© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

1 Aufrufe

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Solel Spec
- Feasibility study on Grid connected PV system in Nepal - paper RETSUD09 2
- NUMERICALS.pdf
- Modeling and Simulation of Solar Photovoltaic Module Using Matlab Simulink
- Best Methods for Different Factors of a PV Module to Increase its Efficiency
- DanfossULXIndoorInstallationManualL0041029306_02GB
- Solar Energy Companies in India
- Trina Solar Annual Report
- Super Large Scale Solar Totten Solar Today 06 05 Annotated
- Vs Products Inc
- Economics of Solar Rooftop
- Conenergy 240 Small - TD_power_systems-Small
- Net Zero Energy Building a Review on Its Global Impact
- Testing of a Microcontroller Based Solar panel Tracking System
- pv_ieee_kaygusuz.pdf
- Mathematical Model for Photovoltaic Cells
- Optical Response of MoSe2 Crystals Download
- Thesis Writing
- 21 Solar Cells II
- 1560684667-jgRiZ

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

com

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

electrical performance: A review of eﬃciency/power correlations

E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos *

Solar Engineering Unit, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, 9 Heroon Polytechneiou,

Zografos Campus, 15780 Athens, Attica, Greece

Received 16 January 2008; received in revised form 22 June 2008; accepted 14 October 2008

Available online 4 November 2008

Abstract

A brief discussion is presented regarding the operating temperature of one-sun commercial grade silicon-based solar cells/modules

and its eﬀect upon the electrical performance of photovoltaic installations. Suitable tabulations are given for most of the known algebraic

forms which express the temperature dependence of solar electrical eﬃciency and, equivalently, solar power. Finally, the thermal aspects

of the major power/energy rating methods are brieﬂy discussed.

Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Solar cell; Photovoltaic module; PV module eﬃciency; PV power rating methods; Temperature dependence

conditions1)/AGT, with A being the aperture area), and

The pronounced eﬀect that the operating temperature of form the basis of various performance rating procedures.

a photovoltaic (PV) cell/module has upon its electrical eﬃ-

ciency is well documented. There are many correlations 2. PV module eﬃciency as a function of the operating

expressing Tc, the PV cell temperature, as a function of temperature

weather variables such as the ambient temperature, Ta,

and the local wind speed, Vw, as well as the solar radiation The eﬀect of temperature on the electrical eﬃciency of a

ﬂux/irradiance, GT, with material and system-dependent PV cell/module can be traced to the former’s inﬂuence

properties as parameters, e.g., glazing-cover transmittance, upon the current, I, and the voltage, V, as the maximum

s, plate absorptance, a, etc. power is given by

An equally large number of correlations expressing the

temperature dependence of the PV module’s electrical eﬃ- P m ¼ V m I m ¼ ðFF ÞV oc I sc ð1Þ

ciency, gc, can also be retrieved, although many of them In this fundamental expression, which also serves as a

assume the familiar linear form, diﬀering only in the deﬁnition of the ﬁll factor, FF, subscript m refers to the

numerical values of the relevant parameters which, as maximum power point in the module’s I–V curve, while

expected, are material and system dependent. Many corre- subscripts oc and sc denote open circuit and short circuit

lations in this category express instead the module’s maxi-

mum electrical power, Pm, which is simply related to gc 1

100 mW/cm2(=1000 W/m2) solar ﬂux conforming to the standard

reference AM 1.5 G spectrum, and temperature 298.16 K (25 °C). The use

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +30210 772 3297; fax: +30210 772 3298. of this ﬂux value is very convenient, as the eﬃciency in percent is

E-mail address: jpalyvos@chemeng.ntua.gr (J.A. Palyvos). numerically equal to the power output in mW/cm2 (Markvart, 2000).

0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.solener.2008.10.008

E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624 615

Nomenclature

BIPV building integrated photovoltaic a solar absorptance of PV layer

E total daily electrical energy (W/day) b temperature coeﬃcient (K1)

FF ﬁll factor of PV module (cf. Eq. (1)) c solar radiation coeﬃcient

GT solar radiation ﬂux (irradiance) on module d solar radiation coeﬃcient

plane (W/m2) g cell/module electrical eﬃciency

H total daily solar radiation (J/m2/day) s solar transmittance of glazing

HT total daily solar radiation on module plane (J/

m2/day) Subscripts

I electric current (A) 0 at SRC

INOCT installed normal operating cell temperature (°C) a ambient

NOCT normal operating cell temperature (°C) b back side

NTE normal temperature environment c cell (module)

P electrical power (W) f free stream

RRC realistic reporting conditions L loss

SOC standard operating conditions m maximum, at maximum power point

SRC standard reporting conditions NOCT at NOCT conditions

STC standard test conditions oc open circuit

T temperature (K) pv PV layers

Tc cell/module operating temperature (K) ref reference value, at reference conditions

Ta ambient temperature (K) sc short circuit

UL overall thermal loss coeﬃcient (W/m2 K) T on module’s tilted plane

V voltage (V) w wind induced

Vf free stream wind speed (m/s)

Vw wind speed at monitored surface (m/s)

values, respectively. It turns out that both the open circuit of the temperature coeﬃcient, in particular, depends not

voltage and the ﬁll factor decrease substantially with tem- only on the PV material but on Tref, as well. It is given

perature (as the thermally excited electrons begin to domi- by the ratio

nate the electrical properties of the semi-conductor), while 1

the short-circuit current increases, but only slightly bref ¼ ð4Þ

T 0 T ref

(Zondag, 2007). Thus, the net eﬀect leads to a linear rela-

tion in the form in which T0 is the (high) temperature at which the PV mod-

ule’s electrical eﬃciency drops to zero (Garg and Agarwal,

gc ¼ gT ref 1 bref T c T ref þ clog10 GT ð2Þ

1995). For crystalline silicon solar cells this temperature is

in which gT ref is the module’s electrical eﬃciency at the ref- 270 °C (Evans and Florschuetz, 1978).

erence temperature, Tref, and at solar radiation ﬂux of In a number of correlations, the cell/module tempera-

1000 W/m2 (Evans, 1981). The temperature coeﬃcient, bref, ture – which is not readily available – has been replaced

and the solar radiation coeﬃcient, c, are mainly material by TNOCT, i.e., by the nominal operating cell temperature

properties, having values of about 0.004 K1 and 0.12, (see below). One such expression is

respectively, for crystalline silicon modules (Notton et al., GT

2005). The latter, however, is usually taken as zero (Evans, g ¼ gref 1 bref T a T ref þ ðT NOCT T a Þ ð5Þ

GNOCT

1981), and Eq. (2) reduces to

which can be obtained by substitution of a well known

gc ¼ gT ref 1 bref T c T ref ð3Þ expression for Tc (Kou et al., 1998), namely,

h g i

PV electrical eﬃciency (Evans and Florschuetz, 1977). GT U L;NOCT

The quantities gT ref and bref are normally given by the þ ðT NOCT T a;NOCT Þ 1 c

GNOCT UL sa

PV manufacturer. However, they can be obtained from

ð6Þ

ﬂash tests in which the module’s electrical output is mea-

sured at two diﬀerent temperatures for a given solar radia- into Eq. (3) and using the fact that (gc/sa) 1 (Duﬃe and

tion ﬂux (Hart and Raghuraman, 1982). The actual value Beckman, 2006).

616 E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624

In addition to the ‘‘instantaneous” values for the PV comments for each correlation. On the basis of data listed

electrical eﬃciency, expressions can be written for the in Table 1 for Tref = 25 °C, average gref 0.12 and average

monthly average eﬃciency, gc . For example, the monthly bref 0.0045 °C1. The eﬀect of the temperature coeﬃcient

electrical energy output of a PV array can be estimated upon the eﬃciency of various silicon-based PV module

on the basis of the following equation: types is shown in Fig. 1, where the Evans–Floschuetz ratio

" # gT =gT ref is plotted against the operating temperature.

bref ðsaÞV H T The quantities labeled as NOCT are measured under

gc ¼ gT ref 1 bref T a T ref

ð7Þ

nU L open-circuit conditions (i.e., with no load attached) while

operating in the so-called nominal terrestrial environment

in which the over-bar denotes monthly average quantities, n (NTE), which is deﬁned as follows (Stultz and Wen, 1977):

is the number of hours per day, UL is the overall thermal loss

coeﬃcient, H T is the monthly average daily insolation on the Global solar ﬂux: 800 W/m2,

plane of the array, and V is a dimensionless function of such Air temperature: 293.16 K (20 °C),

quantities as the sunset angle, the monthly average clearness Average wind speed: 1 m/s,

index, and the ratio of the monthly total radiation on the ar- Mounting: open rack, tilted normally to the solar noon

ray to that on a horizontal surface (Siegel et al., 1981). sun.

