00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

2 Ansichten10 SeitenJan 13, 2019

Experimental investigation of the optimum PV panels tilt angle during the summer period.pdf

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

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

2 Ansichten

00 positive Bewertungen00 negative Bewertungen

Experimental investigation of the optimum PV panels tilt angle during the summer period.pdf

© All Rights Reserved

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

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

the summer period

John Kaldellis*, Dimitrios Zaﬁrakis

Lab of Soft Energy Applications & Environmental Protection, TEI of Piraeus, P.O. Box 41046, Athens 12201, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The photovoltaic (PV) technology has made considerable progress during the recent years in both grid

Received 1 August 2011 connected and stand-alone applications, especially in areas of high local solar potential. In this context,

Received in revised form the interest recently demonstrated in the Greek region concerning PVs encourages the investigation of

27 November 2011

optimum operation conditions for such systems. At the same time, summer-only applications, being

Accepted 29 November 2011

rather common in Greece, require maximum exploitation of the local solar potential during the speciﬁc

Available online 23 December 2011

period of the year. For this purpose, an experimental study is currently carried out in the area of Athens,

in order to evaluate the performance of different PV panel tilt angles during the summer period.

Keywords:

Solar energy

According to the experimental results obtained, the angle of 15 (2.5 ) is designated as optimum for

Experimental measurements almost the entire summer period, while conclusions drawn are accordingly theoretically validated by

Greece means of established solar geometry equations.

Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction that there are numerous remote consumers across the Greek region

[9,10] that cannot appreciate connection to a solid electricity grid,

Remarkable increase of installed capacity worldwide [1] and PV stand-alone applications gradually gain interest on the basis of

constantly decreasing costs [2] of the photovoltaic (PV) technology experience obtained by the operation of small to medium scale grid

have turned PV applications into one of the most interesting energy connected systems.

alternatives, especially in areas of high quality solar potential. In What should be noted is that a large share of these remote

this context, analogous interest is noted during the recent years in consumers concern summer use only (e.g. summer houses,

the Greek region as well [3,4], where the favorable local solar summer hotel units), while in many of these cases, extreme water

potential (annual solar energy at horizontal plane even exceeding needs (especially in semi arid areas of the Aegean islands) should

1650 kWh/m2 [5], Fig. 1) encourages operation of such systems. also be stressed. As a result, use of PV systems in such summer-only

Installed capacity of PVs in Greece (Fig. 2) exceeds 200 MW (end of applications (when the local available solar potential maximizes) is

2010) [6], i.e. almost four times the respective of the previous year thought to be an interesting solution that needs to be examined for

(55 MW), while at the same time a promising local PV industry the satisfaction of both electriﬁcation and irrigation needs [11e14].

seems to emerge (Fig. 3). At the same time, efﬁcient operation of PV installations depends

Furthermore, considerable remuneration of energy produced by on many factors, among which is also the tilt angle of panels.

grid connected rooftop PV systems under a feed-in-tariff of 550 V/ Acknowledging the need to ensure maximization of energy

MWh [7] has attracted numerous applicants in the category of production during the summer months of the year for the appli-

<10 kWp (Fig. 4). At the same time, experience gained in the ﬁeld cations previously discussed, a systematic effort is currently

[8] (7% of installed capacity corresponds to systems below 10 kWp undertaken to obtain the optimum summer tilt angle of a PV

and 17% to systems below 20 kWp) largely applies to the sector of installation located in the area of Athens, central Greece. For this

small scale stand-alone systems as well. Actually, owed to the fact purpose, conduction of experimental measurements during the

entire summer season is carried out in the speciﬁc study, so as to

designate the optimum panels’ tilt angle during the speciﬁc period

of the year.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ30 210 5381237; fax: þ30 210 5381467.

