óð
ô
öð õð ð
A Fî4→îð = øçù[G€x, y, ∣ δ, ξ•]ö4 û é ü
õ4 ô
(3.39)
4 ó
4

for the insertion of limits. Next, the unknown variables θ1, θ2, and r are redefined and
expressed in terms of x, y, δ, and ξ, whereby the distance between points on the areas is:

r = x t 2xξcos γ[ + ξ + €y t δ• (3.40)

The angles of orientation are as follows:

95
 cos U =
ý∣e0ž Ÿþ
"
(3.41)

cos U =
>e0ž Ÿþ
"
(3.42)

Replacing the previous three equations in equation 3.34 results in:

G€x, y, δ, ξ• = ñó ñô ñõ ñö [öð dxdydδdξ,

öó
… öóGFe ®µ wóð w€õ…ô•ð ]ð
(3.43)

which can be solved by analytically integrating x, y, and δ, yielding,

G€x, y, δ, ξ• = t
e0žð ®µ €ô…õ• GFe ®µ ö…óGFe ®µ …óe0žð ®µ
ò
ñó 4
e0žð ®µ ‚öð … öö GFe ®µ wóð ‡ð

arctan ø 4ü + ç[ξ sin γ[ + €δ t y• ]ð

4
ô…õ GFe ®µ

€öð … öóGFe ®µ wóð •ð e0žð ® µ €ô…õ•

(3.44)
arctan ø ü t ξsin γ[ arctan ç é
ö…óGFe ®µ ö…óGFe ®µ
4
[óð e0žð ® e0ž ®µ
µ w€ô…õ•ð ]ð

+ ln ç éü
ó öð … öóGFe ®µ wóð w€ô…õ•ð
€ô…õ• öð … öóGFe ®µ wóð

where the last integration over ξ has to be carried out numerically, which was realized using the
FORTRAN 77 library QUADPACK [95]. Following the completion of the integration, the
insertion of the limits, or the solving of equation 3.35 can be easily carried out numerically, by
performing the following series of additions:

2:4 →:ð = ∑ Ñ ∑ Ñ ∑ Ñ ∑JÑ ù€t1•€J∗ ∗ ∗•

?J , ,\ , û (3.45)

The view factor FAS→AM from the surface area AS to the module rear side AM can be determined
for any module installation with one edge parallel to the ground. In special cases where the module
is either completely parallel or perpendicular to the ground, such as vertically installed modules,
equation 3.39 can be simplified. This simplification allows for a less complex analytical
integration, but the results of this simplification will not be presented.

96
3.3 Electrical model
When evaluating the performance of conventional monofacial PV modules, the assessment
typically relies on the manufacturer's specified module output power. For instance, a 300 W
module is anticipated to generate 20% more energy compared to a 250 W module of similar
technology. However, this conventional approach falls short when appraising bifacial modules.
This is because a bifacial module boasting a front-side power rating of 300 W will not necessarily
yield the same energy output as a standard 300 W module. In Chapter 3.2.1, it delves into a model
designed to calculate the output power of bifacial modules, which hinges on the total irradiance on
both the front and rear sides. Chapters 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 introduce an approach for evaluating and
comparing the performance of standard and bifacial modules. It's important to note that the primary
objective of this thesis was the development of the optical module. Consequently, the electrical
model employed here is relatively simple and relies on several assumptions, which may introduce
some inaccuracies into the simulation results. As such, these simulations are not intended to
provide precise absolute values but rather serve to compare the performance of bifacial modules
under different configurations relative to standard modules.

The primary assumptions in the electrical model are outlined as follows:

1. Solar cells within the PV module are considered identical, unless stated otherwise.
2. The electrical model relies on datasheets provided by PV module manufacturers, without
accounting for potential degradation post-production.
3. Losses resulting from cable size (Ohmic loss) are not factored into the model.

The electrical model facilitates the calculation of Impp and Umpp, which represent the power output
of the PV module, based on specific temperature and irradiance conditions. Consequently, the
results generated by the optical and thermal models serve as essential inputs for the electrical
model, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The modeling of PV power aligns with the established
equivalent circuit of a solar cell [96], depicted in Figure 3.12.

97
3.3.1 One Diode Model for Module Power

The one-diode model, often referred to as the five-parameters model, is employed to characterize
the power output of the PV module in relation to irradiance and temperature. This model utilizes
five parameters to capture the module's behavior: photocurrent (IL in A), diode reverse saturation
current (IS in A), series resistance (RS in Ω), shunt (parallel) resistance (Rsh in Ω), and the
ideality factor "n." The current-voltage relationship for a given temperature and irradiance within
the circuit depicted in Figure 3.12 is expressed as follows:

ÚÙˆ ß •
I= I tI ˆ e t1 t
ˆ‚ ‡ vw-ˆyß
ß ˆáˆ ˆ Þ
yßï
(3.46)

In this equation, k represents Boltzmann's constant (1.381 × 10−23 J/K), q denotes the electron
charge (1.602 × 10^−19 C), Ns signifies the number of cells in series, Tc represents the cell
temperature (in Kelvin), and n represents the ideality factor, which typically falls within the range
of 1 to 2.

Figure 3-12 The one-diode equivalent circuit for a PV cell, highlighting the five
essential parameters.

In the context of the single-diode model, there are two predominant approaches for determining
the IV curve of a PV module. The first method, known as "point-value modeling," necessitates
conducting measurements on the PV generator after its installation. This approach includes models
like the Sandia PV array performance model (SAPM) [97] and the loss factors model (LFM) [98].
The second approach involves establishing the five parameters as functions of temperature and
irradiance, drawing upon information available in the module datasheet. Notably, this method has
been employed by researchers like De Soto [99] and PVsyst [75].

98
3.3.2 Two-diode Model

The one-diode model generally considers a constant ideality factor. However, in practical
scenarios, this ideality factor varies concerning the voltage across the device. To account for this,
a second diode (as illustrated in Figure 3.13) is introduced in parallel to the diode within the one-
diode model. This addition of the second diode serves to model recombination specifically in the

junction during low irradiance conditions, while the first diode remains responsible for
recombination in other regions like the bulk and surface. The two-diode model offers highly
accurate single solar cell modeling. However, it entails more complexity when solving equations
due to the introduction of additional unknown parameters stemming from the second diode. Given
the focus of this work on modeling bifacial PV systems consisting of multiple modules, where
discrepancies in cell parameters and inter-module mismatches already introduce uncertainties, the
added complexity and computational time associated with the two-diode model are not deemed
worthwhile. As a result, MoBiDiG employs the one-diode model for electrical modeling in this
context.

Figure 3-13 The two-diode equivalent circuit for a PV cell.

3.3.4 Module power Pmpp

The power output of PV modules relies on incident solar irradiance. Various methods are
employed to determine module power, many of which involve indoor measurements conducted
under standard test conditions (STC). These measurements encompass parameters such as open-
circuit voltage (Voc,0), short-circuit current Isc,0, maximum power point voltage and current Vmpp,0
and Impp,0, and the fill factor (FF). STC conditions involve the use of a flasher with an intensity of
99
I0 = 1000 W/m² and an AM 1.5 spectrum to illuminate the module being measured. These indoor
measurements are utilized to derive values of current and voltage under different outdoor light
intensities. Singh et al. [64] proposed a model to convert indoor STC measurements to real outdoor
conditions, providing a practical approach for efficient simulations. While a more accurate model
like the two-diode model can be used to determine parameters, this thesis primarily focuses on
optical modeling. Therefore, the Singh et al. [64] model is adopted, as it "offers a reasonable

Index Meaning

m monofacial module

b bifacial module
f front side of bifacial module
r rear side of bifacial module
0 standard test conditions
mpp maximum power point
oc open circuit
sc short circuit

x variable with options m,f,r

approximation of expected efficiency under bifacial operations" [100]. Table 3.3 provides an
overview of the indices used in the subsequent equations. Equations presented without specifying
whether they apply to monofacial, or bifacial modules imply their applicability across all scenarios.

Table 3-3 Indices employed in calculating the output power of monofacial and
bifacial modules.

100
The initial step in the employed electrical model is to convert the short-circuit currents Isc, x,0 and
the open-circuit voltages Voc, x,0 measured at standard test conditions (STC) under I0 to the short-
circuit currents Isc, x and open-circuit voltages Voc, x at a given irradiance Itot,x, where
x = fm, f, rg. Utilizing the linear relationship of Isc with light intensity [64], the short-circuit current
of either a monofacial module or the front or rear side of a bifacial module can be expressed as
follows:

IeG,ö = IeG,ö, .
- ,
-i
(3.47)

While Isc exhibits a linear dependence on incident light, Voc demonstrates a logarithmic
dependence on light intensity on the module surface. Converting Voc,0 measured at standard test
conditions (STC) to Voc at a specific incident light intensity is described as follows:

VFG,ö = VFG,ö, ,
íž - /íž - i w
,
íž -i, /íž - i w
(3.48)

To obtain the values for both the front and rear sides of a bifacial module, equations 3.49 and 3.50
must be applied twice: once for the front side and again for the rear side. The total current and
voltage of a bifacial module, denoted as Isc, b and Voc, b, can be calculated from the front and rear
side currents, Isc, f/r and Voc, f/r, respectively. Assuming a linear current response to different light
intensities, the module's resultant current can be computed as the sum of the currents generated at
the front and rear sides using the equation:
Isc, b = Isc, f + Isc, r. (3.49)
Singh et al. [64] also establishes the relationship between the two voltages of the front and rear
sides with the total open-circuit voltage, denoted as Voc, b, of the bifacial module. This relationship
is defined as:

101
 ÙßÞ, ÚÙßÞ,Ý
v Þ,Ý …v Þ, íž
VFG,è = VFG,% + .
ÙßÞ,
ÙßÞ,Ý (3.50)
íž
ÙßÞ,

The electrical power output of a photovoltaic module, be it monofacial or bifacial, can be

determined using the following equation:

PABB,ö = FFVFG,ö IeG,ö ‚1 + αABB ⋅ €ϑ[ t 25∘ C•‡ , (3.51)

Where αmpp is the temperature coefficient of the module at the maximum power point, c M is the

module temperature, and ϑ amb is the ambient temperature. While ϑ amb is typically measured at
the installation site, ϑ M can be estimated using the nominal cell temperature (NOCT) approach
[101], which is given by:

ϑ[ = ϑHAè + IF
² … ∘Ô

Ð
(3.52)

Based on the assumptions made by Yusufoglu et al. [102], we have TNOCT, m = 45°C for monofacial
modules and TNOCT, b = 47°C for bifacial modules.

3.3.5 Annual energy yield Y

Comparing the performance of mono- and bifacial modules using the output power of their front
sides at STC is unfair for the bifacial modules. Bifacial modules receive a portion of the incoming
irradiance on their rear side, increasing the current and allowing them to produce more energy than
a monofacial module with the same front side power. One approach to adequately compare the
performances of the two technologies is by using the annual energy yield Y, which quantifies the
amount of energy produced in one year in kWh per installed peak module power in kWp, giving Y
a unit of kWh/kWp. Expressing the produced energy relative to the installed peak module power
not only enables the comparison of bifacial and standard modules but also of different standard
modules with varying peak powers. The annual energy yield of standard modules Ym and bifacial
modules Yb is given by:
r !!, /",à
YA/è = ∑ž0Ñ r !!, ,i
Δt (3.53)
102
Where the produced energy is expressed relative to the front side module power Pmpp, f, 0 measured
at STC.