A number of equations found in the literature for the

eﬃciency of PV cells/modules are shown in Tables 1 and With symbols, NOCT ¼ ðT c T a ÞNTE þ 20 C. This

2. The ﬁrst table contains values for the parameters of quantity is determined from actual measurements of cell

Eq. (3), as reported by a number of authors, and the second temperature for a range of environmental conditions simi-

presents additional forms for gc, including pertinent lar to the NTE and reported by the module’s manufacturer

Table 1

Evans–Florschuetz PV eﬃciency correlation coeﬃcients gT ¼ gT ref 1 bref T T ref .

T ref (°C) gT ref bref (°C1) Comments References

25 0.15 0.0041 Mono-Si Evans and Florschuetz (1977)

28 0.117 (average) 0.0038 (average) Average of Sandia and commercial cells OTA (1978)

(0.104–0.124) (0.0032–0.0046)

25 0.11 0.003 Mono-Si Truncellito and Sattolo (1979)

25 0.13 0.0041 PV/T system Mertens (1979)

0.005 Barra and Coiante (1993)

20 0.10 0.004 PV/T system Prakash (1994)

25 0.10 0.0041 PV/T system Garg and Agarwal (1995)

Agarwal and Garg (1994)

Garg et al. (1994)

20 0.125 0.004 PV/T system Hegazy (2000)

25 0.0026 a-Si Yamawaki et al. (2001)

25 0.13 0.004 Mono-Si RETScreen (2001)

0.11 0.004 Poly-Si

0.05 0.0011 a-Si

25 0.178 0.00375 PV/T system Nagano et al. (2003)

25 0.005 Mono-Si Tobias et al. (2003)

25 0.12 0.0045 Mono-Si Chow (2003)

25 0.097 0.0045 PV/T system Zondag et al. (2003)

25 0.0045 PV/T system Radziemska (2003)

25 0.0968 0.0045 Bakker et al. (2005)

0.005 UTC/PV system Naveed et al. (2006)

25 0.09 0.0045 PV/T system Tiwari and Sodha (2006a)

25 0.12 0.0045 PV/T system Tiwari and Sodha (2006b)

25 0.0045 c-Si PV/T system Zondag (2007)

0.0020 a-Si

25 0.12 0.0045 PV/T system Tiwari and Sodha (2007)

25 0.12 0.0045 PV/T system Assoa et al. (2007)

25 0.127 0.0063 PV/T system Tonui and Tripanagnostopoulos (2007a)

25 0.127 unglazed 0.006 PV/T system Tonui and Tripanagnostopoulos (2007b)

0.117 glazed

25 0.0054 PV/T system Othman et al. (2007)

Notes:

At Tref = 25 °C, average gref 0.12 and average bref 0.0045 °C1.

The same correlation has been adopted in Hart and Raghuraman (1982), Cox and Raghuraman (1985), Sharan and Kandpal (1987), and Sharan et al.

(1987), although no numerical values are given for the parameters.

E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624 617

Table 2

PV array eﬃciency as a function of temperature.

Correlation Comments Ref.

1

gT ¼ gT ref 1 bref T T ref Tref = 25 °C, gT ref ¼ 0:15, bref = 0.0041 °C , c-Si, T in °C Evans and

Florschuetz (1977)

gPV ¼ gref lðT c T ref Þ l = overall cell temperature coeﬃcient Bazilian and Prasad

(2002)

g ¼ ga cðT T a Þ T ¼ mean solar cell temp, ga = eﬃciency at Ta, Bergene and Løvvik

c = temperature coeﬃcient (1995)

g ¼ g25 þ bðT c 25Þ b ¼ bðGT Þ, T in °C Durisch et al. (1996)

gðGT ; T c Þ ¼ gðGT ; 25 CÞ½1 þ c3 ðT c 25Þ c3 = 0.5 (% loss per °C) for c-Si, 0.02, . . ., 0.41 for thin Mohring et al.

ﬁlm cells (2004)

1=4

gT ¼ g0 KðT 1=4 T 0 Þ T0 = 273 K, K = 22.4 Ravindra and

Srivastava (1979/80)

ga ¼ gn k c k h k a k k with k c ¼ 1 cðT c 25Þ=100 kc = power temperature coeﬃcient, kj, j = h, a, k optical, Aste et al. (2008)

h b saG i absorption, spectrum correction factors

g ¼ gT ref h1 bref T a T ref refU L T i 5% low predictions, bref 0.004 °C1, gT ref ¼ 0:15, Tref = 0 °C Siegel et al. (1981)

b ðsaÞV H

g ¼ gT ref 1 bref T a T ref ref nU L T

g ¼ monthly average efficiency, V = dimensionless, Siegel et al. (1981)

bref 0.004 °C1

gi ¼ gT ref 1 bref T c;i T ref þ clog10 I i gi = hourly eﬃciency, Ii = incident hourly insol, Evans (1981) and

bref 0.0045 °C1, c 0.12 Cristofari et al.

(2006)

g ¼ gT ref 1 bref ðT c T ref Þ þ clog10 GT g = instantaneous eﬃciency, bref = 0.0044 °C1gT ref ¼ 0:125, Notton et al. (2005)

Tref = 25 °C 1

g ¼ gT ref 1 bref ðT c T a Þ ðT a T a Þ ðT

a T ref Þ þ clog10 I g ¼ monthly average efficiency, bref 0.0045 °C , c 0.12 Evans (1981)

g ¼ gref 1 a1 ðT c T ref Þ þ a2 lnðGT =1000Þ For Si a1 = 0.005, a2 = 0.052, omitting the ln term slightly Anis et al. (1983)

overestimates g

gðXGT ; T Þ ¼ g GT ; T ref 1 bref ðT T 0 Þ 1 þ kBqT V oc ðG ln X

T ;T 0 Þ

X = concentration factor, for X = 1 it reduces to Eq. (2) Lasnier and Ang

n h io (1990)

GT

g ¼ gref 1 b T a T ref þ ðT NOCT T a Þ GNOCT The Tc expression from Kou et al. (1998) is introduced into the –

n h
io g expression in Evans and Florschuetz (1977)

9:5 GT

g ¼ gref 1 b T a T ref þ 5:7þ3:8V w

ðT NOCT T a Þ GNOCT The Tc expression from Duﬃe and Beckman (2006) is –

introduced into the g expression in Evans and Florschuetz

h i (1977)

g ¼ gref 1 0:9b GTG;NOCTT

T c;NOCT T a;NOCT b T a T ref Assumes g 0.9(sa) Hove (2000)

gnom ¼ 0:05T surface þ 13:75 T surface ¼ 1:06T back þ 22:6 Yamaguchi et al.

gmeas ¼ 0:053T back þ 12:62 Nominal vs measured values (2003)

G G

g ¼ a0 þ a1 T c ðx;tÞT

T1

1

þ a2 TGref ref Ak, k = 0, 1 and 2 are empirical constants, T1 is the indoor Zhu et al. (2004)

ambient temperature

gMPP ðGT ; T Þ ¼ gMPP ðGT ; 25 CÞð1 þ aðT 25ÞÞetaMPP ðGT ; 25 CÞ a1–a3 device speciﬁc parameters, MPP tracking system Beyer et al. (2004)

¼ a1 þ a2 GT þ a3 lnðGT Þ

g ¼ gNOCT ½1 MPTCðT NOCT T c Þ MPTC = maximum power temperature coeﬃcienta Perlman et al. (2005)

g ¼ a þ b T inGT

T

a

PV/T collector. PV cover: Chow et al. (2006)

100% ? a = 0.123, b = 0.464

h i 50% ? a = 0.121, b = 0.450

GT

g ¼ 0:94 0:0043 T a þ ð22:4þ8:7V 25

2:6% Overbars denote daily averages. CLEFS CEA (2004)

wÞ

GT ¼ Wh=m2 received=length of day ðhÞ

V w in m=s

Notes:

In Bücher (1997): PRT factor temperature eﬀect on PV performance.

