Comparative performance testing of photovoltaic modules in tropical climates of

Indonesia
Oo Abdul Rosyid

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1712, 020004 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4941865

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4941865
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1712/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Comparative Performance Testing of Photovoltaic Modules
in Tropical Climates of Indonesia
Oo Abdul Rosyid

The Energy Technology Center, Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (B2TE-BPPT)
Kawasan Puspiptek Serpong, Tangerang 15314 – Indonesia

Corresponding author: rosyid_id@yahoo.com

Abstract -Solar energy is one of the most significant types of the sustainable and renewable energy sources that have
been used in Indonesia. Photovoltaic (PV) is known as the direct conversion of the sunlight to electricity energy with the
used of solar cells. There are number of different types of solar PV modules, from an ever increasing range of
manufacturers. Each of them claims that they are the best for one reason or another. This paper reports the study results
of energy yield measurements of different PV module technologies performed at the outdoor testing facility of the
Energy Technology Center (B2TE-BPPT) Kawasan Puspiptek Serpong-Indonesia from March 2014 through February
2015. The purposes of the study wereto evaluate and compare the performances of three different PV modules during a
medium term outdoor exposure at the tropical climate of Indonesia. Normalized energy yields (Y), module efficiency (K),
and performance ratio (PR) were calculated for each module, and the effect of module temperature and solar irradiance
on these parameters was investigated. Monocrystalline PV module was better in terms of module efficiency and overall
power production. Meanwhile micromorph silicon (uc-Si) showed the lowest module efficiency, but the more power
production compared with polycrystalline PV module. Module efficiency and performance ratio showed a decreasing
trend with increase of module temperature.

INTRODUCTION
Solar energy is one of the most significant types of the sustainable and renewable energy sources that have been
used in Indonesia. However, development of solar photovoltaic energy in Indonesia is still low due to the investment
costs are still expensive. An efficient system design and PV technology (e.g. PV module) selection suitable to the
Indonesian climatic becomes very important. Although, PV modules manufactures are present on the market
claiming high performance and high reliability of their products, but the rated values of PV modules provided by the
manufacturer are based on the Standard Test Conditions (i.e., irradiance 1000 W/m2, module temperature 25ͼC, and
AM 1.5), do not meet operating outdoor conditions due to the varying outdoor parameters. Therefore, the
performance testing of PV modules at outdoor conditions is required to have an accurate estimation of output of PV
modules under specific climate.
Different researches and scientists have worked on the performance evaluation of photovoltaic system under
different climates. Markus Schweiger, Ulrike Jahn, Werner Herrmann [1] conducted an experimental study to
evaluate the performance of 12 different types of PV modules: two crystalline modules (mono- and poly- crystalline
silicon to compare with thin-film specimens), three CI(G)S modules (CIS and CIGS), one CdTe module and six
amorphous silicon modules (a-Si; a-Si/a-Si, a- Si/μ -Si), in Germany/European climates. The results showed that
with respect to the low irradiance behaviour, the CdTe, the c-Si and some of the a-Si specimens showed good
performance. The best efficiency curves of tested thin-film modules were achieved by CI(G)S. Carr and Pryor [3]
evaluated and compared the performance of five different PV modules using an outdoor facility in the climate of
Perth for one year. They found that amorphous silicon module has highest performance ratio with maximum energy
produced at that site. Akhmad et al. [4] investigated the outdoor performance of polycrystalline and amorphous
silicon module and found that amorphous silicon module has better efficiency and output power in summer. A

2nd Padjadjaran International Physics Symposium 2015 (PIPS-2015)

AIP Conf. Proc. 1712, 020004-1–020004-8; doi: 10.1063/1.4941865
© 2016 AIP Publishing LLC 978-0-7354-1359-7/$30.00