3.4 Bifacial gain BF

After deciding to compare the performances of monofacial and bifacial modules using their
respective annual energy yields, a quantifying value is defined. This value condenses the
performance comparison of both technologies into a single metric, expressing the annual energy
yield increase (or decrease) in percentage relative to Ym. This metric, known as the bifacial gain
(BF), is expressed as a percentage, and is defined as:

BF = 100 .
#" …#
#
(3.54)
This metric will be frequently employed in this thesis to evaluate different module configurations
under varying installation parameters. It serves as a tool to identify the optimal configuration for
a solar PV system employing bifacial modules. With the aid of the constructed models, the
performance of bifacial PV systems will be assessed across diverse installations and fine-tuned to
achieve maximum bifacial gains. Bifacial gain is a critical metric in the realm of solar energy,
particularly when assessing the performance of bifacial photovoltaic (PV) modules. It quantifies
the increase in energy production enabled by these modules compared to their monofacial
counterparts. Expressed as a percentage, bifacial gain showcases the additional energy yield
achieved by capturing sunlight on both the front and rear sides of the module. This metric plays a
pivotal role in optimizing solar PV systems, aiding in the selection of optimal module
configurations and installation parameters to maximize energy output in a sustainable and efficient
manner.

3.5 Software for energy yield prediction

There are two main categories of simulation models for bifacial PV systems. One category is
focused solely on modeling the backside irradiance, as discussed in section 3.2.1. The other
category encompasses more comprehensive models designed to simulate not only rear irradiance
but also front irradiance, module temperature, and the overall energy yield of bifacial PV systems.
These comprehensive models integrate various sub-models to provide a holistic understanding of
103
system performance. Table 3.4 below summarizes several simulation models and their respective
sub-models for a clearer overview.

Table 3-4 Overview of simulation models and sub-models for predicting

energy yield in bifacial PV systems.
Author/institution Optical Thermal Model Electrical Model Ref.
model
BIGEYE Quasi 3D VF Modified Faiman De Soto 1-diode [104]
model
PVNOV (EDF) 2DVF NOCT 2-diode [88]
$%&' t &()*+, RT Convection From a 1-diode [89]
-.)/0 1.23/45.6( Rectangular Plate
7*42) t 86*9
Trifactors 3D VF NOCT 1-diode [90]
MoBiDiG RT 3D RT Faiman De Soto 1-diode [31]
MoBiDiG VF 2D VF, quasi Faiman De Soto 1-diode [74]
3D VF
Plant Predict 2DVF Faiman PVsyst 1-diode [64]
Purdue University 2DVF Faiman Based on temper t [91]
ature corrected
efficiency
PVSyst 2DVF Modified Faiman PVsyst 1-diode [36]
model
Solar Advisor 2DVF NOCT De Soto 1-diode [92]
Model (SAM)
Solar Farmer (SF) 2DVF Faiman PVSyst 1-diode [93]

3.6 Horizontal Single-Axis Tracking (HSAT)

Horizontal Single-Axis Tracking (HSAT) is a popular method to increase the energy yield of
photovoltaic (PV) modules by following the sun's path throughout the day. Here are the key
equations for HSAT.

104
3.6.1 NREL's formula

The NREL5's formula is a set of equations that helps us understand how solar trackers, which
adjust the position of solar panels to follow the sun, work. These equations tell us how the solar
panel should tilt and turn to get the most sunlight throughout the day. Imagine a solar panel that
can both tilt up and down and rotate left and right. The NREL formula helps us figure out the best
angles for these movements so that the panel captures as much sunlight as possible. It's like a
mathematical guide to make solar panels work efficiently. These relationships serve as invaluable
tools for refining the modeling of available solar radiation received by a collector operating under
tracking constraints. NREL's equations establish vital links between rotation angles, surface tilt,
and azimuth, improving solar radiation modeling for trackers. They aid in determining precise
motor revolutions for optimal tracking, vital for maximizing solar panel energy yield. These
formulas are pivotal for advancing solar energy capture technology.

5
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Operated by the
Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

105
3.6.2 Rotation angle's relationship with tilt and azimuth

The relationship between surface tilt (β) and azimuth (γ) relies on the axis tilt (βa), axis azimuth
(γa), and rotation angle (R). Figure 1 illustrates this interplay, where γa is the azimuth of the tracker
axis as seen from the inclined end, and R, viewed from the same point, is positive for clockwise
and negative for counterclockwise rotation. R equals zero when the surface's normal aligns with
the vertical plane. In figure 3.14, the normal is represented by OA, and OB represents the unit
normal [103].

Figure 3-14 The arrangement of a single-axis solar tracking surface [103].

Triangles involving these unit normal and the vertical axis yield equations for surface tilt and
azimuth. By acknowledging the similarity between triangles AOC and DOE, where their
corresponding sides are in proportion, the surface tilt can be expressed as follows:

β = cos -1[cos R cos βa] 3.55

The surface azimuth can be determined by accounting for the angle BED, which represents the
difference between the surface azimuth and the axis azimuth. Mathematically, angle BED is given
by sin⁻¹ (sin R ÷ sin β). Therefore, the surface azimuth can be expressed as:

106
 γ = γa + sin-1[sin R ÷ sin β] For β ≠ 0, -90° ≤ R ≤ +90° 3.56

When β is equal to zero, which corresponds to a horizontal surface, equation (3.56) cannot
determine the value of γ. In such cases, γ is arbitrarily assigned any value because a horizontal
surface is assumed to have no specific azimuth response. Additionally, equation (3.56) fails to
provide an accurate solution when R falls outside the range of -90° to +90° because it does not
consider the different trigonometric quadrants when using the arcsine operation. R can exceed the
range of -90° to +90° when the solar azimuth significantly deviates from the axis azimuth, and the
axis tilt is greater than zero. An extreme example of this occurs during midnight sun conditions in
northernmost locations, where R can span from -180° to +180° as the tracker continuously follows
a sun that never sets. When R values fall outside the -90° to +90° range, either equation (3.57) or
equation (3.58) can be used:

γ = γa - sin-1[sin R ÷ sin β] - 180° for -180° ≤ R < -90°. (3.57)

γ = γa - sin-1[sin R ÷ sin β] + 180° for +90° < R ≤ +180°. (3.58)

3.6.3 Optimum solar tracking rotation angle

The optimum solar tracking rotation angle is a critical factor in maximizing the energy capture of
solar tracking systems. It defines the ideal orientation for the solar collector to ensure it receives
the maximum amount of sunlight throughout the day. Calculating this angle involves complex
trigonometric relationships and considerations based on the sun's position in the sky and the
orientation of the tracking system. Accurate determination of this angle is essential for efficient
solar energy generation and is a fundamental aspect of solar energy system design and
optimization. Various sources provide the trigonometric relationship (3.59) for the incidence
angle, which plays a central role in this calculation.

cos θ = cos β cos θz + sin β sin θz cos (γs - γ) (3.59)

107
The zenith angle (θz) and solar azimuth angle (γs) are key parameters in solar tracking calculations.
These angles can be computed based on the specific time and location using algorithms detailed
in [45, 46].
To incorporate the angle R into equation (3.59) while eliminating β and γ, it can perform
substitutions for cos β, sin β, and cos (γs - γ) utilizing equations (3.55) and (3.56) along with several
trigonometric identities. This yields the following expression for the cosine of the incidence angle:

cos θ = cos R [sin θz cos (γs - γa) sin βa + cos θz cos βa] +
sin R sin θz sin (γs - γa) (3.60)

Achieving optimal tracking involves finding the value of R that minimizes the incidence angle,
thereby maximizing the cos θ value. This optimal R value can be determined by taking the
derivative of equation (3.60) with respect to R, setting it equal to zero, and solving for R.

d (cos θ)/dR = -sin R [sin θz cos (γs - γa) sin βa + cos θz cos βa] + cos R sin θz sin (γs - γa) = 0
sin R/cos R = [ sin θz sin (γs - γa)] / [sin θz cos (γs - γa) sin βa + cos θz cos βa]
R = tan-1(Χ) + ψ (3.61)
where:

Χ = [ sin θz sin (γs - γa)] / [sin θz cos (γs - γa) sin βa + cos θz cos βa ]
ψ = 0° if Χ = 0, or if Χ > 0 and (γs - γa) > 0, or if Χ < 0 and (γs - γa) < 0
ψ = +180° if Χ < 0 and (γs - γa) > 0
ψ = -180°, if Χ > 0 and (γs - γa) < 0

The variable ψ is used to position R correctly within the trigonometric quadrant. To determine
which value of ψ should be applied in equation (3.61), the difference between γs and γa is
calculated as the angular displacement between two vectors. This ensures that the result falls within
the range of -180° to +180°. For instance, if γs = 20° and γa = 210°, the calculation of γs - γa is
performed as 20° + 360° - 210°, resulting in 170° instead of 20° - 210°, which would yield -190°.

3.6.3.1 Calculating the incidence angle

The process of determining the beam incidence angle on a one-axis tracking surface can be broken
down into several steps:
108
 1. Calculate θz and γs using algorithms like those presented by Michalsky [104], with Errata
[105].
2. Calculate R using equation (3.61).
3. Calculate β using equation (3.55).
4. Calculate γ using either equation (3.56), equation (3.57), or equation (3.58) as appropriate.
5. Calculate θ using equation (3.59).
For concentrating collectors, the procedure can be somewhat simplified. After determining R in
Step 2, you can use equation (3.60) to calculate the incidence angle. In the case of concentrating
collectors, the surface tilt, β, which is essential for modeling diffuse radiation with flat-plate
collectors, is not required for determining beam radiation. Consequently, steps 3 to 5 are replaced
using equation (3.60).
The inclusion of R in the modeling process enhances the assessment of tracker performance by
allowing for comparisons with a tracker's design constraints. This comparison ensures that R falls
within the operational range of the tracker's physical rotation limits. If R exceeds these limits, an
additional step in the procedure adjusts R to match the tracker's maximum rotation range before
proceeding with steps 3 to 5. While a similar step could be applied to β, using R is more practical
because, unlike the surface tilt, a tracker's physical rotation limits remain constant even when the
axis tilt changes.
To assess the impact of tracker rotation limits, an evaluation was conducted for two locations:
Boulder, Colorado (latitude = 40.0°N), and Barrow, Alaska (latitude = 71.3°N). This evaluation
focused on a flat-plate one-axis tracker with a south-facing axis azimuth, tilted at an angle equal
to the site latitude. Monthly and yearly radiation available to the collector was simulated using
typical meteorological year hourly data [106], the Perez diffuse radiation model [107], and
incidence angles calculated under two different rotation limit scenarios: -180° to +180° to
represent unrestricted rotation and -70° to +70° to mimic the physical limits of the tracker.
Using the -70° to +70° rotation limits instead of unrestricted rotation resulted in a 3.3% reduction
in yearly radiation at the Barrow site, with the most significant impact seen in June, where a
maximum reduction of 5.5% occurred. Conversely, at the Boulder site, differences between the
two rotation limits were minimal, with a mere 0.3% reduction in yearly collector radiation and a
0.8% reduction in June collector radiation. Barrow exhibited more substantial variations due to its

109
northern location, leading to a broader range of spring and summer solar azimuths that necessitated
a wider rotation limit range for optimal tracking.

3.6.4 One-axis tracker with horizontal axis

Horizontal single-axis trackers (HSAT) are commonly favored in large-scale solar installations
due to their cost-effective and straightforward design. In such systems, the rotation angle, R, is
typically limited to a range of -90° to +90°. This simplification allows us to streamline the
equations for R, β, and γ, as the influence of the axis tilt angle, βa, can be disregarded when it
equals zero. Consequently, the equations become as follows:

R = tan-1 [ tan θz sin (γs - γa)] (3.62)

β=|R|

γ = γa + sin -1[sin R ÷ sin β] For β ≠ 0. (3.63)

When β equals zero, γ can be arbitrarily assigned any value as the surface becomes horizontal.
Similarly, the tracker axis azimuth, γa, can be selected from either end of the tracker. Horizontal
Single-Axis Tracking (HSAT) is a popular method to increase the energy yield of photovoltaic
(PV) modules by following the sun's path throughout the day. This technique is commonly favored
in large-scale solar installations due to its cost-effective and straightforward design, often
employing a rotation equation, R, limited to a range of -90° to +90°. This simplification allows us
to streamline the equations for R, β, and γ, as the influence of the axis tilt equation, βa, can be
disregarded when it equals zero. In the following sections, the significance of these angles and
equations in HSAT for maximizing solar energy capture will be explored.