In Oshiro et al. (1997): KPT cell temperature factor.

In Jardim et al. (2008): NOCT-corrected eﬃciency.

a

With MPTC = 0.5% loss per °C, the eﬃciency is g ¼ 11:523 0:0512T c .

(Kirpich et al., 1980). When a module operates at NOCT, the recently popular BIPV modeling/design, as the possible

the term ‘‘standard operating conditions” (SOC2) is some- error in the Tc value could be as high as 20 K (Davis et al.,

times used. 2001). The ever increasing interest in BIPV applications,

The open rack mounting condition, i.e., ﬁxing the mod- however, brought forward the need for a proper estimation

ules on a free-standing open to the ambient frame, seemed of NOCT which would take into account the integration-

at ﬁrst to prohibit the use of NOCT-based correlations in dependent deviation from NTE conditions. That is, the

proper NOCT to use should accommodate the BIPV

2

In an alternate deﬁnition the number 45 ± 2 °C is used in place of encountered angles of incidence of say 90°, and not just

NOCT FSEC, 2005. 0°, as well as the observed higher module-back tempera-

618 E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624

Fig. 1. The ratio gT =gT ref as predicted by the Evans–Florschuetz eﬃciency function of irradiance (Bloem, 2008).

correlation for typical silicon-based PV module types.

m m

tures, due to lack of proper cooling from the poorly venti- P mp ¼ d 1 GT þ d 2 T c þ d 3 ½lnðGT Þ þ d 4 T c ½lnðGT Þ ð9Þ

lated back side.3 Thus, the module’s correct NOCT, which resulting from an analysis which addresses the fact that the

obviously depends on the mounting scheme for a given cells within a module are not identical. (Here, dj, j = 1–4

solar radiation ﬂux level (cf. Fig. 2), must be measured in and m are model parameters.) Another unusual nonlinear

a properly designed and well controlled outdoor test bed, correlation (Furushima et al., 2006) gives a correction coef-

like the BIPV test facility at the US National Institute of ﬁcient for the output power – as deﬁned by Eq. (1) – of a

Standards and Technology (Fanney and Dougherty, water cooled PV system, namely,

2001) or the European Commission’s Test Reference Envi-

ronment (TRE) rig that was recently set up at the JRC GT 500 CT c 2

P ¼ V cI c 1 þ ð50 T c Þ ð10Þ

Ispra, specially for BIPV testing4 (Bloem, 2008). 2 104 4 104

in which Vc and Ic are the output voltage and current,

3. PV power output dependence on module operating respectively, while the parameter C T c takes values 1 or 3,

temperature for values of Tc below or above 50 °C, respectively.

Aside from correlations like those listed in Table 3, there

The prediction of PV module performance in terms of are a few expressions which are trying to predict the power

electrical power output in the ﬁeld, that is, the deviation output of PV modules without direct reference to tempera-

from the standard test conditions reported by the manufac- ture, either the operating temperature or the ambient one.

turer of the module, is modeled in a manner analogous to (Two such equations are given in the ‘‘notes” at the end of

the above. For example, a recently proposed correlation Table 3.) It is expected that correlations of this kind over-

for PV power, similar in form to Eq. (3), is predict the performance of the modules.

P ¼ GT spv gT ref A½1 0:0045ðT c 25Þ ð8Þ With regard to the wind’s indirectly beneﬁcial eﬀect of

lowering the operating temperature by forced convection

in which spv is the transmittance of the PV cells’ outside and, thus, increasing the power output of the modules, it

layers (Jie et al., 2007). is considered in only two correlations among those in the

Table 3 lists a number of correlations found in the liter- listing of Table 3 – which by no means is exhaustive. The

ature for PV electrical power as a function of cell/module relevant expression, that of the photovoltaics for utility

operating temperature and basic environmental variables. scale application (PVUSA) model (Farmer, 1992), is of

Many of them are linear and similar to Eqs. (3) or (8), the form

while others are more complex, such as the following

P ¼ GT b1 þ b2 GT þ b3 T a þ b4 V f ð11Þ

nonlinear multivariable regression equation (Rosell and

Ibáñez, 2006), In this nonlinear equation, V f is the free-stream local wind

speed, i.e., it is measured at a height of 10 m above ground,

3

Thermal inertia is another problem in the NOCT calculation, as and the regression coeﬃcients bj, j = 1–4 are determined

Tc Ta is higher in the afternoon for the same GT values. This can cause a using solar radiation ﬂux values above 500 W/m2 (Meyer

±3 °C error in NOCT but, still, only a ±1.5% error in annual performance and van Dyk, 2000). In contrast, the wind speed is taken

estimations (Alonso Garcia and Balenzategui, 2004). into account in many correlations for the eﬃciency (cf.

4

In the context of the relevant energy rating procedure, a site and

mounting speciﬁc temperature has been postulated at Ispra, i.e., the

Table 2), either directly or indirectly, i.e., through the

normal operating speciﬁc temperature (NOST) (Kenny et al., 2003). forced convection coeﬃcient component of UL.

E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624 619

Table 3

PV array power as a function of temperature P ¼ gc AGT .

Correlation Comments References

P ¼ gT ref AGT ðsaÞ 1 bref ðT P T ref Þ TP = plate temperature, gT ref ¼ 0:118 at 45 °C – air coll, gT ref ¼ 0:108 Hendrie (1979)

at 28 °C – water coll

P T c ¼ gref AGT K f ½1 þ aðT c 25Þ Tref = 25 °C, gT ref ¼ 0:13, a = 0.004 °C1, Kf factor for rest, frame Nishioka et al. (2003)

installation, Tc in °C

P ¼ ge AGT sg p 1 bref ðT c 25Þ p = packing factor, Tc in °C, sg = glazing transmissivity Chow et al. (2006)

P ¼ gT ref AGT ½1 0:0045ðT c 298:15Þ gT ref ¼ 0:14, Tc in K Jie et al. (2007a)

P ¼ gT ref AGT spv ½1 0:0045ðT

c 25Þ gT ref ¼ 0:14, Tc in °C, spv = pv cell glazing transmittance Jie et al. (2007b)

T 1 bref T c T ref þ clog10 GT

P ¼ gT ref AG bref = 0.0044 °C1 for pc-Si, c is usually taken as 0 Cristofari et al. (2006)

P T ¼ P ref 1 bref ðT T ref Þ bref = 0.004–0.006 °C1, T in °C, Tref = reference temperature Buresch (1983)

Same as above bref = 0.004 Twidell and Weir

(1986)

P ðT Þ ¼ P ð25Þ½1 cðT 25Þ c = 0.0053 °C1 for c-Si range: 0.004–0.006 °C1 Parretta et al. (1998)

P T ¼ P 25 ½1 0:0026ðT 25Þ a-Si, T in °C, power degrades to 0.82Pinit Yamawaki et al.