At this point, it should be noted that investigation on the

E-mail address: jkald@teipir.gr (J. Kaldellis). optimum panel installation angle started in the early 80’s. At that

URL: http://www.sealab.gr/ time, Felske [15] investigated the optimum tilt angle in relation to

0360-5442/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.11.058

306 J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314

Fig. 1. Wind and solar potential in the Greek territory (based on data from [5]).

the off-south angle, concluding that for a given azimuth angle, the tracking system. According to their results, the monthly optimum

optimum collector tilt should be expected at an angle between 3 tilt angle ranges between 13 in June and 61 in December. Based

and 10 less than the given location latitude. Furthermore, on experimental measurements as well, Gaglia et al. [19] reported

according to Tsalides and Thanailakis [16], the year-round optimum that the optimum PV tilt angle for the area of Athens (36 570 N)

tilt angle for the area of Athens (37 580 N) and for north-facing ranges between 23 and 33 . Finally, Mehleri et al. [20] presented

panels serving constant loads was determined at 57, which is a computational methodology for the determination of the

50% higher than the local latitude. Following, Balouktsis et al. [17] optimum tilt angle and the orientation of PV panels, based on solar

presented a similar calculation algorithm for the case of variable radiation measurements recorded at the National Technical

loads, estimating the optimum tilt angle of PV panels for the island University of Athens (37 580 N). Their conclusion was that the

of Kythnos (37 250 N) during the entire year. According to their optimum tilt angle for the entire year is 30 .

results, the optimum angle per month was found to vary from At the same time Koronakis [21] investigated the optimum angle

0 (June, July) to 60 (December), while the optimum PV tilt angle for PV panels operating in Athens for each month of the year,

for the entire year was 26 . designating that optimum summer angles range from 5 to 17.

Moreover, based on experimental measurements, Kacira et al. Similar were also the results of Benghanem [22] concerning

[18] investigated the optimum tilt angle of PV panels in Sanliurfa somewhat lower latitudes (angle of 12 for a latitude of 24.5 N),

Turkey (37 N), by using two PV panels, with the ﬁrst one kept at while Skeiker [23] estimated optimum angles for the month of

a ﬁxed tilt angle and the second one mounted on a two-axis solar

220

Annual Capacity

200

Cumulative Capacity

180

Installed Capcity (MWp)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Fig. 2. Recent progress of PV installations in Greece (based on data from [6]). Fig. 3. Characteristics of Greek PV manufacturers (based on data from [6]).

J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314 307

Short-Term Time Evolution of PV Rooftop Applications six panels each (Fig. 6), with each of the arrays being mounted on

(<10kW ) - Capacity of Applications & in Operation Systems a metal frame, properly designed so that the tilt angle can be

50000 adjusted from 0 to 90 , at a 5 step.

45000 Furthermore, the twelve panels of the installation are connected

In operation

40000

Applications

in six parallel strings of two. Six ammeters and voltmeters placed

35000 on the control panel of the installation (Fig. 6), are used to provide

30000 the necessary measurements of current and voltage from each of

25000 the strings. The orientation of the PV panels is ﬁxed with the azi-

20000

muth angle set equal to zero, while their type is multi-crystalline

15000

(LA361-K51S-manufactured by Kyocera) with the respective tech-

10000

nical characteristics given in Table 1.

5000

Moreover, for the measurement of solar radiation, two pyran-

0

ometers of Li-Cor type are used. The ﬁrst pyranometer measures

the global radiation on the horizontal plane and the second is

mounted on the PV base so that it can measure the global radiation

Fig. 4. Progress of PV rooftop installations in Greece (based on data from [6]). upon the PV surface, at the tilt angle each time selected (Fig. 6).

Finally, what should also be mentioned is that all measurements

taken are also collected in a data logger (STYLITIS-41) (see also

August in the order of 12.5 e17, for latitudes between 35 N and

Fig. 6) that is able to store data for up to 30 days through the use of

40 N.

a computer.