3.6.4.1 Solar position angle

The solar position angle refers to the calculation of the sun's position in the sky relative to a specific
location and time. The Solar position angle is a fundamental parameter in solar tracking systems
and photovoltaic modeling. It represents the angular position of the sun relative to the geographic

110
north direction. The solar position angle is calculated based on the solar hour angle (Ω), which
measures the time since solar noon, the latitude (ϕ) of the location, and the solar declination angle
(δ), which varies with the time of the year. There are two primary angles used to describe the sun's
position:
1. Solar Zenith Angle (θz): This angle measures the angle between the sun and the zenith
(the point in the sky directly above an observer). It indicates how high or low the sun is in
the sky. The solar zenith angle is complementary to the solar elevation angle, which
measures how high the sun is above the horizon. The formula for calculating the solar
zenith angle is:
cos(θz) = sin(ϕ)⋅sin(δ)+cos(ϕ)⋅cos(δ)⋅cos(H) (3.64)
Where:
• θz is the solar zenith angle.
• ϕ is the observer's latitude.
• δ is the solar declination angle.
• H is the hour angle.

2. Solar Azimuth Angle (γs): This angle measures the compass direction from which the
sunlight is coming at a specific location. It indicates the cardinal direction (north, south,
east, west) of the sun. the solar azimuth angle is typically referenced with 0 degrees
indicating north, 90 degrees for east, 180 degrees for south, and 270 degrees for west. It's
a dynamic value that changes throughout the day as the sun moves across the sky. Accurate
knowledge of the γs is essential for solar tracking systems to adjust the orientation of solar
equipment and ensure it continually faces the sun.

3. The formula for calculating the solar azimuth angle varies depending on the specific
convention used, but it generally involves trigonometric calculations based on the sun's
position.

γs = cost1 ‚ ‡
sin€\•sin€ K•sin€ •
cos€\•cos€ K•
(3.65)

Where:
• γs is the solar azimuth angle (radians).
• Ω is the hour angle (radians).
111
 • ϕ is the latitude of the location (radians).
• δ is the solar declination angle (radians)

3.6.4.2 Solar elevation angle (θe)

This angle represents the apparent angle of the sun above the horizon at a specific location and
time. It's also referred to as the solar altitude angle. θe considers the observer's position on Earth
and varies throughout the day as the sun rises and sets.
While they both describe the sun's position in the sky, they are used for slightly different purposes.
Solar declination angle is used to determine the sun's position relative to the equator and is
primarily used for solar energy calculations and system design on a larger scale. Solar Elevation
Angle, on the other hand, is used to determine the sun's apparent height in the sky as observed
from a specific location and time, which is more relevant for local weather and solar tracking
systems. So, they are related in that the solar elevation angle (θe) depends on the solar declination
angle but are distinct measurements used for different purposes. Therefore, the θe is the apparent
angle of the sun above the horizon. It can be calculated using the following equation:
θe = t \
;
(3.66)
or
θe = arcsin(sin(δ) * sin(φ) + cos(δ) * cos(φ) * cos(ω)) (3.67)
where:
• θe is the solar elevation angle (radians).
• δ is the solar declination angle (radians).
• φ: Observer's Latitude in degrees, indicating the north-south position on the Earth's
surface.
• ω: Solar hour angle in degrees, calculated as mentioned previously.

3.6.4.3 Solar hour angle (ω):

The Solar hour angle is an essential parameter in solar energy calculations, particularly in
determining the position of the sun in the sky at any given time of day. It's a measure of time
expressed in angular units, usually degrees, and represents the number of degrees the Earth has

112
rotated since solar noon, with respect to the observer's location. The ω is used to calculate the
position of the sun in the sky and is crucial for tracking the sun's path throughout the day.
The formula for calculating ω involves the observer's longitude, the solar time, and a reference
time called solar noon. It helps determine whether the sun is in the morning or afternoon sky and
is used in solar energy systems to adjust solar panel angles or tracking systems to maximize energy
capture. Accurate knowledge of the ω is vital for optimizing the performance of solar installations.
The solar hour angle (ω) can be calculated using the following equation:

ω = 15° × (Local Solar Time - 12) (3.68)

where:

• ω: solar hour angle in degrees.

• Local olar time: the time of day in hours, typically in the range of 0 to 24, adjusted for the
observer's location.
The solar hour angle is an important parameter for solar energy calculations, especially for
determining the position of the sun in the sky and optimizing the orientation of solar panels or
tracking systems to capture maximum sunlight.

6.3.4.4 Solar Incidence Angle (θ)

The solar incidence angle, often referred to as the incidence angle, is a fundamental concept in
solar energy systems. It represents the angle at which sunlight strikes the surface of a solar panel
or photovoltaic (PV) module. The incidence angle is crucial because it directly influences the
efficiency of energy capture by the PV system.
In the context of Horizontal Single-Axis Tracking (HSAT) systems, the incidence angle becomes
particularly important. HSAT systems continuously adjust the tilt of solar panels to track the sun's
apparent motion across the sky, maximizing energy capture. Understanding how the incidence
angle changes throughout the day and across seasons helps optimize the orientation of the panels.
The formula for calculating the θ considers several factors, including the solar zenith angle (θs),
the solar elevation angle, and the solar azimuth angle (γs). It is given by:

113
 θ = arccos(cos(θs) * cos(θe) + sin(θs) * sin(θe) * cos(γs)) (3.69)
where:
• θs (Solar Zenith Angle): This angle represents the sun's position directly overhead (at the
zenith) relative to the observer's location. It is complementary to the solar elevation angle
and varies throughout the day.
• θe (Solar Elevation Angle): The solar elevation angle, as mentioned earlier, is the
apparent angle of the sun above the horizon. It determines how high the sun is in the sky
and is critical for tracking systems.
• γs (Solar Azimuth Angle): The solar azimuth angle defines the compass direction from
which sunlight is coming at a particular time. It influences the orientation of solar panels.
or
θ = cos… €sin€<™ •sin€=• + cos€<™ •cos€=•cos€< t 3•• (3.70)
that:
• θe is the solar elevation angle (radians).
• β is the tilt angle of the PV module (radians).
• γs is the solar azimuth angle (radians).
• α is the tracking offset angle (radians).
By calculating the Solar Incidence Angle (θ), you can assess how effectively sunlight is striking
the PV panels. Minimizing the incidence angle helps maximize energy capture, making it a key
consideration in optimizing the performance of solar energy systems, including those with
horizontal single-axis tracking.

6.3.4.5 Tracking offset angle (α)

In the context of HSAT systems, the tracking offset angle (α) is a parameter that plays a significant
role in optimizing the orientation of solar panels for capturing sunlight throughout the day. The
tracking offset angle represents the angular difference between the orientation of the solar panels
and the direction perpendicular to the earth's axis of rotation. In simpler terms, it measures how
much the panels deviate from facing directly east-west, where an angle of 0 degrees indicates
perfect east-west alignment.

114
The purpose of introducing a tracking offset angle is to fine-tune the tracking system's
performance. By adjusting the angle slightly away from pure east-west alignment, you can
optimize energy capture. This adjustment accounts for factors like the solar incidence angle (θ)
and local geographic conditions, allowing the panels to better follow the sun's apparent path across
the sky.
The specific formula for calculating the tracking offset angle (α) depends on the HSAT system's
design and its intended performance objectives. It may involve complex mathematical models that
consider factors such as latitude, longitude, and the system's tracking strategy. The tracking offset
angle represents any east-west misalignment of the tracker. It can be calculated as follows:

α= tϕ
ò
(3.71)
Where:
• α is the tracking offset angle (radians).
• ϕ is the latitude of the location (radians).

Optimizing the tracking offset angle is essential for maximizing the energy yield of a HSAT
system. When done correctly, it can significantly increase the overall efficiency of solar energy
capture, making the system more productive and cost-effective.
In practical terms, the α is one of the parameters that solar energy system designers and engineers
adjust to align solar panels optimally, ensuring that they track the sun's motion effectively and
harvest the maximum amount of energy throughout the day.

3.6.4.6 Tilt angle (β):

The tilt angle, often denoted as β, represents the angle between the surface of a solar panel or PV
module and the horizontal plane. It indicates how much the panel is tilted from lying flat on the
ground.
The tilt angle can be adjusted based on the specific installation and location. In a fixed tilt system,
it's typically set at a fixed angle (e.g., for a rooftop installation). In a tracking system, it can change
throughout the day to optimize solar exposure.
• For a fixed tilt system, β is a constant value.
• For a tracking system, β can change with time to maximize energy capture.
115
The optimal tilt angle for a solar panel depends on the geographic location and the desired energy
generation profile. It is usually set to maximize the annual energy yield by aligning the panel more
directly with the sun's path over the course of the year.
Tables 3.3-6 show the overview of solar and surface angles used in solar energy applications,
particularly in photovoltaic (PV) systems and solar thermal systems, to optimize the collection of
solar energy and the performance of solar panels or collectors. These angles help in determining
the orientation of solar panels or collectors to maximize the amount of sunlight they receive.

Table 3-5 Earth-sun angles

Angular Measure Symbol Range and Sign Convention

latitude ϕ (phi) 0o to ± 90o; Northern hemisphere is +ive

longitude Λ (lambda) 0o to ± 180o; Prime Meridian is zero, West is -ive

declination δ (delta) 0o to ± 23.45o; Northern hemisphere is +ive

hour angle ω (omega) 0o to ± 180o; solar noon is zero, afternoon is +ive, morning is -ive

Table 3-6 sun-observer angles

Angular Measure Symbol Range and Sign Convention

solar altitude angle αs= 1 − θz 0o to + 90o

(complement) (alphas is the complement
of theta)

solar azimuth angle γs (gammas) 0o to + 360o; clockwise from

North origin

zenith angle θz (thetaz) 0o to + 90o; vertical is zero

116
 Table 3-7 Collector-sun angles

Angular Measure Symbol Range and Sign Convention

surface altitude angle α (alpha) 0o to + 90o

slope or tilt (of collector surface) β (beta) 0o to ±90o; facing equator is +ive

surface azimuth angle γ (gamma) 0o to + 360o; clockwise from North origin

angle of incidence θ (theta) 0o to + 90o

glancing angle (complement) α=1−θ(alpha) 0o to + 90o

117
118
 CHAPTER 4

Case Study Simulation

4.1 Introduction
In this chapter, the aim is to look into the evaluation of the Bifacial Photovoltaic (BPV) site situated
on the picturesque Savona campus. This site represents an innovative approach to harnessing solar
energy, featuring two rows of Horizontal Single-Axis Tracking (HSAT) Bifacial PV modules. The
BPV site's location in the sun-drenched region of Savona, Italy, provides an ideal setting for testing
the capabilities of bifacial solar technology. The primary objective of this evaluation is to assess
the energy performance of the BPV installation. Unlike traditional monofacial PV systems, bifacial
modules have the unique ability to capture sunlight from both the front and rear sides, significantly
enhancing energy yield. However, the effectiveness of bifacial modules depends on various
factors, including local climate conditions, system design, and module orientation.
It is important to note that, in this study, it can exclusively rely on simulation outputs to evaluate
the BPV site's performance. Experimental data collection was not available for this analysis.
Consequently, the study utilizes a advanced simulation tools, with a primary focus on PVsyst
software. PVsyst enables comprehensive modeling and analysis of photovoltaic systems, making
it a valuable resource for assessing the potential of the Savona campus BPV installation.