020004-1
similar study was conducted by Midtgard et al [5] at the site of Norway to investigate the performance of three PV
modules (monocrystalline, polycrystalline, and micromorphsilicon). They concluded that monocrystalline module
was better in terms of module efficiency and overall power production.
Module temperature affects the output of PV modules. The temperature effect of the module output has been
reported by different researchers [7–11]. Meneses-Rodrıguez et al. [11] investigated the effect of ambient
temperature on PV modules for three years and found a linear behaviour between output power and ambient
temperature. One important factor associated with the amorphous silicon module is the effect of photo-degradation.
The a-Si modules undergo some degradation resulting in a decrease in module performance.
This paper deal with an extensive PV modules monitoring activity carried out at outdoor testing facility of the
Energy Technology Center, at Kawasan Puspiptek Serpong - Indonesia. The purpose of the work was to evaluate
and compare the performances of three different PV modules during a medium term outdoor exposure at the tropical
climate of Indonesia, with an optimized tilted angle, North facing. The most relevant parameters for the performance
comparison of the PV modules are the energy yields (Y) and Performance Ratio (PR), evaluated on a monthly and
yearly basis. Three PV modules, monocrystalline, polycrystalline, and microcrystalline amorphoussilicon or
micromorphsilicon has been exposed since March 2014.

SOLAR PV TECHNOLOGY
Photovoltaic (PV) solar cells directly convert sunlight into electricity, using the photovoltaic effect. The process
works even on cloudy or rainy days, though with reduced the production and conversion efficiency. PV cells are
assembled into modules to build modular PV systems that are used to generate electricity in both grid-connected and
off -grid applications, such as residential and commercial buildings, industrial facilities, remote and rural areas and
power plants (i.e. utility PV systems). Over the past decades PV technology has been constantly improving
performance and reducing costs. Most recently, rapid cost reductions are enabling PV plants to become
economically competitive not only in niche markets such as off -grid installations, but also for on-grid applications.
Commercial PV technologies include wafer-based crystalline silicon (c-Si) (either mono-crystalline or poly-
crystalline silicon) and thin-films (TF) using amorphous Si (a-Si/uc-Si), cadmium-telluride (CdTe) and copper-
indium[gallium]-[di]selenide-[di]sulphide (CI[G]S). The c-Si systems accounted for 89% of the market in 2011, the
rest being TF.
TABLE 1. The brief comparison of the PV Technologies
Cell Technology Crystalline Silicon Thin Film
Amorphous silicon (a-Si)
Mono-crystalline silicon (c-Si)
Cadmium Telluride (CdTe)
Types of Technology Poly-crystalline silicon (pc-Si/ mc-Si)
Copper Indium Gallium Selenide (CIG/ CIGS)
String Ribbon
Organic photovoltaic (OPV/ DSC/ DYSC)
Voltage Rating (Vmp/ Voc)
80%-85% 72%-78%
(Higher is better)
Lower
Temperature Coefficients Higher
(Lower is beneficial at high ambient temperatures)
I-V Curve Fill Factor
73%-82% 60%-68%
(Idealized PV cell is 100%)
Frameless, sandwiched between glass;
Module construction With Anodized Aluminum
lower cost, lower weight
Module efficiency 13%-19% 4%- 12%
System designer has to consider
Inverter Compatibility and Lower temperature coefficient factor such as temperature coefficients,
Sizing is beneficial Voc-Vmp difference, isolation resistance due to
external factors
May require more number of circuit combiners
DC wiring Industry standard
and fuses
Application Type Residential/ Commercial/ Utility Commercial/ Utility

020004-2
 The basic element of a PV system is the PV solar cell that converts solar energy into direct-current (DC)
electricity. PV cells are assembled and electrically interconnected to form PV modules. Several PV modules are
connected in a series and/ or in parallel to increase voltage and/or current, respectively. An inverter is needed to
convert DC into AC for grid integration and use with most electrical appliances. Modules and balance of system (i.e.
inverter, racking, power control, cabling and batteries, if any) form a modular PV system with a capacity ranging
from a few kW to virtually hundreds of MW. PV systems can be integrated into building structures (i.e. building-
adaptive or integrated PV systems, BAPV or BIPV), placed on roofs or ground-based. A number of PV technologies
are either commercially available or under development. They can be grouped into three categories that are also
referred to as 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation: 1) wafer-based crystalline silicon (c-Si); 2) thin-films (TF); and 3)
emerging and novel PV technologies, including concentrating PV, organic PV, advanced thin films and other novel
concepts. Over the past two decades, PV technologies have dramatically improved their performance (i.e. efficiency,
lifetime, energy pay-back time) and reduced their costs, and this trend is expected to continue in the future.