According to the above research results, the optimum angle of

PV panels varies considerably between different studies, mainly

due to the calculation models used and the atmospheric environ- 2.2. Description of the experimental procedure

ment of the location at which the experiment takes place. Besides

that, what may also be concluded is that emphasis is usually given The basic concept of the experimental procedure is to compare,

on the determination of the year-round optimum tilt angle. on a real time basis, the performance of four identical PV panels

Considering the above, an attempt is carried out in the present during the summer months of the year. The two of them (PV pair I)

study so as to determine the summer period optimum angle for PV are kept at a ﬁxed tilt angle of 15 (which is according to the results

panels operating in the area of Athens. For this purpose, experi- of previous studies expected to be the optimum tilt angle during

mental investigation of the subject examined is currently under- the summer months for the speciﬁc area) and the other two are set

taken for the entire summer period. In this context, emphasis is to periodically vary their tilt angle (PV pair II).

given on examining the effect of varying the panel tilt angle from Measurements were taken every 10 min during daylight, while

the expected optimum one, while accordingly, an effort is made by the panel tilt angles examined correspond to 0 , 15 , 30 , 45 , 60

the authors so as to interpret results obtained through theoretical and 75 . Besides that, as already mentioned, measurements were

validation on the basis of established solar geometry equations. taken at the hot period of the year (from mid-May to mid-

September) with the above mentioned panel tilt angles being

2. Experimental setup and procedure of the experiment examined consecutively, for a 20-day period each (see also Table 2).

At the same time, the global solar irradiance at both the horizontal

2.1. Description of the experimental setup and the tilted plane, as well as the current and voltage output for

each of the PV pairs, were all recorded.

The PV conﬁguration used for the experimental measurements After the collection of measurements for the time period of

is installed on the roof of the S.E.A.&ENVI.PRO. Laboratory, i.e. on study (e.g. totoþDt), performance of the two pairs of PV panels

the top of one of the buildings comprising the TEI of Piraeus investigated is based on the assessment of their energy yield. More

Campus [11]. The exact location is determined by the geographical speciﬁcally, the hourly energy output of each pair is calculated as

coordination of 37 580 N and 23 400 E and a high quality local solar [24]:

potential (see also Fig. 5). The installation consists of two PV arrays,

t ¼Zto þDt

Long Term Monthly Average of Solar Potential at the t ¼ to

Horizontal Plane (Athens, 1990-2000)

250 where “Ii” is the current output and “Ui” is the output voltage of

each pair of PV panels.

Solar Energy at the Horizontal

the performance of different tilt angles, estimation of the mean

Plane (kWh/m )

2

also undertaken (see also Eq. (2))

100

EPV

CFPV ¼ (2)

Np ,Dt

50

with “Np” being the peak power of the PV panels (i.e. 51 Wp each

0 panel).

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Prior to the conduction of measurements however, to increase

Month of the Year

reliability of results obtained, statistical similarity of both the pyr-

Fig. 5. Solar potential of Athens based on long term solar irradiance measurements anometers and the pairs of PV panels used was examined through

(based on data from [11]). the application of the h-test method [25,26] (see also Appendix A).

308 J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314

Similarity of both pyranometers and PV pairs may be reﬂected from PV pair along with the respective 10 min distribution of solar

the measurements presented in Figs. 7 and 8 respectively, as well as radiation at the horizontal plane are included. In this context,

from the data of Table 3. On top of that, what should also be noted is current production “Ii” is as expected analogous to the distribution

that to avoid inﬂuence of factors such as dust [27,28], all four PV of solar radiation, while the effect of the panels’ tilt angle becomes

panels were kept clean from any external pollutant throughout the evident.

experimental period, thus ensuring similar performance which is In fact, by observing the results obtained, there is a minor

validated by the h-test. difference in the produced electrical current between the 15 (ﬁxed

angle PV pair) and the 0 (variable angle PV pair) case, which is then

however found to increase considerably, up to the point of 60 . At

3. Experimental results

the same time, statistical similarity of the two PV pairs is also re-

ﬂected from the results of the 15 e15 case, where difference of

Experimental results obtained appear ﬁrst in Fig. 9, where one

current production is negligible. On the other hand, the increasing

presents representative daily performance comparisons between

trend of “Ii” difference noted between the ﬁxed and the variable

the ﬁxed and the variable PV panels’ tilt angles. More precisely, in

angle PV pair seems to fade out in the case of 15 e75 , with

Fig. 9 the 10 min average electrical current production “Ii” of each

measurements concerning the speciﬁc case taken in the period

between late August and mid-September.