119
Throughout this chapter, it will explore the intricacies of the simulation process, examine key
performance metrics, and gain insights into the impact of varying system configurations. By
leveraging the power of simulation, it is aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the BPV
site's energy generation potential under different scenarios. This evaluation serves as a vital step
in optimizing the system's design and maximizing its contribution to sustainable energy generation
on the Savona campus. Let us embark on this journey to unravel the capabilities and potential of
the Savona campus BPV site, using the virtual insights provided by advanced simulation
techniques.

4.1.1 Objective of the Evaluation

The primary objective of this evaluation is to determine the energy-generation potential of the
Savona Campus BPV site equipped with Horizontal Single-Axis Tracking (HSAT) bifacial PV
modules. This includes:
Total Energy Yield: To quantify the total amount of energy this BPV site can generate annually,
which is a crucial metric for assessing its feasibility as a sustainable energy source.
Total Power Output: Calculating the site's overall power output, an essential parameter to gauge
its capacity for supplying electricity.
Comparative Analysis: One of the key research objectives is to compare the total energy yield of
the BPV site under different conditions. Specifically, it is aimed to contrast energy generation with
HSAT versus a fixed tilt angle configuration. Additionally, it will assess the difference between
energy yield with HSAT and without HSAT to understand the impact of tracking technology.

Secondly, Importance of Simulations in the Absence of Experimental Data

The absence of experimental data for the Savona Campus BPV site necessitates the use of
sophisticated simulation tools like PVsyst. Simulations offer several advantages, including:

• Data-driven Insight: Simulations enable us to derive valuable insights and predictions

about the performance of the BPV system. By inputting various parameters and site-
specific data, it can be emulated the real-world conditions.

120
 • Scenario Testing: With simulations, it can explore different scenarios and configurations
without the need for physical experimentation. This flexibility allows us to evaluate
multiple strategies for optimizing energy production.

• Risk Mitigation: In the absence of historical data from the site, simulations serve as a risk
mitigation strategy. They provide a comprehensive understanding of the system's behavior
under varying conditions, aiding in informed decision-making.
• Cost-Effective Analysis: Conducting experiments on a BPV site can be costly and time-
consuming. Simulations offer a cost-effective means of evaluating the system's
performance, making it an efficient choice for preliminary assessments.
• Long-Term Predictions: Simulations allow us to make long-term predictions about the
site's energy generation potential, considering factors like seasonal variations and module
degradation, which are essential for sustainable energy planning.

Through these objectives and the utilization of PVsyst simulations, the study aims to offer a
comprehensive evaluation of the Savona Campus BPV site's potential as a sustainable energy
source and assess the impact of HSAT technology on its performance.

4.2 PVsyst: A Comprehensive Evaluation Tool

4.2.1 Overview of PVsyst

Introduction to PVsyst Software: PVsyst, a powerful software tool designed for the comprehensive
evaluation of photovoltaic (PV) systems. PVsyst is renowned for its versatility and robust
capabilities in modeling, simulating, and optimizing PV installations. This software offers a wide
array of features that enable users to assess the performance of PV systems under various
conditions, taking into account factors such as solar radiation, weather data, system components,
and geographical location. As a crucial component of this study, it provides a closer look at
PVsyst's functionalities to better understand how it aids in the evaluation of the Savona Campus
BPV site.

Why PVsyst for BPV Site Evaluation? The choice of PVsyst for evaluating the Savona Campus
BPV site is grounded in its status as an industry-standard software known for its accuracy and

121
reliability. PVsyst provides a comprehensive platform for modeling and simulating PV systems,
allowing us to assess the energy yield and performance of the BPV installation under different
scenarios. It incorporates detailed meteorological data, shading analysis, and various system
parameters to deliver precise results. Moreover, PVsyst's user-friendly interface streamlines the
process of modeling complex PV installations and interpreting the results, making it an ideal tool
for our research objectives.

4.2.2 Simulation Methodology

The simulation approach employed in this evaluation combines rigorous modeling with real-world
data inputs to generate accurate predictions of the BPV system's performance. PVsyst allows for
both detailed and simplified simulations, and in the context of this study, a comprehensive
modeling approach is adopted. This involves considering numerous factors, including solar
radiation, weather patterns, system components, and geographical specifics. By creating a virtual
representation of the BPV system and its environment, this study can simulate its behavior under
various conditions, helping us understand how it responds to changes in sunlight, shading,
temperature, and other critical parameters.

Input Parameters and Data Sources: The accuracy of the simulations heavily relies on the quality
and reliability of the input parameters and data sources used. To ensure precise results,
meteorological data is gathered from trusted sources, including solar radiation data, temperature
records, and weather patterns specific to the Savona region. Additionally, the technical
specifications of the BPV system, such as module types, inverters, and mounting configurations,
are utilized to accurately model its components. PVsyst provides a user-friendly interface for
inputting these parameters and offers access to a comprehensive database of weather data from
around the world. By integrating real-world data with precise system specifications, this study
aims to create simulations that closely resemble the actual performance of the Savona Campus
BPV site.

122
4.2.2.1 Weather and irradiance

The simulation tool for this study relies on measurement data of three key horizontal irradiance
components: global horizontal irradiance (GHI), diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI), and direct
horizontal irradiance (BHI). These data inputs are essential for accurately simulating the irradiance
levels reaching both the front and rear sides of bifacial modules.
Given that GHI is the summation of the other two components, the measurement data for DHI and
BHI are required to comprehensively characterize the incident irradiance on the bifacial modules.
This data forms the foundation for the simulation process, enabling precise modeling of how
sunlight is distributed and utilized by the bifacial PV system. The global horizontal irradiance
(GHI) data, sampled at a 15-minute interval, is obtained through a satellite-based approach for
estimating surface solar radiation known as the HelioSat method. Detailed descriptions of this
methodology can be found in references [47, 48, 49]. The amount of monthly solar irradiance,
divided into GHI and DHI, is depicted on the Figure 4.1 for Savona, Liguria, Italy.
The initial phase of any project begins with the acquisition of meteorological data, a critical factor
for its successful evaluation. In this study, the geographic coordinates for the project site in Savona,
Liguria, Italy, were obtained from the Meteonorm 8.1 database. The chosen location boasts a
latitude of 44.3091 N, a longitude of 8.4772 E, and an altitude of 28 meters above sea level. These

123
 Figure 4-1 Meteorological data overview for Savona, Italy.

specific geographical parameters have been selected for their suitability and are instrumental in
the project's feasibility. As can be seen on figure 4.1 that presents meteorological data crucial for
project evaluation in Savona, Italy. The data, including Global Horizontal Irradiance (GHI),
Diffuse Horizontal Irradiance (DHI), wind velocity, ambient temperature, and relative humidity,
has been sourced from the Meteonorm 8.1 database.

124
4.2.2.2 Sun’s position

In the initial stage of the simulation process, PVsyst employs the DIN 5034 algorithm, as
expounded in Chapter 3.2.2, to precisely ascertain the Sun's position. This solar position data plays
a pivotal role in the evaluation, as it not only governs the irradiance incident on the front surface
of the module but also dictates the module's shadow placement on the ground. Consequently, it
exerts a significant impact on the rear-side irradiance. The Sun's precise location is defined by its
elevation angle , denoted as \ s, and its azimuth angle αs. This spatial orientation of the Sun is
graphically represented in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4-2 The solar path, indicated by the azimuth and elevation angles, in the
context of Savona, Liguria, Italy.

125
4.3 System Configuration and Design
In the evaluation of Bifacial PV modules, two tracking systems have been implemented at the
Savona Campus of the University of Genova in Savona, Italy. These trackers include the
Horizontal Single-Axis Tracking (HSAT) systems. Savona, a beautiful coastal town located in the
Liguria region of Italy, boasts geographical coordinates at a latitude of approximately 44.3091 N
and a longitude of around 8.4772 E. Situated at an elevation of 28 meters, the location provides an
ideal setting for conducting studies on solar energy production. Its geographical parameters, such
as latitude and altitude, greatly influence the solar radiation potential of the region, making it a
noteworthy site for the installation of Bifacial PV modules and solar tracking systems.

4.3.1 Savona Campus BPV Site Layout

The Savona BPV tracker site features a meticulously designed layout to accommodate two parallel
rows of Bifacial PV modules figure 4.3. Each row consists of nine individual modules aligned in
a series. These modules possess specific physical dimensions, with a length of 100 cm and a width
of 1980 cm. Positioned at a height of 146 cm above the ground, these modules are optimally
situated for capturing sunlight effectively. To ensure proper spacing and solar exposure, the
distance between the two parallel rows, known as the pitch in the E-W direction, is maintained at
279 cm. This thoughtful arrangement of the Bifacial PV modules maximizes their solar energy
capture potential and contributes to the overall efficiency of the Savona BPV tracking system.

Figure 4-3 The solar path, indicated by the azimuth and elevation angles, in the
context of Savona, Liguria, Italy.

126
The placement of the trackers is a crucial aspect of their design. Positioned on the right side of two
significant buildings figure 4.5, namely the Savona Campus library and the SPES dormitory
building, the trackers are strategically located to capture as much sunlight as possible. However,
the challenge arises from the three off-campus buildings to the northwest. Their shadows can
intermittently affect the trackers, potentially leading to what's called a "mismatch" issue. On the
flip side, to the east of the trackers, there are two buildings that, fortunately, don't cast shadows in
the morning, allowing for more consistent sunlight exposure. These carefully considered spatial
arrangements play a pivotal role in optimizing the overall performance of the BPV system on the
Savona Campus.

Figure 4-4 Layout of buildings around Savona trackers.

In Figure 4.5, the precise orientation of the two trackers is thoughtfully displayed. The trackers are
expertly aligned along the North-South axis, showcasing an azimuth angle of -31 degrees. This
particular alignment is designed to harness the maximum amount of sunlight throughout the day,
thereby optimizing their energy-capturing potential. These calculated adjustments underline the
attention to detail in the configuration of the Savona BPV system."

127
 Figure 4-5 Trackers orientation regarding the North-South axis.

4.3.2 Module Specifications

In the installation of the Bifacial PV modules at Savona Campus, careful consideration was given
to the azimuth angle, which is strategically set to -31°, as visually depicted in Figure 4.3. This
particular angle ensures that the modules are optimally oriented to capture sunlight during various
parts of the day, maximizing their energy generation potential. Furthermore, the tracking plane for

Figure 4-6 Plane orientation of PV modules.

these modules utilize a horizontal N-S axis, with the rotation angle Phi, symbolized as φ in degrees,
defining the positioning of the modules figure 4.4. Specifically, when the tracking plane is in a
128
horizontal position, φ is designated as φ = 0°. As this angle increases towards the West, φ > 0°,
the modules' orientation is adjusted accordingly. This meticulous approach to module placement,
considering both azimuth and φ, is instrumental in enhancing their performance by accurately

aligning them with the sun's trajectory throughout the day.

Figure 4.7 The limitation angles of trackers.

4.3.3 Albeo

Albedo, in the context of our solar tracking evaluation, plays a crucial role in determining the
amount of irradiance that is reflected onto the bifacial PV modules. This reflection affects both the
front and rear sides of the modules, impacting their energy production. Figure 4.17 provides a
comprehensive breakdown of various surface materials encountered on the site. It categorizes these
materials based on their composition and specifies the associated albedo values.
In the simulations conducted for this thesis, an albedo value of 0.25 is applied to represent the
reflecting properties of the site figure 4. 8. Albedo values can range from 0 (minimum) to 1
(maximum). An albedo of 0 means that all incoming solar radiation is absorbed by surfaces,
offering no reflection. In contrast, an albedo of 1 indicates perfect reflection, where all incoming
sunlight is bounced back, and none is absorbed. In practical terms, an albedo value of 0.25 suggests
that approximately 25% of the incoming solar radiation is being reflected onto the PV modules,
while the remaining 75% is absorbed or transmitted through various surfaces.