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND METHODOLOGY

The research activity has been carried out at the B2TE-BPPT outdoor testing facility at Kawasan Puspiptek
Serpong-Indonesia. The installation and its measurement configuration is shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Three
commercially available PV modules (monocrystalline, polycrystalline, and micromorphsilicon modules) used in this
study have been placed on a North facing structure at a fixed tilt angle of 15ͼC with horizontal plane.

FIGURE 1. PV modules outdoor testing FIGURE 2.The PV outdoor testing configuration

installation at B2TE-BPPT, Kawasan Puspiptek
Serpong-Indonesia

TABLE 2. Physical dimensions and rated technical specifications values of photovoltaic modules.
Specification m-Si p-Si uc-Si
Type Len-180 SW135 NT-145AX
Module dimension (mm × mm) 1575*806 1508*640 1412*1112
Cell dimensions (mm × mm) 125*125 156*156 1412*1112
No. of cells (in series) 72 36 1
Weight (kg) 16.5 11.8 19.8
Maximum power, ܲmax (Wp) 180 135 145
Maximum current, ‫ܫ‬max (A) 5.06 7.69 2.26
Maximum voltage, ܸmax (V) 35.6 17.7 64.2
Short circuit current, ‫ܫ‬sc (A) 5.52 8.16 2.51
Open circuit voltage, ܸoc (V) 44.1 21.9 85.5
Module efficiency(%) 14.5 13 10
Temp. coefficient of ‫ܫ‬sc (%/‫ ל‬C) - 0.034 -0.07
Temp. coefficient of ܸoc (%/‫ ל‬C) - -0.34 -32
Temp. coefficient of ܲ (%/ ‫ ל‬C) - -0.48 -28

Table 2 shows the technical specifications and physical dimension of PV modules used in this study. Each PV
module is connected to dummy load through a power conditioner system (PCS) to deliver its energy production.

020004-3
Voltage, current, temperature of each PV module and weather data, such as module temperature, irradiance (in-
plane, horizontal and ambient temperature were measured and recorded in a data logger with time interval of 1
minute and transferred to a PC for further evaluation.
The module efficiency depends upon area of the modules. Module area is the actual area of the module in which
photovoltaic process takes place including with frames. The PR is the performance of modules at actual operating
conditions compared to their performance at STC. The global solar radiation (GSR) in plane with the PV modules
was measured using a pyrano meter ML-02VMEko Instrument (sensitivity 7.13ߤV/Wm−2, spectral range
280‫׽‬3000nm). The RTD sensors were used for module temperatures. All the above measurement parameters are
connected to data logger (GP10, Yokogawa), which records all data and transfers it into PC and internet. An
electronic load was connected to PV modules through power conditioner system (PCS) to consume energy
production from PV modules. The experiments were performed at Serpong, Banten (Latitude 6.00S, longitude
1060E). Measurements were taken for a year period on hourly basis from 4am to7pm. The performance related
parameters of PV modules were calculated using following equations:
The efficiency at STC is defined as
௉೙೚೘
ߟௌ்஼ ൌ (1)
஺‫ீכ‬ೄ೅಴

Where Pnom is the nominal power (or peak power) at STC, A is the surface area of the module and GSTC is their
2
radiance of 1,000 W/m .This efficiency can be derived from the specification given by the manufacturer or can be
evaluated through in door measurements using a sun simulator. When the PV module is working in the real
environment at its maximum power point its real efficiency can be defined as follow:
௉೘ೌೣ
ߟൌ (2)
஺‫ீכ‬೛೚ೌ