Table 1 At this point it is important to note that the hour on the x-axis in

Technical characteristics of the PV panels employed. the respective set of ﬁgures is set at local standard time (LST) and

Parameter Value

Peak power 51.0 W Table 2

Voltage at maximum power 16.9 V Experimental measurements’ plan.

Current at maximum power 3.02 A

Open circuit voltage 21.2 V Variable angle PV pair Period of measurements

Short circuit current 3.25 A 0 15/5/10 to 3/6/10

Length 988 mm 15 4/6/10 to 23/6/10

Width 448 mm 30 24/6/10 to 13/7/10

Thickness 36 mm 45 14/7/10 to 2/8/10

Weight 5.9 kg 60 3/8/10 to 22/8/10

Maximum efﬁciency 14% 75 23/8/10 to 11/9/10

J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314 309

Parameters’ values of the h-test.

1400

PV pairs (both kept at 15 )

Pyranometer at Fixed Angle (W/m )

Pyranometers

2

1200

Parameter Value Parameter Value

1000

do (W/m2) 0 do (A) 0

800

x1 (W/m2) 479.01 x1 (A) 1.1

x2 (W/m2) 460.80 x2 (A) 1.1

600 s1 (W/m2) 302.9 s1 (A) 0.75

s2 (W/m2) 291.64 s2 (A) 0.78

400 N1 1149 N1 847

N2 1149 N2 847

200 qo 1.47 qo 0

x 2292.71 x 1691.37

0

qc 1.96 qc 1.64

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

2

Pyranometer at Variable Angle (W/m )

4. Theoretical investigation of experimental results

therefore the solar noon is not at 12:00 LST, which may also derive for the summer period, an effort is currently undertaken in order to

from the daily proﬁle of the solar radiation measurements pre- interpret the results obtained through the theoretical investigation

sented in some of the cases of Fig. 9 (e.g. 15 e45 and 15 e60 ). of the problem examined.

Accordingly, based on the use of Eqs. (1) and (2), typical weekly Theoretical determination of the optimum summer tilt angle is

distribution of “CFPV ” for all comparison sets examined is given in based on the established equations of solar geometry [24,29] and

Fig. 10. More precisely, according to the results obtained, better more precisely on the minimization of the solar radiation incidence

performance of the 15 panel tilt angle is illustrated in all cases angle. Note that zero incidence angle implies vertical incidence of

examined, with the greatest difference between the ﬁxed and the the solar radiation upon the surface under study and thus

variable angle PV pairs appearing in the case of 15 e60 (e.g. maximum absorbance of solar radiation (see also Fig. 11).

difference of the daily “CFPV ” even above 6% in absolute values). In this context, incidence angle “q” is provided by Eq. (3), where

On the other hand, the 15 “CFPV ” value is found to mostly vary parameters involved also include the panel tilt angle “b”, the lati-

between 15% and 22%, i.e. an expected result for the area and period tude of the location examined “4”, the azimuth angle “g”, the solar

of investigation, while difference between the ﬁxed and the vari- hour angle “u” and the solar declination “d”.

able angle PV pairs is minimum in the case of 15 e0 (e.g. even

dropping below 0.15% in absolute values). Overall, the 20-day long cos q ¼ sin d,sin 4,cos b sin d,cos 4,sin b,cos g

term average relative difference between the ﬁxed and the variable þ cos d,cos 4,cos b,cos u

angle PV pairs’ “CFPV ” is given in Table 4, where maximum devia-

þ cos d,sin 4,sin b,cos g,cos u

tion noted in the case of 15 e60 is found to decrease in the case of

75 , owed mainly to the time period of experimental measure- þ cos d,sin b,sin g,sin u (3)

ments (see also Table 2).