(2001)

dP dP

P T ¼ P 25 þ dT ðT 25Þ dT ¼ 0:00407; 0:00535, Si space cells, T in °C Osterwald (1986)

P ðT Þ GT ½g0 cðT T a Þ g0 = eﬃciency at Ta, c = temperature dependence factor Bergene and Løvvik

(1995)

P max ¼ P max;ref ½1 Df ðT c 25Þ Df = ‘‘deﬁciency factor” = 0.005 °C1 Al-Sabounchi (1998)

P max ¼ P max;ref GGT ;ref

T

1 þ c T c T ref c = temperature factor for power, c = 0.0035 (range – 0.005 °C1 to Menicucci and

0.003 °C1). Tc in °C Fernandez (1988)

1 1

P max ¼ P max;ref GGT ;ref

T

½ 1 þ cðT c 25Þ c = 0.0035 (range – 0.005 °C to 0.003 °C ) T c in °C Fuentes et al. (2007)

GT

P max ¼ P max;ref 1000 1 þ c T ch T ref i c = temperature factor for power, Tref = 25 °C, used in PVFORM Marion (2002)

P mp;T r ¼ I mp;T ½1 aðT T r Þ V mp;T bV STC

mp ðT T r Þ STC refers to ASTM standard conditions (1000 W/m2, AMI = 1.5, King et al. (1997)

Tr = 25 °C)

P max ¼ P max;ref GGT T 1 þ a T T ref 1 þ bref T T ref Adapted from the MER modela. Coeﬃcient d evaluated at actual Kroposki et al. (2000)

ref conditions

1 þ dðT Þ ln GGT T

ref

P ¼ ðaT c þ bÞGT a = temperature coeﬃcient, b = calibration constant Yang et al. (2000)

P ¼ 4:0 þ 0:053GT þ 0:13T c 0:00026GT T c MPPTracked 100 kWp system Risser and Fuentes

(1983)

P ¼ 0:4905 þ 0:05089GT þ 0:00753T c 0:000289GT T a MPPTracked 100 kWp system Risser and Fuentes

(1983)

P T ¼ 8:6415 þ 0:076128GT þ 1:02318 G2T þ T is the panel temperature (K), too many signiﬁcant ﬁgures!!! Jie et al. (2002)

0:20178T 4:9886 103 T 2

P ¼ GT ðb1 þ b2 GT þ b3 T a þ b4 V f Þ EPTC model, bj regression coeﬃcients, V fw wind speed 10 m above Farmer (1992)

ground

P ¼ c1 þ ðc2 þ c3 T a ÞGT þ ðc4 þ c5 V w ÞG2T cj regression coeﬃcients based on STC module testsb Taylor (1986)

P mp ¼ D1 GT þ D2 T c þ D3 ½lnðGT Þm þ D4 T c ½lnðGT Þm Dj (j = 1–4), m parametersc Rosell and Ibáñez

h i (2006)

CT c

GT 500

P ¼ V c I c 1 2:010 4 þ

4104

ð50 T c Þ2 Ic = output current (A), Vc = output voltage (V), Tc in K, C T c ¼ 1 if Furushima et al.

Tc 6 50 °C or =3 if Tc P 50 °C (2006)

P ¼ Að0:128GT 0:239 103 T a Þ p-Si, hybrid PV-fuel cells system GT in kW/m2, P in kW, Ta in °C Zervas et al. (2007)

P ¼ P ref GT K pt K w K e K c with K pt ¼ 1 þ aðT c 25Þ Kw, Ke, Kc loss coeﬃcients due to mounting, dirt etc., AC conversion. Wong et al. (2005)

Semitransparent PV

Notes:

Ref. Bücher et al. (1998): reports power temperature coeﬃcients for various module types in the range [0.0022/K to 0.0071/K], values around 0.002

referring to a-Si.

Refs. Radziemska (2003) and Radziemska and Klugmann (2006): report power temperature coeﬃcients 0.0065/K for c-Si.

Ref. Fathi and Salem (2007): reports a dimensional expression for ‘‘power” – actually speciﬁc energy!

Energy production correlation Eout {W hr} = (e0 + e1Tc)E {kW hr/m2}, with 36.41 6 e0 6 44.14 and 0.20 6 e1 6 0.16 is given in del Cueto (2001).

Daily energy production (W h/day) is given by E = A1H + A2H(Ta,max)2 + A3Ta,max, with Ta,max the maximum ambient temperature (°C), H the daily

total insolation (W h/m2/day) and Aj regression coeﬃcients, according to the EMAT model (Meyer and van Dyk, 2000).

Ref. Zhou et al. (2007) presents an expression for Pmax based on BIPV data, which, for two states 0 and 1, is proportional to ðT 0 =T 1 Þc with

lnðV =V Þ

c ¼ lnðToc01 =T 0ocÞ1 .

There are few equations with no explicit temperature dependence. Among them, the single regression yearly average form P yr ¼ 0:1103GT ;yr (Liu et al,

2004) and the nonlinear expression P ¼ c1 GT þ c2 G2T þ c3 GT ln GT , with cj regression coeﬃcients, known as the ENRA model (Gianolli Rossi and

Krebs, 1988), which over-predicts the PV performance.

a

The Voc and Isc expressions have been combined as in Eq. (1).

b

The regression equation shown combines the original equation for P and the analogous expression for Tc.

c

For pc-Si, D1 = 0.000554, D2 = 7.275 105, D3 = 2.242 105, D4 = 4.763 108, m = 7.0306. Analogous sets are given for c-Si, a-Si, and thin

ﬁlm modules.

620 E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624

An interesting question, at this point, is whether the periods of measurements, using solar ﬂux values above

electrical eﬃciency or power which is ‘‘lost” at higher than 500 W/m2 and, therefore, it leads to the average power

Tref operating temperatures can be compensated by the output of midday clear-sky in the particular location

rejected thermal energy. It can be shown that if a low (Jennings, 1987). The power rating itself is calculated from

enthalpy thermal load exists, it is better to accept the eﬃ- Eq. (11) using GT = 1000 W/m2, Ta = 20 °C, and Vf = 1 m/

ciency losses and directly utilize the rejected heat rather s, and if the result is multiplied by the number of sun-hours

than to improve the electrical eﬃciency of the module in (a total of 1000 W h/m2 equals 1 sun-hour) during a given

order to use a PV-powered heat pump to meet this thermal time period, i.e., the reference yield, an energy rating is

load (OTA, 1978). In hybrid systems such as PV/thermal obtained for that period (Meyer and van Dyk, 2000). The

(PV/T) modules, on the other hand, the temperature eﬀect use of Ta incorporates in the rating the various thermal

can be as small as 2% on an annual basis or even purely characteristics of module, array, and system, and the rating

beneﬁcial, as is the case with unglazed PV/T systems is closer to real life (Emery, 2003). On the negative side, the

(Zondag, 2007). method is time consuming, as it requires continuous data

recording over extended time periods, it is unsuitable for

4. Temperature involvement in module performance low solar ﬂux values, and it ignores solar spectral and

characterization methods angle-of-incidence variations (King et al., 1998).

The spectral characteristics of the incident solar radia-

From the PV-system designer’s point of view, the ulti- tion, among other things, are taken into account in the

mate interest is the proper sizing of the installation for a more complicated module energy rating (MER) procedure,

given service and, thus, the actual energy yield of the rel- which was developed at the US National Renewable

evant array. In order to estimate the latter, the designer Energy Laboratory (NREL) for ﬁve reference days (‘‘hot-

starts with the PV module manufacturer’s reported per- sunny”, ‘‘cold-sunny”, ‘‘hot-cloudy”, ‘‘cold-cloudy”, and

formance of his modules at standard test conditions ‘‘nice day”) that represent diﬀerent climatic conditions

(STC).5 But such energy/power ﬁgures are only useful (Kroposki et al., 1996). The method employs laboratory

for comparing the peak performance of diﬀerent module tests in order to establish the electrical performance of a

makes and types. That is, the STC rating is not capable module and to determine correction factors for perfor-

of predicting exactly how much energy a module will mance deviation from linearity, when module temperature

produce in the ﬁeld, i.e., when operating under real and solar radiation ﬂux vary. Using meteorological data

conditions. for the reference days, module temperature6 and incident

To this end, there are several proposals for a PV module’s solar ﬂux are calculated for each hour of the MER refer-

energy rating procedure which would attempt to account ence days, taking into account spectral and thermal

for the varying operating conditions encountered in the response characteristics. The resulting PV module hourly

ﬁeld. In most cases, actual ﬁeld measurements lead to I–V curves for each one of the reference days are translated

a regression equation for power (or energy) that is based to actual GT and Tc conditions, as required by the MER

on a particular model and, having calculated the regres- procedure, using the equations

sion coeﬃcients, a straight forward application to stan- GT

I SC ¼ I SC ½1 þ aðT c T 0 Þ ð12Þ

dard conditions gives the true power rating for the GT 0 0

module (Taylor, 1986). Thus, the main diﬀerences

between the proposed methods lie in the set of parame- and

ters used in the respective power/energy model, some

V OC ¼ V OC0 1 þ b GT 0 ðT c T 0 Þ 1 þ dðT c Þ ln GT =GT 0

of which are not always available, in the type of mea-

surements employed to determine the pertinent values, ð13Þ

and in the implicit compromise between accuracy and in which a and b are current and voltage correction coeﬃ-

practicality. cients for temperature, d is a correction coeﬃcient for solar

One such popular method, as a result of the PVUSA radiation, and the subscript zero refers to SRC. Finally, a

activity mentioned in the previous section, involves a model summation of the appropriate values – using Eqs. (1),

which relates grid-connected photovoltaic system perfor- (12), and (13) – from the hourly I–V curves, will determine

mance to the prevailing environmental conditions, i.e., it the MER reference energy rating for the particular module

uses as parameters the total plane-of-array solar radiation (Marion et al., 1999).