Where Pmax is the PV module electrical power produced at the maximum power point of operation and Gpoa is the
correspondent in plane irradiance. These indices evaluate the module performances instantaneously but they can also
give information about the performances in a defined period of time. In this case instead of electrical power and
irradiance the correspondent energy values in the defined period of time (day, month, and year) have to be
evaluated. The efficiency indicates the performance of advice but it does not give indications about its energy
production. If one wants to evaluate and to compare the energy production of different modules of different powers,
the energy yield is the suitable parameter to use. The energy yield(Y) is written as:
ா
ܻൌ (3)
௉೙೚೘

Where E is the electrical energy produced by the module in a defined time interval and Pnom is the nominal power.
This index can also be interpreted as the number of hours in which the PV modules work at their peak power value.
Since the energy production is normalized to the module size, this index allows comparing PV devices of different
peak powers, as already said. It is well known that the energy production of a PV module does not depend only by
radiation intensity but also to some extent to the temperature of the module, to the variation of solar spectrum and
also too their factors that do not strictly depend on the module it self. To take into account all these influences,
another index called Performance Ratio (PR) is defined:
௒ ூ௢
ܴܲ ൌ ™‹–Šǡ ܻ௥ ൌ (4)
௒ೝ ீ ௌ்஼

Yr is called the reference yield and is the ratio between the irradiation evaluated in the considered time
interval Io and the irradiance at STC; it also represents the sun peak hours defined as the hours in which the in plane
irradiance has reached the 1,000W/m2. The PR index can also be seen as the ratio of the real efficiency over the
efficiency at STC, and for this reason it measures how far is the behaviour of the module with respect to its
performance at STC. As already mentioned, this index is not sensitive to irradiance variation but to secondary
effects on the module performances.
The output power of PV modules used in this study was not the same. For comparison purposes we have
normalized the output power of PV modules with their output power at STC. The module efficiency depends upon

020004-4
the active area of the modules. Active area is the actual area of the module in which photovoltaic process takes
place. The PR is the performance of modules at actual operating conditions compared to their performance at STC.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The energy yield delivered by different types of photovoltaic device is a key consideration in the selection of
appropriate technologies for cheap photovoltaic electricity. The different technologies currently on the markets, each
have certain strengths and weaknesses when it comes to operating in different environments. The study shows
performance of the three different PV modules both under STC conditions and real conditions tests.
Table 3 shows the testing results of PV module under STC conditions. By comparing the test results shown in
this table with the module specification shown in Table 2 showed that the mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline
have a better performances in case of power maximum, module efficiency, as well as fill factor compared with the
micromorph PV module. The test results of the crystalline PV modules have a better performances compared with
their specification given by their manufacture. Meanwhile, the test result of the micromorph modules has the lower
values compared with the specification given by manufacture both in power output and efficiency.

TABLE 3.Summary of the test results of PV Module Performance under the STC conditions
Parameters m-Si p-Si uc-Si
Type Len-180 SW135 NT-145AX
Open circuit voltage, Voc (V) 44.85 21.95 52.53
Short circuit current, Isc(A) 5.55 8.42 3.83
Maximum power, ܲmax (Wp) 187.58 140.12 139.56
Maximum current, ‫ܫ‬max (A) 5.20 7.97 3.33
Maximum voltage, ܸmax (V) 36.06 17.57 41.81
Short circuit current, ‫ܫ‬sc (A) 5.52 8.16 2.51
Module efficiency (%) 14.79 13.29 8.85
Fill-factor (FF) 0.753 0.758 0.693