Next, solar declination “d” is given by Eq. (4), where “D” is the

In this context, what should also be stressed is that given the

Julian day of the year.

peak power of the PV panels (i.e. 102 W for each of the pairs),

difference noted in the “CFPV ” values may be used to estimate the d ¼ 23:45,sin½360,ðD þ 284Þ=365 (4)

respective reduction in energy production. For example, in the

extreme case of 15 e60 , the 20-day energy output of the ﬁxed PV Furthermore, solar hour angle “u” is a function of solar time “ST”

pair (i.e. 9.75 kWh) drops to 7.08 kWh for the 60 PV pair, which is and is provided by the following equation, where “ST” is used in

equal to a relative difference of 27.3% (see also Table 4) that decimal form.

underlines the importance of selecting the optimum tilt angle.

u ¼ 15 ,ðST 12Þ (5)

Subsequently, in order to estimate the solar time “ST”, local

Comparison of the Fixed and Variable Angle PV Pairs standard time “LST” along with the standard and the local meridian

3,0 of the area (“Lst” and “Ll” respectively) are required,

Current "I" of PV Pair II (A)

2,0 with (þ) applying for the west hemisphere and () for the east. On

top of that, “c” corresponds to the 1 h correction (i.e. 60 min)

1,5 applying only during the period from the last Sunday of March to

the last Sunday of October so as to raise the daylight saving time

1,0

(otherwise c ¼ 0). Furthermore, “Et” corresponds to the time

0,5 correction function, given by the Watt equation below

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0

with “B” being also a function of the Julian day of the year “D”.

Current "I" of PV Pair I (A)

B ¼ ½360,ðD 81Þ=364 (8)

310 J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314

Current Production & Solar Irradiance Daily Variation Current Production & Solar Irradiance Daily Variation

(PV Pair II at 0o) (PV Pair II at 45o)

3,0 1000

3,0 600

Fixed Angle: 15 degrees

Variable Angle: 0 degrees

2,5 500

2,4 800

Solar Radiation

Radiation (W/m )

PV Current "I" (A)

2

Radiation (W/m )

2

2,0 400

1,8 600

1,5 300

1,2 400

Fixed Angle: 15 degrees

1,0 200

Variable Angle: 45 degrees

0,6 Solar Radiation 200

0,5 100

0,0 0 0,0 0

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

Hour of the Day Hour of the Day

Current Production & Solar Irradiance Daily Variation Current Production & Solar Irradiance Daily Variation

o

(PV Pair II at 15 ) (PV Pair II at 60o)

3,5 1120 3,0 900

Horizontal Plane Solar

PV Current "I" (A)

Radiation (W/m )

2,5 800 Radiation (W/m )

2

2

2,0 600

2,0 640

1,5 450

1,5 480

1,0 Fixed Angle: 15 degrees 300

1,0 Fixed Angle: 15 degrees 320

Variable Angle: 60 degrees

Variable Angle: 15 degrees

0,5 Solar Radiation 160 0,5 Solar Radiation 150

0,0 0 0,0 0

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

Hour of the Day Hour of the Day

Current Production & Solar Irradiance Daily Variation Current Production & Solar Irradiance Daily Variation

o

(PV Pair II at 30 ) (PV Pair II at 75o)

3,0 1000 3,0 900

Fixed Angle: 15 degrees

Variable Angle: 30 degrees 2,5 750

2,4 800

Horizoltal Plane Solar

Solar Radiation

PV Current "I" (A)

Radiation (W/m )

Radiation (W/m )

2

2

2,0 600

1,8 600

1,5 450

1,2 400

1,0 300

0,5 Variable Angle: 75 degrees 150

Solar Radiation

0,0 0 0,0 0

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

Fig. 9. Comparison of performance between the ﬁxed and the variable angle PV panels for representative days of measurements.