ﬂux, the ambient temperature, and the free-stream wind In contrast to the above methodologies, the US Sandia

speed (cf. Eq. (11)). The regression analysis covers 28-day National Laboratories (SNL) method relies on outdoor

5

Instead of the terms standard ‘‘testing” or ‘‘reference” conditions,

certain authors prefer the term standard reporting conditions (SRC),

6

because measurements can be made at conditions other than the standard The temperature is calculated using T c f1 ðGT ; T a ; V w Þ INOCT

ones (cf. footnote 1) and then carefully ‘‘translated” to STC (Emery, þf2 ðGT ; T a ; V w Þ, with INOCT = NOCT 3 °C and f1, f2 the slope and

2003). the y-intercept in the Tc versus INOCT plot.

E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624 621

testing7 to determine the module/array performance in the ﬁeld better than the peak-power ratings. However,

parameters, it applies to all PV technologies, and, hope- the AM/PM method’s basic appeal lies in the fact that it

fully, is accurate enough for the needs of PV system design- is independent of site (Emery, 2003).

ers (King et al., 1998). The method involves day-long I–V In view of the fact that most PV rating models require

measurements with the module mounted on a two-axis daily solar radiation ﬂux, temperature, and wind speed

tracker, a shade/un-shade procedure meant to determine proﬁles, i.e., data which are not always readily available

temperature coeﬃcients for the module’s electrical quanti- to designers, an energy rating at maximum ambient tem-

ties, and a programmed sequence of moving the tracker at perature (EMAT) model has been developed (Meyer and

various oﬀ-set angles. In this way, the thermal, spectral, van Dyk, 2000). The EMAT model, which uses only the

and angle-of-incidence inﬂuences are separately quantiﬁed total daily solar radiation, H (W h/m2/day), and the

and, thus, most of the ﬁve-equation model elements can maximum ambient temperature, Tmax (°C), as parameters,

be linearized. At the same time, the model equations is deﬁned by the following regression equation

remain consistent with solar cell physics (Kroposki et al.,

2000), and this explains the versatility and accuracy of E ¼ a1 H þ a2 HT 2

max þ a3 T max ð14Þ

the overall method. As for the newer, empirical thermal

in which E is the total daily electrical energy produced by

model within the rating framework, it is simpler and more

the module (W/day), and aj, j = 1–3 are the regression

adaptable than the original rigorous one, providing, how-

coeﬃcients.

ever, the same ±5 °C accuracy in the prediction of the

Finally, there are performance rating procedures based

PV module’s operating temperature. Finally, a noteworthy

on site-dependent conditions rather than on standard

characteristic is that it relates in a simple way the PV cell’s

days. Instead of predicting the energy output at standard

temperature with the module’s back-side temperature

reporting/operating conditions (SRC/SOC), it was pro-

(King et al., 2004).

posed that ‘‘realistic reporting conditions” (RRC) be

A recent simpler approach incorporates existing stan-

used for the energy/eﬃciency rating of PV modules

dard measurements to determine the energy output as a

(Bücher et al., 1991). The RRC eﬃciency gives site-spe-

function of only global in-plane irradiance and ambient

ciﬁc characteristics to the PV modules, stemming from

temperature. The procedure involves use of standard mea-

the variability of speciﬁc microclimate conditions at the

surement methods (indoor tests) in creating a ‘‘perfor-

location in question. That is, the deviation of RRC from

mance surface” for the module, as a function of GT and

SRC/SOC eﬃciency has a strong site and PV cell mate-

Ta. The prediction of energy production at a given location

rial dependence. The inﬂuence of the local spectral distri-

from the performance surface, requires a distribution sur-

bution of the solar radiation ﬂux and the site-dependent

face of environmental conditions, which will indicate the

thermal eﬀects can lead to RRC eﬃciencies that, on an

probability of occurrence of any given combination of GT

annual basis, are more than 10% lower than the SRC

and Ta for the location. If the daily variations of these

counterparts (Raicu et al., 1992).

two parameters are not available for the site, they can be

modeled from daily or monthly-mean location data. The

precise prediction of the annual energy production, then, 5. Conclusions

involves calculations over one full year using the two sur-

faces (Anderson et al., 2000). The method has been success- The operating temperature plays a central role in the

ful in testing c-Si modules at the European Solar Testing photovoltaic conversion process. Both the electrical eﬃ-

Installation, and a proposal has been made for a simple ciency and – hence – the power output of a PV module

energy rating labeling of the PV modules (Kenny et al., depend linearly on the operating temperature, decreasing

2006). with Tc. The various correlations that have been pro-

Among the purely energy-based performance rating posed in the literature, represent simpliﬁed working

methods, which involve power integrated over time and equations which apply to PV modules or PV arrays

comparison of this total energy produced with the corre- mounted on free-standing frames, to PV/Thermal collec-

sponding incident solar energy, is the so-called ‘‘AM/ tors, and to BIPV arrays, respectively. They involve basic

PM” method, that was proposed by ARCO Solar (now environmental variables, while the numerical parameters

Siemens Solar Industries). According to this method, the are not only material dependent but also system depen-

rating is based on the energy delivery during a standard dent. Thus, care should be exercised in applying a partic-

solar day, with a given reference temperature and total ular expression for the electrical eﬃciency or the power

solar radiation ﬂux distribution. The aim at the time output of a PV module or array, as each equation has

(Gay et al., 1982) was the development of a new rating sys- been developed for a speciﬁc mounting frame geometry

tem that would predict the energy-conversion performance or level of building integration. The same holds for

choosing a PV module rating method, the details and

limitations of which should be very clear to the prospec-

7

Outdoor testing is also used in the power rating method draft of the tive user. The reader, therefore, should consult the origi-

Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC, 2005). nal sources and try to make intelligent decisions when

622 E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624

seeking a correlation or a rating procedure to suit his/her Cristofari, C., Poggi, P., Notton, G., Muselli, M., 2006. Thermal modeling

needs. of a photovoltaic module. In: Proceedings of Sixth IASTED Interna-

tional Conference on ‘‘Modeling, Simulation, and Optimization”,

September 11–13, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 273–278.

References Davis, M.W., Dougherty, B.P., Fanney, A.H., 2001. Prediction of

building integrated photovoltaic cell temperatures. Transactions

Agarwal, R.K., Garg, H.P., 1994. Study of a photovoltaic-thermal system ASME, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 123, 200–210.

– thermosyphonic solar water heater combined with solar cells. Energy del Cueto, J.A., 2001. Energy production and performance of polycrys-

Conversion and Management 35, 605–620. talline silicon technology photovoltaic modules in the ﬁeld. National

Alonso Garcia, M.C., Balenzategui, J.L., 2004. Estimation of photovoltaic Renewable Energy Laboratory Report NREL/CP-520-30822.

module yearly temperature and performance based on nominal Duﬃe, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 2006. Solar Energy Thermal Processes, third

operation cell temperature calculations. Renewable Energy 29, 1997– ed. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, §23.3.

2010. Durisch, W., Urban, J., Smestad, G., 1996. Characterisation of solar cells

Al-Sabounchi, A.M., 1998. Eﬀect of ambient temperature on the and modules under actual operating conditions. Renewable Energy 8,

demanded energy of solar cells at diﬀerent inclinations. Renewable 359–366.

Energy 14, 149–155. Emery, K., 2003. Measurement and characterization of solar cells and

Anderson, D., Bishop, J., Dunlop, E., 2000. Energy rating of photovoltaic modules. In: Luque, A., Hegedus, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Photovoltaic

modules. In: Proceedings of 16th EC Photovoltaic Solar Energy Science and Engineering. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 701–752.

