14ME420-ENGINEERING DESIGN

PROJECT REVIEW

LOW COST FLOATING

SOLAR
POWER PLANT
-AKSHAY.V /17G011
-BHARATH.P /17G022

-VIJAY ANAND.V/17G113
1.1. INTRODUCTION
 Floating solar panels can perform better than
the solar panels on land.
 The evaporating water keeps the solar panels
cool.
 Reduces the Land occupancy.

 It can reduce evaporation of water upto 70%.

 The key disadvantage of the floating solar panel

system is higher installation cost.
 This project is a redesign project.
 As this project has already been done in the Germany
and China , this project differs from the other by cost.
.

 Cost of the project can be reduced by changing the

material used for solar panels and anchoring.
ORLANDO , FLORIDA , UNITED STATES
1.2. MISSION STATEMENT
 It has the advantage of generating more current than the
normal solar power panels installed on land.
 The main advantage is that they do not take up any land
expect surface for electric cabinet and grid connections.
 The partial coverage of basins can reduce the water
evaporation .
 A parallel advantage is contamination of algae
bloom(serious problem in industrialised countries).
2.1. IDENTIFICATION OF CUSTOMERS
WHO?

 Corporation.
 Land owners /project developers.

 Government based sectors- for large dams and canals.

 Councils- many councils who own large water

reservoirs.
2.2. INTERNAL CUSTOMER
QUESTIONARE
i.)AKSHAY.V
 By how much the evaporation rate will be controlled?

 Can it be used in any water reservoir?

 Could it be easily installed?

ii.)BHARATH.P

 Does it require any supervision on its working?

 Does it need repeated maintenance?

iii.)VIJAY ANAND.V

 Will it be water resistant?

 How the solar panels will be cooled?

 Does it really reduce Land consumption?

2.3. RESEARCH ON EXTERNAL
CUSTOMER NEEDS
 i)CELINE REENA.G
 (ASST.PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,TCE)

 Is it necessary for Tamil Nadu?

 Will it be eco-friendly?
 Does it affect the aquatic life?

 ii.)KARUPPASAMY.A
 (ASST.PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS,TCE)


 I Is it cost efficient?
 ii Would it be suitable for large power generation?
 iii Does it require skilled labour?
 iv Is it a better method to utilize renewable source?


 Other questions raised:

 I What will happen to Water quality?
 ii Does it influence algae bloom?
 iii Does it occupies more space?
2.4. BRAINSTORMING ON CUSTOMER
NEEDS
 Will it reduce Land consumption?
 By how much the evaporation rate will be controlled?
 Does it affect the aquatic life?
 Does it require skilled labour?
 Will it be eco-friendly?
 How cooling will be carried out?
 Is it cost efficient?
 Could it be easily installed?
 Better alternative source with dual advantage?
 Will it maintain water quality?
 Will it reduce usage of non-renewable resources?
 Better solution for states like Tamil nadu?
 Is it water resistant?
 Does it occupies more space?
 Does it need repeated maintainence?
2.5. AFFINITY DIAGRAM
serviceability Durability Efficiency Special Others
features

4 13 7 1 3
8 6 11 2 5
15 14 9 12
10
2.6. CUSTOMER SURVEY
(1- strongly dissatisfied; 2-dissatisfied; 3-satisfied; 4-strongly satisfied)
QUESTIONS RATINGS
Reduces Land consumption 4 3 2 1
Evaporation rate will be reduced 4 3 2 1
Does not affect aquatic life 4 3 2 1
Does not require skilled labour 4 3 2 1
Eco-friendly 4 3 2 1
No external cooling required 4 3 2 1
Cost efficient 4 3 2 1
Installation cost is high 4 3 2 1
Dual advantage 4 3 2 1
Maintain Water quality 4 3 2 1
Prevents Non-renewable resources
from exhausting 4 3 2 1
Better alternative for TamilNadu 4 3 2 1
Water resistant 4 3 2 1
Uses less space 4 3 2 1
Need intermittent maintainance 4 3 2 1
2.7. SUMMARY OF CUSTOMER RESPONSES
Question number Number of reponse with the 3 or Relative frequency
4 rating (%)
1 35 68.82
2 37 72.55
3 35 68.62
4 28 54.9
5 37 72.55
6 35 68.62
7 37 72.55
8 32 62.17
9 48 94.12
10 30 58.12
11 47 92.15
12 49 96.08
13 40 78.4
14 42 82.3
15 41 80.39
2.8. BAR CHART FOR CUSTOMER
RESPONSES
100 96.08
94.12
92.15

90
82.3
80.39
78.4
80
72.55 72.55 72.55
68.82 68.62 68.62
70
62.17
58.12
60 54.9

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RELATIVE FREQUENCY
PARETO CHART

100 96.08
94.12
92.15

90
82.3
80.39
78.4
80 72.55 72.55 72.55
68.82 68.62 68.62
70
62.17
58.12
60 54.9

50

40

30

20

10

0
12 9 11 14 15 13 2 5 7 1 3 6 8 10 4

RELATIVE FREQUENCY
2.9. INFERENCE ON CUSTOMER RESPONSES

 I n a count of 51 responses ,96% people stats TAMIL

NADU are indeed of more solar power for lower cost
without any land occupancy.
 94% of the total survey agree that floating solar panel
reduces electricity cost.
 People wanted a alternative energy( floating solar
power)that prevents exhaustion of Renewable resources.
 Its clear that people are indeed of alternative energy
without any larger installations and large labour work.
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Wikipedia.org/Floating solar panels
2. Slideshare- MAULANAAZAD NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY by Vikas panchal
3. Research gate.org/ Case study – by FC Prisnoloo
(university of south africa)
THANK YOU

🙏🙏🙏🙏