In this context, using the information of Table 5 concerning late afternoon hours, when the panel tilt angle of 0 presents the

assigned values of input parameters, variation of the incidence lower incidence angle value.

angle “q” in relation to the selected panel tilt angle “b” for the entire Nevertheless, as one may obtain from the ﬁgure, the 15 tilt angle

summer period is given in Figs. 12 and 13. remains optimum for almost the entire day (from 10:00 to 17:00),

More precisely, in Fig. 12 one may obtain an example for the which also corresponds to the period of maximum solar irradiance

15th of May, which comprises the typical solar day of the speciﬁc kept above 500 W/m2. As a result, it becomes clear that for this

month [30]. As one may see, there are six different curves of typical day of May, 15 is the optimum tilt angle since it ensures the

incidence angle “q”, covering the entire range of tilt angles most vertical incidence of the solar irradiance upon the surface of PV

examined, i.e. from 0 to 75 , while distribution of the solar irra- panels for the period of the day that solar irradiance maximizes.

diance at horizontal level is also included. In this context, distri- Similar to Fig. 12, in Fig. 13 one may obtain the respective results

bution of the incidence angle is found to present minimum values for the entire period investigated, on the basis of a one-month time

for the mid-day period (i.e. when the available solar radiation interval, again using the typical solar days of each month investi-

maximizes) in the case of panel tilt angle equal to 15 . On the gated [30]. As one may obtain from the ﬁgure, the angle of 15 is

other hand, the situation is inversed during the early morning and maintained as optimum until late July-early August, although it

J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314 311

Daily Performance Comparison (PV Pair II at 0o) Daily Performance Comparison (PV Pair II at 45o)

25% 25%

20% 20%

Daily Capacity Factor

15% 15%

10% 10%

5% 5%

0%

0%

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

PV Pair I (15 degrees) PV Pair II (45 degrees)

PV Pair I (15 degrees) PV Pair II (0 degrees)

Daily Performance Comparison (PV Pair II at 15o) Daily Performance Comparison (PV Pair II at 60o)

25% 25%

20% 20%

Daily Capacity Factor

15% 15%

10% 10%

5% 5%

0%

0%

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

PV Pair I (15 degrees) PV Pair II (15 degrees) PV Pair I (15 degrees) PV Pair II (60 degrees)

Daily Performance Comparison (PV Pair II at 30o) Daily Performance Comparison (PV Pair II at 75o)

25% 25%

20%

Daily Capacity Factor

20%

Daily Capacity Factor

15%

15%

10%

10%

5%

5%

0%

0%

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

y1

y2

y3

y4

y5

y6

y7

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

Da

PV Pair I (15 degrees) PV Pair II (30 degrees)

Fig. 10. The impact of the tilt angle variation on the daily capacity factor of the PV panels set at the tilt angle of 15

should be noted that the respective period of the day, during which

15 produce the lower incidence angle, is found to gradually narrow

(in comparison with the respective of May, i.e. from 10:00 to 17:00).

On the other hand, the 30 panel tilt angle seems to produce the

Table 4

Relative deviation of the “CFPV ” between the ﬁxed and the variable angle PV

pairs.

0 2.8%

15 0.3%

30 8.5%

45 17.0%

60 27.3%

75 23.6%

Fig. 11. Incidence angle “q” and tilt angle “b” of a given surface.

312 J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314

Theoretical model inputs. also Table 2) with the theoretical distributions of the incidence

Parameter Value angle, the “CFPV ” deviations previously obtained from the

Azimuth angle “g” 0 experimental results may be explained. More precisely, as one

Standard Meridian “Lst” 30 may see, in the early period of the summer, i.e. when the 0 tilt

Local Meridian “Ll” 23 400 angle was tested, difference between the “CFPV ” of the ﬁxed and

Latitude “4” 37 580

the variable angle PV pairs should be minimum, validating the

theoretical distributions of the respective angles appearing in

Fig. 12. Besides, as already mentioned, although 15 appears to be

Hourly Variation of the Solar Incidence Angle "θ" in the more efﬁcient during mid-day, the opposite is noted during the

Area of Athens (May 15-Azimuth Angle "γ=0ο") morning and afternoon hours, when 0 produce the minimum

120 β=0 β=15 β=30 β=45 1000 incidence angle.