Conference, May 1–5, Glasgow, UK, pp. 2087–2091. Evans, D.L., 1981. Simpliﬁed method for predicting photovoltaic array

Anis, W.R., Mertens, R.P., van Overstraeten, R.J., 1983. Calculation of output. Solar Energy 27, 555–560.

solar cell operating temperature in a ﬂat plate PV array. In: Evans, D.L., Florschuetz, L.W., 1977. Cost studies on terrestrial photo-

Proceedings of Fifth EC Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, voltaic power systems with sunlight concentration. Solar Energy 19,

October 12–16, Athens, Greece, pp. 520–524. 255–262.

Assoa, Y.B., Menezo, C., Fraisse, G., Yezou, R., Brau, J., 2007. Study of Evans, D.L., Florschuetz, L.W., 1978. Terrestrial concentrating photo-

a new concept of photovoltaic-thermal hybrid collector. Solar Energy voltaic power system studies. Solar Energy 20, 37–43.

81, 1132–1143. Fanney, A.H., Dougherty, B.P., 2001. Building integrated photovoltaic

Aste, N., Chiesa, G., Verri, F., 2008. Design, development and perfor- test facility. Transactions ASME Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

mance monitoring of a photovoltaic-thermal (PVT) air collector. 123, 194–199.

Renewable Energy 33, 914–927. Farmer, B.K., 1992. PVUSA Model Technical Speciﬁcation for a Turnkey

Bakker, M., Zondag, H.A., Elswijk, M.J., Strootman, K.J., Jong, M.J.M., Photovoltaic Power System. Appendix C, p. c2.

2005. Performance and costs of roof-sized PV/thermal array combined Fathi, N.Y., Salem, A.A., 2007. The reliability of the photovoltaic

with a ground coupled heat pump. Solar Energy 78, 331–339. utilization in southern cities of Libya. Desalination 209, 86–90.

Barra, L., Coiante, D., 1993. Annual energy production and room Florida Solar Energy Center, 2005. Test method for photovoltaic module

temperature eﬀect in siting ﬂat plate photovoltaic systems. Solar power rating. FSEC Standard 202-05. www.fsec.ucf.edu.

Energy 51, 383–389. Fuentes, M., Nofuentes, G., Aguilera, J., Talavera, D.L., Castro, M.,

Bazilian, M., Prasad, D., 2002. Modelling of a photovoltaic heat recovery 2007. Application and validation of algebraic methods to predict the

system and its role in a design decision support tool for building behaviour of crystalline silicon PV modules in mediterranean climates.

professionals. Renewable Energy 27, 57–68. Solar Energy 81, 1396–1408.

Bergene, T., Løvvik, O.M., 1995. Model calculations on a ﬂat-plate solar Furushima, K., Nawata, Y., Sadatomi, M., 2006. Prediction of photo-

heat collector with integrated solar cells. Solar Energy 55, 453–462. voltaic power output considering weather eﬀects. In: ASES Conference

Beyer, H.G., Bethke, J., Drews, A., Heinemann, D., Lorenz, E., Heilscher, SOLAR 2006 – Renewable Energy Key to Climate Recovery. July 7–

G., Boﬁnger, S., 2004. Identiﬁcation of a general model for the MPP 13, Denver, Colorado.

performance of PV-modules for the application in a procedure for the Garg, H.P., Agarwal, R.K., Joshi, J.C., 1994. Experimental study on

performance check of grid connected systems. In: 19th EC Photovol- a hybrid photovoltaic-thermal solar water heater and its perfor-

taic Solar Energy Conference, June 7–11, Paris, France. <http:// mance predictions. Energy Conversion and Management 35, 621–

www.pvsat.de/paper_beyer.pdf>. 633.

Bloem, J.J., 2008. Evaluation of a PV-integrated building application in a Garg, H.P., Agarwal, R.K., 1995. Some aspects of a PV/T collector/forced

well-controlled outdoor test environment. Building and Environment circulation ﬂat plate solar water heater with solar cells. Energy

43, 205–216. Conversion and Management 36, 87–99.

Bücher, K., 1997. Site dependence of the energy collection of PV modules. Gay, C., Rumburg, J., Wilson, J., 1982. ‘AM/PM’ – all-day module

Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 47, 85–94. performance measurements. In: Proceedings of 16th IEEE Photovol-

Bücher, K., Heidler, K., Kleiss, G., Raicu, A., 1991. Annual and seasonal taic Specialists Conference, September 27–30, San Diego, CA, pp.

energy rating of mono-Si, a-Si and GaAs test cells for the USA by the 1041–1046.

RRC method. In: Proceedings of 22nd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Gianolli Rossi, E., Krebs, K., 1988. Energy rating of PV modules by

Conference, October 7–11, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 744–749. outdoor response analysis. In: Eighth EC Photovoltaic Solar Energy

Bücher, K., Kleiss, G., Batzner, D., 1998. Photovoltaic modules in Conference, Florence, Italy.

buildings: performance and safety. Renewable Energy 15, 545–551. Hart, G.W., Raghuraman, P., 1982. Simulation of thermal aspects of

Buresch, M., 1983. Photovoltaic Energy Systems. McGraw-Hill, New residential photovoltaic systems. MIT Report DOE/ET/20279-202.

York, p. 76. Hegazy, A.A., 2000. Comparative study of the performances of four

Chow, T.T., 2003. Performance analysis of photovoltaic-thermal collector photovoltaic/thermal solar air collectors. Energy Conversion and

by explicit dynamic model. Solar Energy 75, 143–152. Management 41, 861–881.

Chow, T.T., He, W., Ji, J., 2006. Hybrid photovoltaic-thermosyphon Hendrie, S.D., 1979. Evaluation of combined photovoltaic/thermal

water heating system for residential application. Solar Energy 80, 298– collectors. In: Proceedings of ISES Solar World Congress, May 28–

306. June 1, Atlanta, GA, pp. 1865–1869.

CLEFS CEA, 2004. Inﬂuence of temperature on photovoltaic module Hove, T., 2000. A method for predicting long-term average performance

eﬃciency. CLEFS CEA – No. 50/51 – Winter 2004–2005, p. 119. of photovoltaic systems. Renewable Energy 21, 207–229.

Cox, C.H., Raghuraman, P., 1985. Design considerations for ﬂat-plate Jardim, C.S., Rüther, R., Salamoni, I.T., Viana, T.S., Rebechi, S.H.,

photovoltaic/thermal collectors. Solar Energy 35, 227–241. Knob, P.J., 2008. The strategic siting and the rooﬁng area

E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624 623

requirements of building-integrated photovoltaic solar energy gener- Meyer, E.L., van Dyk, E.E., 2000. Development of energy model based on

ators in urban areas in Brazil. Energy and Buildings 40, 365–370. total daily irradiation and maximum ambient temperature. Renewable

Jennings, C., 1987. Outdoor versus rated photovoltaic module perfor- Energy 21, 37–47.

mance. In: Proceedings of 19th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Con- Mohring, H.D., Stellbogen, D., Schäﬄer, R., Oelting, S., Gegenwart, R.,

ference, May 4–8, New Orleans, LA, pp. 1257–1260. Konttinen, P., Carlsson, T., Cendagorta, M., Hermann, W., 2004.

Jie, J., Hua, Y., Gang, P., Bin, J., Wei, H., 2007a. Study of PV-Trombe Outdoor performance of polycrystalline thin ﬁlm PV modules in

wall assisted with DC fan. Building and Environment 42, 3529–3539. diﬀerent European climates. In: Proceedings of 19th EC Photovoltaic

Jie, J., Hua, Y., Wei, H., Gang, P., Jianping, L., Bin, J., 2007b. Modelling Solar Energy Conference, June 7–11, Paris, France, presentation

of a novel Trombe wall with PV cells. Building and Environment 42, 5CO.3.1.

1544–1552. Nagano, K., Mochida, T., Shimakura, K., Murashita, K., Takeda, S.,

Jie, J., Wei, H., Lam, H.N., 2002. The annual analysis of the power output 2003. Development of thermal-photovoltaic hybrid exterior wall-

and heat gain of a PV-wall with diﬀerent integration mode in Hong boards incorporating PV cells in and their winter performances. Solar

Kong. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 71, 435–448. Energy Materials and Solar Cells 77, 265–282.