The performance of three different PV modules under real test conditions was obtained from the outdoor test of
the PV modules exposed from March 4, 2014 to February 28, 2015 at the outdoor testing facility of B2TE-BPPT,
Kawasan Puspiptek Serpong, Indonesia. In order to compare the performance of different PV modules on the same
site, total power of each PV module needs to be normalized. Normalized power yield is defined as the ratio of the
total power production to the product of nominal power. Normalized power yield is equal to the time that the PV
plant is operating at nominal power output in a day. Normalized power is an important factor in choosing PV
modules. In the PV industry, a module’s price is presented in the unit of dollars per watt, so modules have higher
normalized power yield are more cost effective. Tabel 4 shows the summary results of the outdoor measurement test
for one year measurement period carried out in the study. The three important parameters, namely normalized
energy yield (Y), performance ratio (PR), and module efficiency (K) are shown in this table. The table shows that
the monocrystalline module (m-Si) has the best performance in normalized energy yield, performance ratio, and
efficiency. Meanwhile, the micromorphmodule (uc-Si) has the lowest module efficiency (i.e. 8%), but showed a
better performance in case of energy yield and performance ratio compared with the polycrystalline module.
TABLE 4. Summary of the PV Module Performance after one year measurement
Y PR K
PV MODULE
[kWh/kWp] [-] [%}
MonocrystallineSi (m-Si) 3.85 0.92 15
Polycrystalline Si (p-Si) 3.00 0.78 12
Micromorph Si (uc-Si) 3.59 0.85 8

Figure 3 shows the daily average of normalized power output from three different PV modules exposed for one
year measurement. This figure shows that monocrystalline module (m-Si) has almost has more power output during
the whole year compared with the other modules, such as polycrystalline (p-Si) as well as micromorphmodules (uc-
Si).The daily average of solar radiation on tilted surface or plane of array (POA) insolation in the test site plant
is4.32 kWh/m2.day.

020004-5
 FIGURE 3. Daily average of normalized power yield of FIGURE 4. Monthly average of performance ratio (PR)
the three different PV modules for the three different PV modules

The performance ratio (PR) of a PV installation is the ratio between the actual energy yield of a site (production
energy), and the expected energy of the site, based on the module types and environmental sensor measurements.
The PR value ranges between 0 and 1 and is used to evaluate the PV system performance. A high PR indicates a
properly operating site or a good PV technology installed at in the site. Therefore, PR can be used to compare the
performance of several systems located at different locations, to monitor a site’s performance over time and to check
if a site is meeting its energy production targets. Figure 4 shows a monthly average of performance ratio (PR) for
three different PV modules installed at B2TE’s outdoor testing facility, Kawasan Puspiptek Serpong-Indonesia.
Monocrystalline (m-Si) has the PR monthly average of 0.92, shows the best performance ratio during the whole year
compared with the other two modules compared with the other two PV modules. It follows with micromorph (uc-Si)
of 0.85, and polycrystalline (p-Si) of 0.78.
PV module efficiency can be calculated from how much the output power compared to the power that goes to
solar modules. So the more energy radiation that is converted into power, the higher the efficiency of the module.
Efficiency of PV modules at outdoor conditions is different from STC due to varying outdoor conditions. Figure 5
shows the daily average module efficiency for three different PV modules for one year measurement. This figure
also shows that the monocrystalline (m-Si) PV module is well known for high module efficiency and has shown
high module efficiency than polycrystalline (p-Si) and micromorph (uc-Si) modules. Table 3 also shows that the
module efficiency of monocrystalline (15%) is higher than polycrystalline (12%) and micromorph (8%) PV module.

FIGURE 5. Daily average module efficiency of three PV FIGURE 6. Power output PV modules increase with the
modules increase of solar irradiation

The output power of the PV module depends on solar irradiation and temperature. The increase in solar
irradiation leads to higher output power of PV module. As the solar irradiance increases, the other variables, such as

020004-6
temperature, current and voltage also increases, so that the power output of PV module increases. Figure 6 shows
that power output of the three PV modules proportionally increases with the increases of solar irradiation.
The increase in temperature was also resulting in power output increases, due to the temperature rise as a result
of the irradiance increase. However, at temperatures above 30oC, the energy production of the PV modules will
decline, because each PV module has a negative temperature coefficient. Figure 7 shows variation of hourly average
PV modules efficiency with the module temperature of different PV modules measured from 4 am to 7 pm. The
figures shows that PV module type micromorph silicon (uc-Si) has the lowest temperature coefficient compared
with the other PV modules, such as monocrystalline and polycrystalline. It means that the micromorph module has
the lowest decrease in power output with the increase of temperature above 30oC. This is one of the advantages of
the thin-film PV module, such as micromorph silicon (uc-Si).Conversely, polycrystalline PV modules showed the
biggest temperature coefficient compared with monocrystalline and Micromorph PV modules. Therefore, the
module temperature rises above 30°C, polycrystalline module power output will decrease greater than
monocrystalline as well as Micromorph PV modules.