β=60 β=75 Solar Radiation

108 900 Furthermore, not considering the month of June (i.e. when the

96 800 15 e15 pair was tested) and proceeding to the period of early July,

Incidence Angle "θ"

Radiation (W/m )

84 700

2

“CFPV ” in comparison with the 15 e0 case, see also Table 4, is

(degrees)

72 600

60 500 justiﬁed on the basis of distributions presented, with the 15

48 400 distribution demonstrating a clear advantage over the respective of

36 300 30 . Subsequently, similar is also the conclusion for the 15 e45

24 200 case (mid-July to end of July-early August), with the greater relative

12 100

deviation of the “CFPV ” in comparison with the former- illustrated

0 0

by the comparison of theoretical distributions.

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

Hour of the Day

(from early August to mid-August) is also depicted in the respective

Fig. 12. Theoretical daily distributions of the incidence angle for various panel tilt set of theoretical distributions for the month of August, while

angles vs local solar potential (May 15). reduction of the relative “CFPV ” deviation in the case of 15 e75

may be justiﬁed by the patterns of theoretical distributions during

minimum incidence angle for the following period between mid- September. Note that during the speciﬁc period the 15 angle is no

August and mid-September. Acknowledging the results obtained longer considered as optimum and seems to produce similar inci-

for the period of examination, it becomes evident that among the dence angle values with the corresponding of 75 for an appre-

different angles currently examined, 15 comprises the most efﬁ- ciable part of the day (morning and afternoon hours).

cient in terms of local solar potential exploitation.

Hourly Variation of the Solar Incidence Angle "θ" in the Hourly Variation of the Solar Incidence Angle "θ" in the

Area of Athens (June 11-Azimuth Angle "γ=0ο") Area of Athens (August 16-Azimuth Angle "γ=0ο")

120 120

β=0 β=15

Incidence Angle "θ" (degrees)

Incidence Angle "θ" (degrees)

β=0 β=15

100 β=30 β=45 100

β=30 β=45

β=60 β=75 β=60 β=75

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

Hourly Variation of the Solar Incidence Angle "θ" in the Hourly Variation of the Solar Incidence Angle "θ" in the

ο

Area of Athens (July 17-Azimuth Angle "γ=0ο") Area of Athens (September 15-Azimuth Angle "γ=0 ")

120 120

Incidence Angle "θ" (degrees)

β=0 β=15

100 β=0 β=15 100

β=30 β=45

β=30 β=45

β=60 β=75

80 β=60 β=75 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

8:00

8:30

9:00

9:30

10:00

10:30

11:00

11:30

12:00

12:30

13:00

13:30

14:00

14:30

15:00

15:30

16:00

16:30

17:00

17:30

18:00

18:30

19:00

19:30

20:00

Fig. 13. Theoretical daily distributions of the incidence angle for various panel tilt angles and representative summer period days.

J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314 313

5. Conclusions !2

s21 s2

Based on an experimental setup, installed at the area of Athens- 2

N1 N2

Greece (37 580 N and 23 400 E) and comprising of a ﬁxed and x ¼ !2 !2 (A.3)

a variable angle PV array, systematic series of measurements con- s21 s22

cerning the performance of two PV pairs were carried out during N1 N2

the summer period. More speciﬁcally, consecutive, 20-day sets of þ

N1 1 N2 1

measurements were taken for each different angle of the variable

angle PV pair (i.e. 0 , 15 , 30 , 45 , 60 and 75 ), while keeping the Using “x” and the value of “qc” -determined by the Student

ﬁxed angle PV pair at 15 . More precisely, extensive, 10 min distribution tables for a reliability of 95%- similarity or dissimilarity

measurements of solar irradiance and PV current and voltage of the two measuring instruments is eventually designated through

output were conducted throughout the summer period, allowing validation -or not- of Eq. (A.1).

for the estimation of the respective energy production by each of

the two PV pairs. In this context, emphasis was given on the eval-

uation of performance of the two PV pairs through estimation of References

the relative “CFPV ” deviation (of the variable tilt angle PV pair in

comparison with the ﬁxed -optimum angle PV pair) during the [1] Razykov TM, Ferekides CS, Morel D, Stefanakos E, Ullal HS, Upadhyaya HM.