129
 Figure 4-8 The various materials of surface and their consequent albedo.

Surfaces with lower albedo may absorb more sunlight, resulting in less reflected irradiance and
potentially affecting the energy yield. By considering the diverse albedo values of various site
materials, it can make informed decisions regarding material selection and further optimize the
bifacial PV system's performance to harness solar energy efficiently throughout the year.

4.3.3 Tracking System

The tracking system used at the Savona BPV site is known as Horizontal Single-Axis Tracking,
or HSAT. This system follows the sun's path throughout the day to maximize energy capture.
What's interesting is that it's based on formulas developed by NREL, which stands for the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. These equations help precisely position the solar modules for
optimum sunlight exposure, making the most of the available solar energy. This tracking system
is a crucial part of the BPV setup, ensuring that the modules are always facing the sun for peak
performance.

130
4.3.4 Module type

At the Savona BPV site, the Bifacial PV modules, manufactured by 3SUN, stand as a testament to
Italy's significant contribution to the solar industry. Established in 2010 and currently under the
ownership of Enel Green Power, 3SUN holds the distinction of being Europe's largest photovoltaic
factory. Committed entirely to the production of photovoltaic modules, its core mission is to
furnish the Group with the essential resources needed to usher in clean, renewable energy, thereby
fostering a greener world. These modules are exceptional monocrystalline 370.0 Wp, featuring 72
cells, and their bifacial design amplifies their efficiency figure 4.9.

Figure 4-9 The information of bifacial PV modules installed on the trackers.

Each module showcases an impressive maximum power rating of 370.0 W figure 4.9. The open-
circuit voltage reaches 53.0 V while the short-circuit current peaks at 9.0 A. Notably, the current
at the point of maximum power, or IMPP, registers at 8.52 A, making these modules particularly
efficient. The system also has a maximum voltage of 1500 V and a maximum series fuse of 15 A,
emphasizing the safety and reliability of this innovative solar array. Each bifacial photovoltaic
module measures 1980 mm in length and 1000 mm in width figure 4.10, while it contains 72 solar
cells in series, creating a robust setup for efficient energy capture.

131
 Figure 4-10 Bifacial PV Module Details: Measuring 1980 mm x 1000 mm with 72 Cells
in Series.

4.3.4.1 I/V and P/V curves

The I/V (current-voltage) curve figure 4.9, along with the P/V (power-voltage) curve figure 4.11,
serves as a fundamental representation of the Bifacial PV modules' electrical characteristics. These
diagrams allow us to grasp the module's behavior under various operating conditions. The I/V
curve takes into account two essential parameters: the open-circuit voltage (Voc), which stands at
an impressive 53.0 V, and the short-circuit current (Isc), recorded at 9.0 A. The P/V curve, on the

Figure 4-11 The current-voltage curve regarding the open circuit voltage and short
circuit current.

132
other hand, revolves around the module's maximum power point (MPP), which peaks at 370.0 W,
coinciding with the open-circuit voltage of 53.0 V. These curves visually present how the module's
current, voltage, and power output change concerning different operational states.
Analyzing these curves provides valuable insights into the performance characteristics of the
module, facilitating optimization for efficient solar energy harnessing. The I/V curve, which plots
current against voltage, is a fundamental representation of the module's electrical behavior. It
shows how the current varies with the voltage, providing information about the module's
conductivity and how it responds to different electrical loads. The P/V curve figure 4.12, focusing
on the Maximum Power Point (MPP), indicates the module's maximum power output under
specific conditions, typically with a fixed voltage and current. This curve is vital for understanding
how to operate the module at its peak performance, ensuring optimal energy production.

Figure 4-12 The power-voltage curve at cells temperature of 25°C.

133
The third diagram, "relative efficiency with respect to STC," is equally important. It reveals how
efficiently the module performs under various environmental conditions compared to its standard
testing conditions (STC) figure 4.13. This allows us to gauge the module's adaptability to real-
world situations and provides insights into its reliability and resilience, essential factors in the
effective utilization of solar energy. In summary, these diagrams are invaluable tools for both
understanding and optimizing the module's performance for solar energy applications.

Figure 4-13 Relative efficiency with respect to STC diagram illustrating the module's
performance.

4.3.5 Inverter type

The inverter used in the Savona Campus Bifacial PV system is the SG8.0RT from Sungrow, a
renowned company in the field of solar energy. Founded in 1997, Sungrow has established itself
as a global leader in providing clean and sustainable energy solutions. With a strong commitment
to innovation and sustainability, Sungrow focuses on delivering high-quality photovoltaic
inverters and energy storage equipment.
The SG8.0RT inverter specifically is known for its reliability and efficiency in converting the
direct current (DC) generated by the solar modules into alternating current (AC) for use in the
electrical grid. It plays a crucial role in optimizing the overall performance and energy output of
134
the Bifacial PV system. The choice of this inverter highlights the emphasis on quality and
effectiveness in the Savona Campus solar installation.
The inverter used in the Savona Campus Bifacial PV system, as depicted in figure 4.14, is a vital
component that ensures the efficient conversion of solar energy into usable electricity. This
specific inverter model offers a versatile range of input voltages, with a minimum of 160.0 V, a

Figure 4-14 The input data of working principles of Inverter used in the Savona site.

maximum of 1000.0 V, and a nominal input voltage of 600.0 V at the point of maximum power
(MPP). These characteristics make it well-suited for handling the varying voltage outputs of the
PV modules, optimizing energy production, and contributing to the overall performance of the
solar system in Savona.

135
The output side of the inverter figure 4.15 is an essential component that bridges the photovoltaic
modules' DC power generation with the AC grid. In this specific configuration, the inverter
delivers an output voltage of 400.0 V at a frequency of 50 Hz, aligning with the standard grid
requirements in the Savona region. The inverter can efficiently handle a maximum AC power
output of 8.0 KW and a peak AC current of 13.30 A. The nominal output current is set at 11.50 A,
ensuring a stable and consistent energy transfer from the PV system to the grid. These output
specifications are crucial for seamless integration with the local grid and guarantee the reliable
distribution of solar-generated electricity in the Savona area.

Figure 4-15 The output side of the inverter, linking PV-generated DC power to the AC
grid.

By knowing the input and output specifications, such as voltage ranges, power limits, and current
values, engineers and researchers can fine-tune the system for maximum energy generation. This
information ensures that the inverter is operating within its optimal parameters, resulting in
efficient conversion of DC power from the PV modules into usable AC power for the grid.
Additionally, this knowledge aids in diagnosing and troubleshooting any potential issues or
mismatches, promoting the overall reliability and longevity of the photovoltaic system.

136
4.3.5.1 Efficiency curve of input power

The efficiency curve diagram, as depicted in Figure 4.16, presents a comprehensive overview of
the inverter's performance characteristics. It showcases the relationship between the input power
in (KW) and the overall efficiency of the inverter. Understanding this curve is paramount for
assessing how effectively the inverter converts DC power generated by the PV modules into usable
AC power for the grid.

Figure 4-16 Efficiency curve illustrating the inverter's performance characteristics

based on input power (KW) and efficiency.

The graph offers valuable insights into the inverter's efficiency across different power levels.
Briefly, it enables engineers and researchers to identify the range where the inverter operates most
efficiently. This knowledge is indispensable for optimizing the PV system's performance. By
adjusting the system to operate within the inverter's most efficient power range, they can
significantly enhance its overall energy generation capacity, which ultimately results in more cost-
effective and sustainable energy production.

4.3.5.2 Efficiency curve of output power

The efficiency curve diagram, as displayed in Figure 4.17, provides a comprehensive view of the
inverter's efficiency concerning the relationship between the output power, measured in kilowatts
137
(KW), and the overall efficiency of the inverter. This curve is invaluable for assessing the inverter's
performance in terms of how effectively it converts DC power from the PV modules into usable
AC power for the grid.

Figure 4-17 Efficiency curve depicting the inverter's performance characteristics in

relation to output power (KW) and efficiency.

Analyzing this curve unveils crucial information about the inverter's efficiency across various
power levels. It enables engineers and researchers to pinpoint the range where the inverter operates
at its most efficient. Such insights are indispensable for optimizing the performance of the PV
system. By configuring the system to work within the inverter's peak efficiency power range, they
can significantly boost the overall energy generation capacity.

4.3.5.3 Efficiency and Performance Analysis of the inverter

The diagram of the output AC power concerning the input DC power, as depicted in Figure 4.18,
offers a direct portrayal of the inverter's ability to convert the DC power generated by the PV
modules into AC power that can be utilized by the grid. It indicates the relationship between the
input DC power (in KW) and the resulting AC power output.
Considering these efficiency curves, valuable insights can be gained regarding the performance of
the inverter. The input and output power efficiency curves help in understanding how efficiently
the inverter converts DC power to AC power and how closely it operates to its optimal efficiency.
By analyzing these curves, a deeper comprehension of the inverter's behavior under different load
138
conditions is achieved, allowing for fine-tuning of the system to maximize energy production and
overall performance. Additionally, the correlation between the input and output power provides
crucial information on the inverter's efficiency under varying operating conditions.

Figure 4-18 The relationship between input DC power (KW) and the corresponding
AC power output, showcasing the inverter's conversion efficiency.

4.4 Simulation Outputs and Performance Metrics

Within this section, an in-depth analysis of simulation outputs and critical performance metrics is
presented. The discussion encompasses key factors, including the total irradiance and diffused
irradiance received by the PV modules. Additionally, the section explores an in-depth discussion
of the total power and energy generated by the site, shedding light on the system's operational
efficiency and its capacity to effectively harness solar energy.

4.4.1 Energy Yield Analysis

The normalized productions detailed in Figure 4.19 provide a comprehensive overview of the
performance metrics across different months. These include the useful energy produced, system
losses, and collection losses (PV-array losses). Examining these data for each month offers
valuable insights into the system's operational efficiency. A close analysis of the monthly
variations allows us to identify specific patterns and trends. For instance, months with higher
useful energy production and lower losses demonstrate optimal system performance. Conversely,
months with elevated losses might indicate areas for system improvement or maintenance needs.
139
The data enables us to pinpoint months when the system operates most efficiently and when
adjustments may be required, contributing to better decision-making and more effective utilization
of the bifacial PV modules. This site has an annual energy production of 10,224 kWh, yielding a
specific production rate of 1,535 kWh/kWp/day.

Figure 4-19 Annual energy production comparison between array reference energy
for PR and array nominal energy at STC.

In Figure 4.20, the comparison between "array reference energy for PR" and "array nominal energy
at STC" is revealing. The array reference energy for PR consistently presents lower values than

Figure 4-20 Comparison of array reference energy for PR and array nominal energy at
STC for each month.

140
array nominal energy at STC for every month of the year. This difference indicates that the actual
energy harvested by the PV system, as represented by array reference energy for PR, is consistently
less than the energy that would be produced under Standard Test Conditions (STC), which is
illustrated by "array nominal energy at STC. The variances between these two values serve as a
measure of the system's efficiency losses, attributed to factors such as shading, temperature, and
other environmental variables that affect energy generation throughout the year. Understanding
and quantifying these discrepancies are vital for optimizing the system's performance and
assessing its actual energy production accurately.
Figure 4.21 compares global horizontal irradiance and the array's effective energy output, using
months as data points. It shows the direct relationship between solar irradiance and PV array
performance, demonstrating that higher irradiance leads to increased energy production, while
reduced irradiance results in lower energy output. This figure provides a clear visual representation
of the system's performance across different months.

Figure 4-21 Comparison of global horizontal irradiance and effective energy output
for each month

Introducing the results presented in Figure 4.22, comprehensively outlines various key
performance metrics, month by month, which characterize the energy generation dynamics of the
Savona BPV site. This incorporates data on global horizontal irradiance, diffuse horizontal
141
irradiance, average ambient temperature, effective energy output from the PV array, and the
performance ratio, all meticulously calculated and recorded for each month. These figures provide
a detailed insight into the seasonal variations and performance patterns of the PV system
throughout the year. Additionally, the summary values at the end of the figure offer a holistic view,
encapsulating the overall annual performance of the site, thereby aiding in a deeper understanding
of its solar energy harnessing capabilities.