Kenny, R.P., Friesen, G., Chianese, D., Bernasconi, A., Dunlop, E.D., Naveed, A.T., Kang, E.C., Lee, E.J., 2006. Eﬀect of unglazed transpired

2003. Energy rating of PV modules: comparison of methods and collector on the performance of a polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic

approach. In: Proceedings of Third World Conference on Photovoltaic module. Transactions ASME, Journal of Solar Energy Engineering

Energy Conversion, Osaka, Japan, May 11–18, pp. 2015–2018. 128, 349–353.

Kenny, R.P., Dunlop, E.D., Ossenbrink, H.A., Müllejans, H., 2006. A Nishioka, K., Hatayama, T., Uraoka, Y., Fuyuki, T., Hagihara, R.,

practical method for the energy rating of c-Si photovoltaic modules Watanabe, M., 2003. Field-test analysis of PV system output charac-

based on standard tests. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and teristics focusing on module temperature. Solar Energy Materials and

Applications 14, 155–166. Solar Cells 75, 665–671.

King, D.L., Boyson, W.E., Kratochvil, J.A., 2004. Photovoltaic array Notton, G., Cristofari, C., Mattei, M., Poggi, P., 2005. Modelling of a

performance model. Report SAND2004-3535. <http://www.san- double-glass photovoltaic module using ﬁnite diﬀerences. Applied

dia.gov/pv/docs/PDF/King%20SAND.pdf>. Thermal Engineering 25, 2854–2877.

King, D.L., Kratochvil, J.A., Boyson, W.E., 1997. Temperature coeﬃ- Oshiro, T., Nakamura, H., Imataki, M., Sakuta, K., Kurokawa, K., 1997.

cients for PV modules and arrays: measurement methods, diﬃculties, Practical values of various parameters for PV system design. Solar

and results. In: Proceedings of 26th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Energy Materials and Solar Cells 47, 177–187.

Conference, September 29–October 3, Anaheim, CA. Osterwald, C.R., 1986. Translation of device performance measurements

King, D.L., Kratochvil, J.A., Boyson, W.E., Bower, W.I., 1998. Field to reference conditions. Solar Cells 18, 269–279.

experience with a new performance characterization procedure for OTA – Oﬃce of Technology Assessment, 1978. Application of Solar

photovoltaic arrays. In: Proceedings of Second World Conference and Technology to Today’s Energy Needs, Energy Conversion with

Exhibition on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion, Vienna, Austria, Photovoltaics. Princeton, p. 406 (Chapter X).

pp. 1947–1952. Othman, M.Y., Yatim, B., Sopian, K., Abu Bakar, M.N., 2007.

Kirpich, A., O’Brien, G., Shepard, N., 1980. Electric power generation: Performance studies on a ﬁnned double-pass photovoltaic-thermal

photovoltaics. In: Dickinson, W.C., Cheremisinoﬀ, P.N. (Eds.), Solar (PV/T) solar collector. Desalination 209, 43–49.

Energy Technology Handbook, Part B. Marcel Dekker, New York, p. Parretta, A., Sarno, A., Vicari, L.R.M., 1998. Eﬀects of solar irradiation

329. conditions on the outdoor performance of photovoltaic modules.

Kou, Q., Klein, S.A., Beckman, W.A., 1998. A method for estimating the Optics Communications 153, 153–163.

long-term performance of direct-coupled PV pumping systems. Solar Patel, M.R., 1999. Wind and Solar Power Systems. CRC Press, Boca

Energy 64, 33–40. Raton, FL, §8.6.4.

Kroposki, B., Marion, W., King, D.L., Boyson, W.E., Kratochvil, J.A., Perlman, J., McNamara, A., Strobino, D., 2005. Analysis of PV system

2000. Comparison of module performance characterization methods. performance versus modelled expectations across a set of identical PV

In: Proceedings of 28th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, systems. In: Proceedings of ISES Solar World Congress ‘‘Bringing

September 16–22, Anchorage, AK, pp. 1407–1411. Water to the World”, August 6–12, Orlando, FL.

Kroposki, B., Myers, D., Emery, K., Mrig, L., Whitaker, C., Newmiller, Prakash, J., 1994. Transient analysis of a photovoltaic-thermal solar

J., 1996. Photovoltaic module energy rating methodology develop- collector for co-generation of electricity and hot air/water. Energy

ment. In: Proceedings of 25th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Confer- Conversions Management 35, 967–972.

ence, May 13–17, Washington DC, pp.1311–1314. Radziemska, E., 2003a. The eﬀect of temperature on the power drop in

Lasnier, F., Ang, T.G., 1990. Photovoltaic Engineering Handbook. Adam crystalline silicon solar cells. Renewable Energy 28, 1–12.

Hilger, New York, NY, p. 80. Radziemska, E., 2003b. Thermal performance of Si and GaAs based solar

Liu, Q., Ryu, Y., Gao, W., Ruan, Y., 2004. Field study and sensitive cells and modules: a review. Progress in Energy Combustion Science

analysis of PV system by multiple regression method. Journal of Asian 29, 407–424.

Architecture and Building Engineering 3, 247–252. Radziemska, E., Klugmann, E., 2006. Photovoltaic maximum power point

Marion, B., 2002. A method for modelling the current–voltage curve of a varying with illumination and temperature. Transactions ASME,

PV module for outdoor conditions. Progress in Photovoltaics: Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 128, 34–39.

Research and Applications 10, 205–214. Raicu, A., Heidler, K., Kleiss, G., Bücher, K., 1992. Realistic

Marion, B., Kroposki, B., Emery, K., del Cueto, J., Myers, D., Osterwald, reporting conditions – RRC – for site-dependent energy rating

C., 1999. Validation of a photovoltaic module energy ratings proce- of PV devices. In: Proceedings of 11th EC Photovoltaic Solar

dure. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report NREL/TP-520- Energy Conference, October 12–16, Montreaux, Switzerland, pp.

26909. 1323–1326.

Markvart, T., 2000. Solar Electricity, second ed. Wiley, Chichester, p. 37. Ravindra, N.M., Srivastava, V.K., 1979/80. Temperature dependence of

Menicucci, D., Fernandez, J.P., 1988. User’s manual for PVFORM: a the maximum theoretical eﬃciency in solar cells. Solar Cells 1, 107–

photovoltaic system simulation program for stand-alone and grid- 109.

interactive applications. SAND85-0376, Sandia National Laborato- RETScreen International, Photovoltaic Project Analysis, 2001. PV.22.

ries, Albuquerque, NM. Risser, V.V., Fuentes, M.K., 1983. Linear regression analysis of ﬂat-plate

Mertens, R., 1979. Hybrid thermal-photovoltaic systems. In: Proceedings photovoltaic system performance data. In: Proceedings of Fifth EC

of UK-ISES Conference on C21 Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conver- Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, October 12–16, Athens,

sion, September, 1979, p. 65. Greece, pp. 623–627.

624 E. Skoplaki, J.A. Palyvos / Solar Energy 83 (2009) 614–624

Rosell, J.I., Ibáñez, M., 2006. Modelling power output in photovoltaic Truncellito, N.T., Sattolo, A.J., 1979. An analytical method to simulate

modules for outdoor operating conditions. Energy Conversion and solar energy collection and storage utilizing a ﬂat plate photovoltaic

Management 47, 2424–2430. panel. General Electric Advanced Energy Department.

Sharan, S.N., Kandpal, T.C., 1987. Optimum concentration ratio for a Twidell, J., Weir, T., 1986. Renewable Energy Resources. E&FN Spon,

combined photovoltaic-thermal concentrator–receiver system. Energy London, UK, p. 160.

Conversions Management 27, 355–359. Wong, P.W., Shimoda, Y., Nonaka, M., Inoue, M., Mizuno, M., 2005.

Sharan, S.N., Mathur, S.S., Kandpal, T.C., 1987. Analytical performance Field study and modelling of semi-transparent PV in power, thermal

evaluation of combined photovoltaic-thermal concentrator–receiver and optical aspects. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building

systems with linear absorbers. Energy Conversions Management 27, Engineering 4, 549–556.