FIGURE 7. Variation of average module efficiency with the module temperature

CONCLUSION
The energy yield delivered by different types of photovoltaic modules is a key consideration in the selection of
appropriate PV technologies. The different PV technologies have certain strengths and weaknesses when it comes to
operating in different environments. Power output of PV modules is not only affected by its nominal power rating,
but also affected by modules mounting system and weather parameters such as irradiation and temperature.
Therefore, the performance testing of PV modules at outdoor conditions is required to have an accurate estimation
of output of PV modules under specific climate. Comparative performance testing of different PV modules in
outdoor climate of Indonesia has been validated for Serpong site. The mono-crystalline (m-Si) was the best
performance both under STC condition and outdoor exposure condition (in terms of module efficiency and overall
power production). Poly-crystalline (p-Si) has a good performance in STC conditions, but did not show a good
performance in outdoor test condition. Meanwhile, micromorph silicon (uc-Si) has a not good performance in STC
conditions, but showed a good performance under outdoor test condition. The output power of the PV module
depends on solar irradiation and temperature. The increase in solar irradiation leads to higher output power of PV
module. The micromorph silicon (thin-film) has the lowest temperature coefficient compared with the crystalline
silicon modules, such as mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline. Therefore, it has more in energy production.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the B2TE-BPPT, PT Len (Persero), Hitachizosen-Japan, and colleaguesfor
supporting the part of work described in this paper.

020004-7
 REFERENCES
1. M. Schweiger, U. Jahn and W. Herrmann, “Factors affecting the performance of different thin-film PV
technologies and their impact on the energy yield, 2011, “ in Proceeding of European Photovoltaic Solar
Energy Conference and Exhibition (EU PVSEC) (Germany, 2011), pp. 3640–3645.
2. C. N. Jardine, G. J. Conibeer and K. Lane, 2001, “PV-Compare: direct comparison of eleven PV technologies
at two locations in northern and southern Europe”, in Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on
Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, (Germany, Munich, 2001).
3. A. J. Carr and T. L. Pryor, Solar Energy 76, 285–294 ( 2004).
4. K. Akhmad, A. Kitamura, F. Yamamoto, H. Okamoto, H. Takakura and Y. Hamakawa, Sol. Energy Mater.
Sol. Cells 46(3), 209–218 (1997).
5. O. M. Midtgard, T. O. Sætre, G. Yordanov, A. G. Imenes and C. L. Nge, Renew. Energ. 35 (6), 1266–1274 (2010).
6. C. Cornaro and D. Musella, “Performance analysis of PV modules of various technologies after more than one
year of outdoor exposure in Rome,” in Proceedings of the III International Conference on Applied Energy
ICAE2011 (Italy, Perugia, 2011).
7. A. Ghazali M and A. M. A. Rahman, Energ. Environ. Res. 2(1), 235-243 (2012).
8. N. Amin, C. W. Lung and K. Sopian, Renewable Energy 34 (8), 1939–1946 (2009).
9. P. Singh, S. N. Singh, M. Lal and M. Husain, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 92 (12), 1611–1616 (2008).
10. M. Mattei, G. Notton, C. Cristofari, M. Muselli and P. Poggi, Renewable Energy 31(4), 553–567 (2006).
11. D. Meneses-Rodrıguez, P. P. Horley, J. Gonz´alez-Hern´andez, Y. V. Vorobiev and P. N. Gorley, Solar Energy
78(2), 243–250 (2005).

020004-8