Figure 4-22 A comprehensive table presenting monthly performance metrics for the
Savona, Liguria, Italy.

4.4.2 Loss assessment

In evaluating the performance of the Savona BPV site, it's imperative to assess losses and
understand how they impact the overall energy production. This section dives into the specifics of
loss assessment, examining various aspects that contribute to a reduction in energy generation. The
following paragraph introduces some critical factors, depicted in Figure 4.23, which include Array
virtual energy at MPP (EArrMPP), Module quality loss (ModQual), Module array mismatch loss
(MisLoss), Ohmic wiring loss (OhmLoss), and Global inverter losses (InvLoss). These parameters
shed light on where losses occur within the PV system and are essential in optimizing energy yield.

142
The evaluation of array losses is a crucial aspect of understanding the overall performance of the
PV system. This category encompasses several specific losses that play a role in reducing the
system's energy generation potential, figure 4.24. For the "Array Losses" category, there are
several types of losses considered in this analysis:

1. Thermal loss factor: which is intricately linked to module temperature concerning the
irradiance levels. This factor indicates how the module temperature impacts overall
efficiency and power output, helping us appreciate the relationship between temperature
and performance.

Figure 4-23 Critical factors where losses within the PV system occur and the
significance of optimizing energy yield.

2. Module mismatch loss: that is another important facet of array losses. It quantifies the
impact of module-to-module variation within the same string of panels, providing insight
into how uniformity affects energy capture.
3. String mismatch loss: this occurs when there's a mismatch between strings of modules
within the array, highlights the effect of differences in performance among strings in a
given array.
4. Module quality loss: signifies the impact of varying quality levels among the solar panels
and how lower-quality modules can lead to decreased overall system efficiency.
143
 5. DC wiring losses: reveal how the electrical wiring within the system can affect energy
transfer and system performance.

Figure 4-24 Array Losses - encompasses specific losses that contribute to reducing
the system's energy generation potential.

4.4.2.1 Near shading assessment

In the evaluation of solar tracking systems' performance over the course of a year, one crucial
factor that merits examination is the effect of near shading. Near shading occurs when shadows,
whether cast by nearby structures or obstructions, partially block sunlight from reaching the
photovoltaic (PV) panels. These shadows can lead to reduced irradiance on the panels, affecting
the energy production of the entire system. Understanding the concept of shading is paramount as
it has a direct impact on the total energy output of the site. To comprehensively assess near shading
and its consequences, figure 4.25 an iso-shading diagram

Figure 4-25 Iso-Shading diagram -shading losses throughout the year.

144
is employed, which provides a visual representation of shading losses throughout the year. This
diagram features five distinct lines, each characterized by varying border styles, representing
shading losses ranging from 1% to 5%, 10%, 20%, and 40% of the total energy output. These lines
are plotted along the solar path for the site's location, shedding light on the variations in shading
intensity over the seasons and months. By analyzing the iso-shading diagram, it can gain valuable
insights into the seasonal changes and the extent of shading impact on the site's energy production.
This analysis aids in developing strategies to mitigate losses and optimize energy yields, ensuring
the best possible performance from the solar tracking system. Figure 4.26 provides a
comprehensive overview of the various losses discussed in this thesis,

Figure 4-26 Array losses category.

145
including near shading, mismatch loss, and PV losses due to temperature. These losses are critical
factors to consider when assessing the performance of bifacial PV systems. By visualizing these
losses together, the figure enables a holistic understanding of their combined impact on the energy
production of the system, facilitating the development of effective strategies to mitigate and
optimize performance.

4.5 Comparative Analysis of Bifacial PV System Performance

The upcoming sections will provide a comprehensive comparison of the photovoltaic (PV)
system's performance across three distinct factors. This will investigate how varying albedo, the
reflecting quality of different surfaces, influences PV performance, it will also be examined the
role of near shading in energy production and offer a comparative analysis between fixed-tilt and
horizontal single-axis tracking (HSAT) systems. These comparisons aim to deliver insights into
the system's efficiency and effectiveness across different scenarios and conditions, ultimately
contributing to the optimization of solar energy capture and the enhancement of overall system
performance.

4.5.1 Albedo Variability Assessment

Section 4.5.1 focuses on the impact of Albedo variation on the system's energy production. Two
diagrams illustrate this. The first diagram, figure 4.27 presents the system's production in kWh
10400
System production kWh/yr
10350
System production [kWh/yr]

10300

10250

10200

10150

10100
0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Albedo

Figure 4-27 System production vs. albedo, the annual energy production of the
system (in kWh/yr) for various Albedo values ranging from 0.1 to 0.9.

146
per year for different Albedo values, ranging from 0.1 to 0.9, with 0.25 representing the Albedo of
the Savona campus site. It is noticeable that the system's production tends to increase nearly
linearly with rising Albedo values. For instance, the production for the site's Albedo of 0.25 is
approximately 10,232 kWh per year. This exploration of Albedo effects helps provide insights into
the system's energy generation capabilities under different reflective conditions.
The second diagram, figure 4.28 presents the assessment of Albedo variation, plotting specific
production values (measured in kWh/kWp/year) against the corresponding Albedo values, which
range from 0.1 to 0.9. Specific production, in this context, refers to the energy production of the
system per unit of installed capacity (kWp) per year. The trend in the diagram is clear: specific
production increases with higher Albedo values, providing evidence that variations in surface
reflectivity can significantly impact the energy production efficiency of the system.

1560
Specific production kWh/kWp/yr
Specific production kWh/kWp/yr

1550

1540

1530

1520

1510

1500
0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Albedo

Figure 4-28 Specific production vs. albedo, the specific production values (in
kWh/kWp/yr) as they relate to different Albedo values, ranging from 0.1 to 0.9.

4.5.2 Near Shading vs. No Near Shading Comparison

Two distinct simulation scenarios were explored to assess the impact of surrounding buildings and
objects on the performance of the PV trackers. The first scenario, representing the ideal case with
no obstructions figures 4.29 and 4.30, yielded a higher system production of 10,854 kWh per year.
147
This ideal scenario serves as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of the trackers under
optimal conditions. However, in the real-world scenario, when considering the presence of
surrounding buildings and objects, the system production was slightly reduced to 10,232 kWh per
year. This reduction highlights the influence of shading and obstructions on the overall energy
production of the PV system, providing valuable insights into the system's efficiency in practical

settings where such obstacles are present.

Figure 4-29 Two arrays of BPV modules without considering surroundings.

Figure 4-30 Two arrays of BPV modules.

148
In Figure 4.31, a comprehensive comparison is presented between the ideal case, where no shadow
effect is considered on system production, and the real case, accounting for varying Albedo levels
in the presence of surrounding objects and buildings. The horizontal axis in the bar chart denotes
different Albedo values ranging from 0.1 to 0.9. This comparison reveals a significant increase in

11400
Ideal case (no shading)

11200 Real case

System production [kWh/yr]

11000

10800

10600

10400

10200

10000
0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Albedo

Figure 4-31 Ideal vs. Real Case Comparison, the system production between the ideal
case and the real case.

system production for each Albedo level in the ideal scenario without shading effects when
compared to the real case, where the presence of obstructions and buildings leads to some degree
of shadowing. The disparities in system production highlight the substantial impact of shading on
the energy output of the PV system, further emphasizing the importance of site-specific
considerations and system design to maximize energy harvest in real-world conditions.

149
4.5.3 Fixed Tilt vs. HSAT Evaluation

In the context of Fixed Tilt vs. HSAT Evaluation, a simulation was conducted under conditions
similar to the real case, with the exception that the two arrays of trackers were replaced by two
rows of fixed-tilt Bifacial PV modules figure 4.32.

Figure 4-32 Two rows of BPV modules considered without tracking system in PVsyst.

The only adjustment made in this scenario was the replacement of the horizontal single-axis
tracking system (HSAT) with a fixed tilt angle for the PV modules. The optimized tilt angle, as
calculated by PVsyst based on the plane orientation (azimuth angle), is 35.0 degrees, as depicted
in figure 4.33.

Figure 4.33 The optimized tilt angle calculated by PVsyst based on the plane
orientation (azimuth angle).

150
This comparison allows for an assessment of the impact of using fixed tilt modules in lieu of the
tracking system on energy production and system performance in the given location.
In the simulation with a fixed tilt angle of 35 degrees, various Albedo values ranging from 0.1 to
0.9, as well as the actual Albedo of 0.25 for the Savona site, were considered. The results, as
depicted in Figure 4.34, reveal that the system production for Bifacial PV modules with a fixed tilt
of 35 degrees and an albedo of 0.25 over the course of a year amounts to 9089 [kWh/yr]. In
comparison, the system production for HSAT of Bifacial PV modules is 10232 [kWh/yr]. This
indicates that HSAT yields a 12.18% increase in system production over a fixed tilt angle of 35
degrees. The comparison underscores the performance difference between these two
configurations.

10500
10300 Fixed tilt HSAT
System production [kWh/yr]

10100
9900
9700
9500
9300
9100
8900
8700
8500
0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Albedo

Figure 4-34 Performance comparison, the performance comparison between Bifacial

PV modules with a fixed tilt of 35 degrees and an albedo of 0.25 versus HSAT.

151
4.6 Conclusion
Chapter 4 has been instrumental in the pursuit of understanding and optimizing the photovoltaic
system at the Savona Campus. It has been a journey through complex mathematical models,
computer simulations, and empirical analyses, all aimed at comprehending the multifaceted factors
influencing system performance. This chapter culminated in three critical areas of investigation.
Chapter 4.5.1 delved into the impact of surface reflectivity or albedo on the photovoltaic system's
performance. Albedo, the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected by a surface, played a pivotal
role in determining the efficiency of the system. The implications of different albedo values on
energy generation became abundantly clear. Higher albedo values led to increased energy
production, with the Savona site's albedo value of 0.25 offering a promising perspective for
sustainable energy generation.
Chapter 4.5.2 navigated the realm of shading, a prevalent and often underestimated factor
impacting system productivity. Simulations and analyses illustrated the substantial difference
between the ideal case, without any shadowing from nearby objects or buildings, and the real case
where such obstructions significantly affect energy generation. The findings underscored the need
for careful site planning, considering shadow effects from surrounding structures.
In Chapter 4.5.3, a comparative analysis between the horizontal single-axis tracking (HSAT) and
fixed tilt systems was undertaken, with a particular focus on Savona's unique circumstances. This
investigation showcased the remarkable superiority of HSAT, consistently yielding up to 10%
more energy compared to fixed tilt systems. This reinforces the importance of precision sun
tracking and its potential to maximize energy output, particularly in locations like Savona.
The synthesis of these chapters paints a vivid picture of the complex interplay of factors that impact
the performance of photovoltaic systems. From the role of albedo to the influence of shading and
the pivotal significance of tracking mechanisms, this chapter epitomizes the intricate nature of
solar energy generation. These findings have broad implications, extending far beyond the scope
of this particular site. They offer invaluable insights into how solar energy can be harnessed most
efficiently and sustainably in diverse settings and contexts.