361–365. Yamaguchi, T., Okamoto, Y., Taberi, M., 2003. Investigation on

Siegel, M.D., Klein, S.A., Beckman, W.A., 1981. A simpliﬁed method for abundant photovoltaic power generated by 40 kW PV system in

estimating the monthly-average performance of photovoltaic systems. Wakayama National College of Technology. Solar Energy Materials

Solar Energy 26, 413–418. and Solar Cells 75, 597–601.

Stultz, J.W., Wen, L.C., 1977. Thermal performance testing and analysis of Yamawaki, T., Mizukami, S., Masui, T., Takahashi, H., 2001. Experi-

photovoltaic modules in natural sunlight. LSA Task Report 5101-31. mental Investigation on generated power of amorphous PV module for

Taylor, R.W., 1986. System and module rating: advertised versus actual roof azimuth. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 67, 369–377.

capability. Solar Cells 18, 335–344. Yang, H., Burnett, J., Ji, J., 2000. Simple approach to cooling load

Tiwari, A., Sodha, M.S., 2006a. Performance evaluation of a solar PV/T component calculation through PV walls. Energy and Buildings 31,

system: an experimental validation. Solar Energy 80, 751–759. 285–290.

Tiwari, A., Sodha, M.S., 2006b. Performance evaluation of a solar PV/T Zervas, P.L., Sarimveis, H., Palyvos, J.A., Markatos, N.C.G., 2007.

system: a parametric study. Renewable Energy 31, 2460–2474. Model-based optimal control of a hybrid power generation system

Tiwari, A., Sodha, M.S., 2007. Parametric study of various conﬁgurations consisting of photovoltaic arrays and fuel cells. Journal of Power

of hybrid PV/thermal air collector: experimental validation of theo- Sources. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.11.067.

retical model. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 91, 17–28. Zhou, W., Yang, H., Fang, Z., 2007. A novel model for photovoltaic array

Tobias, I., del Canizo, C., Alonso, J., 2003. Crystalline silicon solar cells performance prediction. Applied Energy 84, 1187–1198.

and modules. In: Luque, A., Hegedus, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Zhu, Z., Yang, H., Jiang, R., Wu, Q., 2004. Investigation of conjugate

Photovoltaic Science and Engineering. Wiley, Chichester (Chapter 7). heat transfer in a photovoltaic wall. Heat Transfer-Asian Research 33,

Tonui, J.K., Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., 2007a. Improved PV/T solar 117–128.

collectors with heat extraction by forced or natural air circulation. Zondag, H.A., 2007. Flat-plate PV-thermal collectors and systems – a

Renewable Energy 32, 623–637. review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2005.12.012.

Tonui, J.K., Tripanagnostopoulos, Y., 2007b. Air-cooled PV/T solar Zondag, H.A., de Vries, D.W., van Helden, W.G.J., van Zolingen, R.J.C.,

collectors with low cost performance improvements. Solar Energy 81, van Steenhoven, A.A., 2003. The yield of diﬀerent combined PV-

498–511. thermal collector designs. Solar Energy 74, 253–269.

- Solel SpecHochgeladen vonMathias Kinn
- Feasibility study on Grid connected PV system in Nepal - paper RETSUD09 2Hochgeladen vonPrakash Jha
- NUMERICALS.pdfHochgeladen vonVicky
- Modeling and Simulation of Solar Photovoltaic Module Using Matlab SimulinkHochgeladen vonesatjournals
- Best Methods for Different Factors of a PV Module to Increase its EfficiencyHochgeladen vonVibhutesh Kumar Singh
- DanfossULXIndoorInstallationManualL0041029306_02GBHochgeladen vonAnonymous WD109Uaky
- Solar Energy Companies in IndiaHochgeladen vonashokfriends
- Trina Solar Annual ReportHochgeladen vonenestee
- Super Large Scale Solar Totten Solar Today 06 05 AnnotatedHochgeladen vonMichael P Totten
- Vs Products IncHochgeladen vonvsproducts2
- Economics of Solar RooftopHochgeladen vonanujpundir2006
- Conenergy 240 Small - TD_power_systems-SmallHochgeladen vontpsolar
- Net Zero Energy Building a Review on Its Global ImpactHochgeladen vonWaleed Aziz
- Testing of a Microcontroller Based Solar panel Tracking SystemHochgeladen vonIOSRjournal
- pv_ieee_kaygusuz.pdfHochgeladen vonEdgar Dario Obando
- Mathematical Model for Photovoltaic CellsHochgeladen vonPoornima Sridaran
- Optical Response of MoSe2 Crystals DownloadHochgeladen vonEditor IJTSRD
- Thesis WritingHochgeladen vonCarla Samantha Montiverde
- 21 Solar Cells IIHochgeladen vonhaerur rozi
- 1560684667-jgRiZHochgeladen vonshahab
- Solar Cell FINALHochgeladen vonShanck94
- Temperature Effect on Photovoltaic Modules Power DropHochgeladen vonAliEng1
- Solar EnergyHochgeladen vonAurang Zaib
- Pakistan 09Hochgeladen vonkaif0331
- Space ReviewsHochgeladen vonHartman József Joci
- Trina PA14 72cellHochgeladen vonMaruan Muhammad
- SolarHochgeladen vonLap Dong
- ip draft 4 final draftHochgeladen vonapi-330358446
- 10 reason irresistible to go energy solar.pdfHochgeladen vonRobert David
- INTRODUCTION 1Hochgeladen vonvkubendran

- c6d5ea6f28a04c0de341ff36ba1bb24a4167.pdfHochgeladen vonReinhartd Depunisher Densuss
- 1-s2.0-S187661021502888X-mainHochgeladen vonSyok Toyotadx
- Rice in HydroponicHochgeladen vonGaluh Pradana
- 8644-10324-1-PB.pdfHochgeladen vonReinhartd Depunisher Densuss
- Integrated Analysis i ReportHochgeladen vonReinhartd Depunisher Densuss

- Named After Female Warriors of Greek MythologyHochgeladen vonAditi Agarwal
- 510_PC_OCT04_QAR_Ex7_Closed_PSJ.docHochgeladen vonjasminnee
- Case_of_IMG.pdfHochgeladen vonIrphan Wijaya
- Engleza Medicina Militara.Hochgeladen vonileanastoica
- REPORTED SPEECH.docHochgeladen vonfceye123
- How to UseHochgeladen vonPatrick Laffont
- Word Vietnam May 2016Hochgeladen vonHuynh Dave
- Maladewa ArchipelagoHochgeladen vonDahnialAgung
- Continuing Ed Med Gas VacHochgeladen vonPrestoneK
- Tungula's Gift [English-Spanish]Hochgeladen vonsaverr
- Brick Masonry- ExplainedHochgeladen vonCarlton Richard Mouton
- Prof. Tan - Tulchinsky n Varavikova CHAPTER 9.pdfHochgeladen vonAnonymous rzPX6lU
- Resistor Select GuideHochgeladen vonFicolainitta Fidalfutta
- Performance Curves for Mechanical Draft Cooling TowerHochgeladen vonEsteban Reyes
- Northern - Southeast Case StudyHochgeladen vonYogeshLuhar
- Trapani 2014Hochgeladen vonravi474
- Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate ImpactHochgeladen vongabi_raducan
- History of Egypt, Chaldæa, Syria,Babylonia and AssyriaHochgeladen vonsitizulaika275
- Advanced Machine Learning: CS 281Hochgeladen vonWill White
- hd9020_40_dfu_engHochgeladen vonIam Cornholio
- Dictionar Termeni Instalatii ConstructiiHochgeladen vonSilviu Madalin
- Exer. 3Hochgeladen vonRishabh
- Budgeted Lesson PlanHochgeladen vonElvin Nobleza Palao
- LPCHochgeladen vonGalla Uroic
- Community - Cheviot Hills & Rancho ParkHochgeladen vonReuben Pacheco
- 03_315_MVA_400_220_kV_Varsana_R2_Jul08_ Jun_10Hochgeladen vonUsman034
- 20 winter songsHochgeladen vonapi-252931693
- KEETON 14 Comparison slides.pdfHochgeladen vonndimuzio
- Post NargisHochgeladen vonIrlanda Libertad Mendoza Pineda
- NTUST_StudentHandbook.pdfHochgeladen vonBasyaruddin Basyar