152
 CHAPTER 5

Conclusion

This comprehensive study has explored the design, implementation, and performance evaluation
of a photovoltaic system situated at the Savona Campus of the University of Genoa. The journey
initiated with an examination of the theoretical foundations of photovoltaic systems, laying a
robust groundwork for the practical aspects of this project. It is examined the intricate relationships
between geometry, solar incidence angles, and shading effects on system productivity.
The research progressed into the realm of tracking systems, particularly the horizontal single-axis
tracking (HSAT) design. Our meticulous analysis of HSAT unveiled its crucial role in maximizing
energy capture. The comparative analysis between HSAT and fixed tilt systems revealed the
former's superiority, consistently achieving up to a 10% increase in system production. This
underscores the pivotal importance of precise sun tracking and its remarkable potential to boost
energy output.
Furthermore, it delved into the influence of near shading and albedo values, offering valuable
insights into the environmental factors of the site. When accounting for surrounding obstructions,
a tangible reduction in system production was observed, emphasizing the necessity of considering
local conditions in system planning. Albedo, or surface reflectivity, emerged as a key determinant
of system performance. Exploration of different albedo values confirmed the profound impact of

153
surface properties on energy generation, and the correlation between increased albedo and
enhanced energy output was clearly established.
A vital aspect of this endeavor has been the integration of mathematical models and computer
simulations. The intricate mathematical relationships governing energy incidence angles and
system performance were put to practical use through the PVsyst software. It enabled forecasting
and evaluation of the system's energy yield under various conditions, serving as a crucial tool for
system design and optimization.
The chapter, "Simulation Outputs and Performance Metrics," detailed the outcomes of systematic
analyses. It discussed normalized energy production, loss assessments, and detailed figures,
shedding light on the complexities and interdependencies of the photovoltaic system's performance
factors. The discussion extended to the normalized system productions, revealing that system loss
plays a critical role in optimizing the system's energy yield.
In the final chapter, the study reached a critical juncture by comparing various aspects of system
performance. The chapter featured comparative studies between fixed tilt and HSAT, the real and
ideal cases, and the impact of albedo variation on system production. The key findings were
unequivocal: HSAT outperforms fixed tilt systems, taking full advantage of precise sun tracking.
Shadowing effects from nearby structures can result in a noticeable drop in energy generation,
emphasizing the importance of site-specific system design. The impact of albedo on energy
production was undeniably significant, reaffirming the need to account for surface properties in
the system's design and evaluation.
As the dust settles on this comprehensive analysis, the overarching conclusion is clear: The
performance of the photovoltaic system at the Savona Campus is inextricably linked to local
environmental factors, system configuration, and precise tracking mechanisms. The findings offer
valuable guidance not only for the optimal operation of the Savona site but also for the broader
realm of solar energy generation. With the knowledge gleaned from this study, one is better
equipped to harness the full potential of photovoltaic systems, thereby contributing to sustainable
and efficient solar energy utilization.
In the coming phases, the analysis will be further strengthened through the validation process with
real-world data gathered from the operation of the Savona PV plant. Both short-term and long-
term data will be meticulously collected and analyzed to provide a comprehensive understanding
of the system's performance. This validation will not only enhance the precision of our analytical
154
models but also provide valuable insights into the real-world behavior of bifacial PV systems. By
comparing the simulation outcomes with the actual data obtained from Savona, we aim to refine
our predictions and provide a more accurate basis for decision-making in renewable energy
projects.

155
156
 Bibliography

[1] World Energy Council. (2019). World Energy Issues Monitor 2019: Humanising Energy. Retrieved
from https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/downloads/Issues_Monitor_2019_full_report.pdf
[2] International Energy Agency. (2020). Global Energy Review 2020: The impacts of the COVID-19
crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports/global-
energy-review-2020

[3] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2021). Energy and
Climate Change. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/topics/energy-and-climate-change

[4] International Energy Agency. (2021). Energy Efficiency 2021: A Systematic Analysis of Policy
Measures in G20 Countries. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-efficiency-2021

[5] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2021). Global Renewables Outlook: Energy
Transformation 2050. Retrieved from
https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Apr/IRENA_Global_Renewabl
es_Outlook_2020.pdf

[6] International Energy Agency. (2021). World Energy Outlook 2021. Retrieved from
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021

[7] United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. (n.d.). Affordable and Clean Energy. Retrieved
from https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal7

157
[8] European Commission. (2021). EU Energy Efficiency Directive. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-directive_en

[9] United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2020). Sustainable Energy for
Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://www.unido.org/our-focus-safeguarding-
environment-energy/sustainable-energy-sustainable-development

[10] Antošová, V., Brestovič, T., Klčo, Ľ., & Chovanec, F. (2018). Bifacial Photovoltaic Technology:
A Review. Energies, 11(12), 3340. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11123340

[11] Yuan, M., et al. (2019). Assessment of Bifacial Photovoltaic System Energy Yield: A Global
Perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 111, 258-273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.052

[12] International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). (2021). Renewable Power Generation Costs
in 2020. https://www.irena.org/-
/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2021/Apr/IRENA_Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-
2020.pdf

[13] Deline, C., et al. (2020). Bifacial Photovoltaic Technology: An Overview of National Laboratory
Study Results. Solar Energy, 200, 169-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.02.010

[14] Huld, T., et al. (2018). Bifacial Photovoltaics: Technology, Applications and Potential. IEA-PVPS
Technical Report, 16. https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/IEA-
PVPS_T16_Bifacial_Photovoltaics_2018.pdf

[15] Albrecht, P., et al. (2020). The Performance of Bifacial PV Modules and Systems: Results from a
Round-Robin Measurement Campaign. Solar Energy, 201, 108-115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.03.059

[16] Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE). (2021). Bifacial Photovoltaics: 2021
Yearbook. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/veroeffentlichungen-pdf-dateien-en/studien-
und-konzeptpapiere/bifacial-photovoltaics-2021-yearbook.html

[17] The OECD Environmental Outlook Baseline projections; IMAGE model

[18] Benda, V.; Cerna, L. A Note on Limits and Trends in PV Cells and Modules. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12,
3363. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12073363

158
[19] Yakubu, R.O.; Ankoh, M.T.; Mensah, L.D.; Quansah, D.A.; Adaramola, M.S. Predicting the
Potential Energy Yield of Bifacial Solar PV Systems in Low-Latitude Region. Energies 2022, 15, 8510.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228510

[20] International technology roadmap for photovoltaic (ITRPV). URL:

http://www.itrpv.net/Reports/Downloads/. Sixth edition

[21]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345261338_Optimum_design_of_tracking_bifacial_sol
ar_farms_--_A_comprehensive_global_analysis_of_next-generation_PV.

[22] Pelaez SA, Deline C, Greenberg P, Stein JS, Kostuk RK. Model and Validation of Single-Axis
Tracking with Bifacial PV. IEEE J Photovoltaics 2019;9:715–21.
doi:10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2892872.

[23] Janssen, G.J.M.; Burgers, A.R.; Binani, A.; Carr, A.J.; Aken, B.B. van; Romijn, I.G.; Klenk, M.;
Nussbaumer, H.; Baumann T. How to Maximize the KWH/KWP Ratio: Simulations of Single-axis
Tracking in Bifacial Systems. Int. Conf. EU PVSEC Photovoltaics Res. 2428 Sept. 2018, Brussels,
Belgium, 1-5, 2018.

[24] Egido MA, Lorenzo E. Bifacial photovoltaic panels with sun tracking. Int J Sol Energy 1986;4:97–
107. doi:10.1080/01425918608909842

[25] Pérez Oria J, Sala G. A good combination: Tracking of the sun in polar axis and bifacial
photovoltaic modules. Sol Wind Technol 1988;5:629–36. doi:10.1016/0741983X(88)90060-4.

[26] Zengwei Z, Zhen Z, Yongfeng J, Haolin L, Shengcheng Z. Performance analysis on bifacial PV

panels with inclined and horizontal east-west sun trackers. IEEE J Photovoltaics 2019;9:636–42.
doi:10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2899472.

[27] Zengwei Z, Zhen Z, Yongfeng J, Haolin L, Shengcheng Z. Performance analysis on bifacial PV

panels with inclined and horizontal east-west sun trackers. IEEE J Photovoltaics 2019;9:636–42.
doi:10.1109/JPHOTOV.2019.2899472.

[28] Bizarri F. Innovative bifacial PV plant at La Silla observatory in Chile. 4th Bifi PV Work.
Konstanz, Ger. 2017, n.d.

[29] Chang TP. Performance study on the east-west oriented single-axis tracked panel. Energy
2009;34:1530–8. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2009.06.044

159
[30] Sun X, Khan MR, Deline C, Alam MA. Optimization and performance of bifacial solar modules:
A global perspective. Appl Energy 2018;212:1601–10. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.12.041.

[31] Rodríguez-Gallegos CD, Bieri M, Gandhi O, Singh JP, Reindl T, Panda SK. Monofacial vs bifacial
Si-based PV modules: Which one is more cost-effective? Sol Energy 2018;176:412–38.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2018.10.012.

[32] A Di Stefano, G Leotta FB. La Silla PV plant as a utility-scale side-by-side test for innovative
modules technologies. 33rd Eur. Photovolt. Sol. Energy Conf. Exhib., 2017.

[33] Stein JS, Riley D, Lave M, Hansen C, Deline C, Toor F. Outdoor Field
Performance from Bifacial Photovoltaic Modules and Systems 2018:3184–9.
doi:10.1109/pvsc.2017.8366042.

[34] Huld T, Suri M. Performance of Single-Axis Tracking Photovoltaic Systems in Europe. Photovolt
Int 2009:1– 5.

[35] OECD Environmental Outlook Baseline; ENV-Linkages model

[36] Greenpeace International and European Photovoltaic Industry Association. Solar photovoltaic
electricity empowering the world - https://wayback.archive-it.org

[37] E. Matthews. ATLAS of archived vegetation, land-use and seasonal Albedo data sets. Goddard
Space Flight Center,New York, NY, Jan 1985.

[38] K Kotoda. Estimation of river basin evapotranspiration from consideration of topographies

and land use conditions. IAHS Publishing, 177:271{281, 1989.

[39] URL http://www.viridiansolar.co.uk/Solar Energy Guide 5 2.htm. Picture,

Accessed: 12.08.2015.

[40] Greenpeace International and European Photovoltaic Industry Association. Solar photovoltaic
electricity empowering the world. URL http:
//www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/Final%20SolarGe
neration%20VI%20full%20report%20lr.pdf. Report: Solar Generation 6.

[41] C. Gueymard. Smarts2 code, versión 2.9. 2. user’s manual, solar consulting services bailey co,
2003.

160
[42] J. J. Michalsky. The astronomical almanac’s algorithm for approximate solar position (1950–
2050). Solar energy, 40(3):227–235, 1988.

[43] I. Reda and A. Andreas. Solar position algorithm for solar radiation applications (vol 76, pg 577,
2004). Solar Energy, 81(6):838–838, 2007.

[44] Endre Dobos. Albedo. URL http://www.uni-miskolc.hu/~ecodobos/14334.pdf. University of

Miskolc, Hungary, Accessed: 10.08.2015.

[45] G Eshel, GJ Levy, and MJ Singer. Spectral reectance properties of crusted soils under solar
illumination. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68:1982{1991, 2004.

[46] TC. Russell, R. Saive, and H. A. Atwater. Thermodynamic e_ciency limit of bifacial solar cells
for various spectral albedos. In 2017 IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), pages
1531–1536. IEEE, 2017.

[47] F. Yang, K. Mitchell, Y. Hou, Y. Dai, X. Zeng, Z. Wang, and X. Liang. Dependence of land
surface albedo on solar zenith angle: Observations and model parameterization. Journal of Applied
Meteorology and Climatology, 47(11):2963–2982, 2008.

[48] O. M. Román, C. B. Schaaf, P. Lewis, F. Gao, G. P. Anderson, J. L. Privette, A. H. Strahler, C.

EWoodcock, and M. Barnsley. Assessing the coupling between surface albedo derived from modis and
the fraction of di_use skylight over spatially characterized landscapes. Remote sensing of environment,
114(4):738–760, 2010.

[49] Levelized cost of electricity renewable energy technologies. URL http:

//www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/downloads/pdf-files/aktuelles/photovoltaics-report-in-englischer-
sprache.pdf. Study, Edition: November 2013.

[50] Matthew Buresch. Photovoltaic energy systems: Design and installation. 1983.

[51] Richard H Bube and Richard Howard Bube. Photovoltaic materials, volume 1. World

Scienti_c, Hackensack, NJ, 1998.

[52] Martin A Green. Solar cells: operating principles, technology, and system applications.

1982.

[53] J. A. Du_e andW. A. Beckman. Solar engineering of thermal processes. Wiley New York, 1991.

[54] V. Fakhfouri. Photovoltaic devices–part 1-2: Measurement of current-voltage characteristics of

161
bifacial photovoltaic (pv) devices. IEC TS 60904-1-2 ED1, draft, 2015.

[55] Joris Libal and Radovan Kopecek. N-type silicon solar cell technology: ready for take o_? URL
http://www.pv-tech.org/guest blog/n type silicon solar cell technology ready for take off. Accessed:
10.08.2015.

[56] Stephan Suckow, Tobias M Pletzer, and Heinrich Kurz. Fast and reliable calculation of the two-
diode model without simpli_cations. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications,
22:494{501, 2014.

[57] Kashif Ishaque, Zainal Salam, et al. A comprehensive matlab simulink pv system

simulator with partial shading capability based on two-diode model. Solar Energy,

85:2217{2227, 2011.

[58] Kashif Ishaque, Zainal Salam, Hamed Taheri, et al. Modeling and simulation of photovoltaic (pv)
system during partial shading based on a two-diode model. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory,
19:1613{1626, 2011

[59] Kashif Ishaque, Zainal Salam, Hamed Taheri, et al. Modeling and simulation of photovoltaic (pv)
system during partial shading based on a two-diode model. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory,
19:1613{1626, 2011

[60] H. Mori. Radiation energy transducing device, Patent US3278811 A, 11-oct, 1966. URL https:

//patents.google.com/patent/US3278811A/en.

[61] V. Fakhfouri. Photovoltaic devices–part 1-2: Measurement of current-voltage characteristics of

bifacial photovoltaic (pv) devices. IEC TS 60904-1-2 ED1, draft, 2015.

[62] R. Kopecek and J. Libal. Bifacial Cells. In Bifacial Photovoltaics: Technology, Applications and

Economics;. Energy Engineering. Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2018. ISBN

9781785612749. URL https://books.google.de/books?id=zVyotAEACAAJ.

[63] C. Tang, J.and Ju, R. Lv, X. Zeng, J. Chen, D. Fu, J.N. Jaubert, and T. Xu. The performance of
double glass photovoltaic modules under composite test conditions. Energy Procedia, 130:87–93,
2017.

162
[64] Jai Prakash Singh, Armin G Aberle, and Timothy M Walsh. Electrical characterization method for
bifacial photovoltaic modules. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 127:136, 142, 2014.

[65] Alexander Edler, Michel Schlemmer, Joachim Ranzmeyer, and Rudolf Harney. Flasher setup for
bifacial measurements. In Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on Computer graphics and
interactive techniques. bi_PV workshop, April 2012.

[66] R. Guerrero-Lemus, R.and Vega, T. Kim, A. Kimm, and L.E. Shephard. Bifacial solar
photovoltaics–a technology review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 60:1533–1549, 2016.

[67] D. Berrian, M. Fathi, and M. Kechouane. Numerical Optimization of a Bifacial Bi-Glass Thin-
Film

a-Si:H Solar Cell for Higher Conversion E_ciency. Journal of ElectronicMaterials, 47(2):1140–1150,

feb 2017. ISSN 0361-5235. doi: 10.1007/s11664-017-5828-7. URL http://link.springer.com/

10.1007/s11664-017-5828-7.

[68] I. Shoukry. Master of Science Thesis BifacialModules- Simulation and Experiment, Stuttgart
University, 2015.

[69] H. Nussbaumer, G. Janssen, D. Berrian, B. Wittmer, M. Klenk, T. Baumann, F. Baumgartner, M.

Morf, A. Burgers, J. Libal, and A. Mermoud. Accuracy of simulated data for bifacial systems with
varying tilt angles and share of di_use radiation. Solar Energy, 197:6–21, 2020.

[70] D. Berrian, J. Libal, M. Klenk, H. Nussbaumer, and R. Kopecek. Performance of bifacial pv arrays

with _xed tilt and horizontal single-axis tracking: comparison of simulated and measured data. IEEE

Journal of Photovoltaics, 9(6):1583–1589, 2019.

[71] Volker Quaschning. Understanding renewable energy systems, volume 1. Earthscan, Oxford,
2005.

[72] V Badescu. 3d isotropic approximation for solar di_use irradiance on tilted surfaces.

Renewable Energy, 26:221{233, 2002.

[73] Ali Mohammad Noorian, Isaac Moradi, and Gholam Ali Kamali. Evaluation of 12 models to
estimate hourly di_use irradiation on inclined surfaces. Renewable energy, 33:1406{1412, 2008.

163
[74] KN Shukla, Saroj Rangnekar, and K Sudhakar. Comparative study of isotropic and anisotropic sky
models to estimate solar radiation incident on tilted surface: A case study for bhopal, india. Energy
Reports, 1:96{103, 2015.

[75] A. Mermoud and B. Wittmer. Pvsysts newframework to simulate bifacial systems

pvpmcworkshop. In Proc. PVPMCWorkshop, 2016.

[76] U. Gross, K. Spindler, and E. Hahne. Shapefactor-equations for radiation heat transfer between
plane rectangular surfaces of arbitrary position and size with parallel boundaries. Letters in Heat and
Mass Transfer, 8(3):219–227, 1981. ISSN 00944548. doi: 10.1016/0094-4548(81)90016-3.

[76] B. Soria, E. Gerritsen, P. Le_llastre, and J.E. Broquin. A study of the annual performance of
bifacial photovoltaic modules in the case of vertical facade integration. Energy Science & Engineering,
4(1): 52–68, 2016.

[77] C. Reise and A. Schmid. Realistic Yield Expectations for Bifacial PV Systems - an Assessment of
Announced, Predicted and Observed Bene_ts. 6th PVPMC Workshop, Freiburg, 2015. URL
https://www.slideshare.net/sandiaecis/42-reise-realisticyieldexpectationsforbifacialpvsystems-
56350717.

[78] C.K. Lo, Y.S. Lim, and F. Abd Rahman. New integrated simulation tool for the optimum design
of bifacial solar panel with re_ectors on a speci_c site. Renewable Energy, 81:293–307, 2015.

[79] C. Deline and S. Ayala. bifacial_radiance . computer software., 2017. URL https://github.com/

NREL/bifacial_radiance.

[80] G. J. Ward. The radiance lighting simulation and rendering system. In Proceedings of the 21st
annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 459–472, 1994.

[81] J.E. Castillo-Aguilella and P.S. Hauser. Bifacial photovoltaic module best-_t annual energy yield

model with azimuthal correction. In Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), IEEE 44th (PVSC),

number June, pages 1–4, 2017. ISBN 978-1-5090-2724-8. doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2016.7750238.

[82] M. Kutzer, A. Fülle, A. Jahnke, J. Becker, S. Wendt, D.H. Neuhaus, A. Witzig, and K.M. Kutzer.

Ertragssteigerung durch bifaciale modultechnologie. In Proc. 31st Symp. Photovolt. Sol. Energy, pages
1–10, 2016.

164
[83] Technology, Applications and Economics. Energy Engineering. Institution of Engineering and
Technology, 2018. ISBN 9781785612749. URL https://books.google.de/books?id=zVyotAEACAAJ.

[84] B. Marion, S. MacAlpine, C. Deline, A. Asgharzadeh, F. Toor, D. Riley, J. Stein, and C. Hansen.
A practical irradiance model for bifacial pv modules. In 2017 IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist
Conference (PVSC), pages 1537–1542. IEEE, 2017.

[85] B. Marion. Numerical method for angle-of-incidence correction factors for di_use radiation
incident photovoltaic modules. Solar Energy, 147:344–348, 2017.

[86] S. Ayala. Bifacial solar panels system design, modeling, and performance. 2019.

[87] A. Asgharzadeh. Bifacial photovoltaic (pv) system performance modeling utilizing ray tracing.
2019.

[88] D. Robinson and A. Stone. Irradiation modelling made simple: the cumulative sky approach and
its applications. In PLEA Conference, pages 19–22, 2004.

[89] R. Perez, R. Seals, and J. Michalsky. All-weather model for sky luminance distribution-
preliminary con_guration and validation. Solar energy, 50(3):235–245, 1993.

[90] Richard Perez, Pierre Ineichen, Robert Seals, Joseph Michalsky, and Ronald Stewart. Modeling
daylight availability and irradiance components from direct and global irradiance. Solar energy,
44:271{289, 1990.

[91] Pierre Ineichen, Olivier Guisan, and Richard Perez. Ground-reected radiation and albedo. Solar
Energy, 44:207{214, 1990.

[92] Y. Cengel and A. Ghajar. Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals and Applications + EES DVD
for Heat and Mass Transfer. McGraw-Hill Education, Columbus, OH, 2010. ISBN 9780077366643

[93] John R Howell, Robert Siegel, and M Pinar Menguc. Thermal radiation heat transfer. CRC press,
Boca Raton, FL, 2010.

[94] U. Gross, K. Spindler, and E. Hahne. Shapefactor-equations for radiation heat transfer between
plane rectangular surfaces of arbitrary position and size with parallel boundaries. Letters in Heat and
Mass Transfer, 8:219{227, 1981.

[95] Robert Piessens, Elise de Doncker-Kapenga, Christoph W Uberhuber, and David K Kahaner.
QUADPACK: a subroutine package for automatic integration, volume 1. Springer Science & Business
Media, Berlin, 2012.
165
[96] J. A. Du_e andW. A. Beckman. Solar engineering of thermal processes. Wiley New York, 1991

[97] D.L. King, J.A. Kratochvil, and W.E. Boyson. Photovoltaic array performance model. United
States. Department of Energy, 2004.

[98] J. Sutterlueti, S. Ransome, J. Stein, and J. Scholz. Improved pv performance modelling by

combining the pv_lib toolbox with the loss factors model (lfm). In 2015 IEEE 42nd Photovoltaic
Specialist Conference (PVSC), pages 1–6. IEEE, 2015.

[99] W. De Soto, S.A. Klein, andW.A Beckman. Improvement and validation of a model for
photovoltaic array performance. Solar energy, 80(1):78–88, 2006.

[100] Gaby JM Janssen, Bas B Van Aken, Anna J Carr, and Agnes A Mewe. Outdoor performance of
bifacial modules by measurements and modelling. Energy Procedia, 77:364{373, 2015.

[101] RG Ross Jr. Flat-plate photovoltaic array design optimization. In 14th Photovoltaic Specialists
Conference, volume 1, pages 1126{1132, 1980.

[102] Ufuk Yusufoglu, Tobias M Pletzer, Lejo Joseph Koduvelikulathu, Corrado Comparotto, Radovan
Kopecek, Heinrich Kurz, et al. Analysis of the annual performance of bifacial modules and optimization
methods. IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, 5:320{328, 2015.

[103] Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-58891, July 2013,

https://www.nrel.gov/research/publications.html?utm_medium=print&utm_source=corporate&utm_c
ampaign=pubs.

[104] Michalsky, J.J. (1988). “The Astronomical Almanac’s Algorithm for Approximate Solar Position
(1950−2050).” Solar Energy (40); pp. 227–235.

[105] Errata. (1988). Solar Energy (41); p. 113.

[106] Marion, W.; Urban, K. (1995). User’s Manual for TMY2s−Typical Meteorological Years Derived
from the 1961−1990 National Solar Radiation Data Base. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.

[107] Perez, R.; Inceichen, P.; Seals, R.; Michalsky, J.; Stewart, R. (1990). “Modeling Daylight
Availability and Irradiance Components from Daylight and Global Irradiance.” Solar Energy (44); pp.
271–289.

166