consecutive time periods of measurements. According to the results Solar photovoltaic electricity: current status and future prospects. Sol Energy

2011;85:1580e608.

obtained, performance deviation is as expected largely depending [2] Raugei M, Frankl P. Life cycle impacts and costs of photovoltaic systems:

on the selected tilt angle and the period of examination, with the current state of the art and future outlooks. Energy 2009;34:392e9.

greatest deviation (i.e. 27.3%) between the ﬁxed and the variable tilt [3] Tsoutsos Th, Mavrogiannis I, Karapanagiotis N, Tselepis St, Agoris D. An

analysis of the Greek photovoltaic market. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2004;8:

angle PV pairs -for the current set of measurements- noted in the 49e72.

case of 15 -60 . On the other hand, the respective minimum [4] Papadopoulos AM, Karteris MM. An assessment of the Greek incentives

difference was noted in the case of 15 e0 , with the corresponding scheme for photovoltaics. Energy Policy 2009;37:1945e52.

[5] Greek Public Power Corporation (GPPC). Wind speed and solar radiation

deviation not exceeding 3%. measurements for Greece, 1980e1985. Athens: GPPC; 1986.

Subsequently, through the use of solar geometry equations, [6] Hellenic Association of Photovoltaic Companies (HAPC). Greek PV market

experimental results were investigated under the view of diurnal statistics. Athens: HAPS. Available at: http://www.helapco.gr/The_Greek_PV_

Market.html; 2011 [20/7/2011].

incidence angle distributions, considering that maximum energy

[7] Greek Government-Ministry of Development. Ministerial Decision 12323/GG

production is ensured by the minimization of the solar incidence 175/4.6.2009. Special program for the development of photovoltaic systems in

angle. Diurnal distribution of the solar incidence angle was exam- building structures and especially in Rooftops. Greek Government Gazette

ined for the typical days of the months under examination, 2006;1079:13717e24 [in Greek].

[8] Bayod-Rújula AA, Ortego-Bielsa A, Martínez-Gracia A. Photovoltaics on ﬂat

covering the entire range of tilt angles investigated. Furthermore, roofs: energy considerations. Energy 2011;36:1996e2010.

by also taking into account the respective distribution of solar [9] Kaldellis JK. Optimum technoeconomic energy autonomous photovoltaic

irradiance, theoretical designation of the optimum tilt angle was solution for remote consumers throughout Greece. Energy Convers Manage

2004;45:2745e60.

possible. More precisely, by examining the patterns of solar inci- [10] Kaldellis JK, Kavadias KA, Koronakis PS. Comparing wind and photovoltaic

dence angle and solar irradiance distributions, the expected stand-alone power systems used for the electriﬁcation of remote consumers.

optimum tilt angle was decided by considering the extent at which Renew Sust Energy Rev 2007;11:57e77.

[11] Kaldellis JK, Spyropoulos GC, Kavadias KA, Koronaki IP. Experimental valida-

minimization of the solar incidence angle was obtained during the tion of autonomous PV-based water pumping system optimum sizing. Renew

day. Through this theoretical investigation of the problem, experi- Energy 2009;34:1106e13.

mental results obtained were validated, reﬂecting at the same time [12] Kaldellis JK, Meidanis E, Zaﬁrakis D. Experimental energy analysis of a stand-

alone photovoltaic-based water pumping installation. Appl Energy 2011;88:

the clear advantage of the 15 (2.5 ) angle in the area of Athens

4556e62.

and central Greece in general, for almost the entire summer season. [13] Kaldellis JK, Zaﬁrakis D, Kondili E. Optimum autonomous stand-alone

photovoltaic system design on the basis of energy pay-back analysis. Energy

2009;34:1187e98.

Appendix A [14] Manolakos D, Papadakis G, Papantonis D, Kyritsis S. A stand-alone photovol-

taic power system for remote villages using pumped water energy storage.

Energy 2004;29:57e69.

According to the h-test method, measurements provided by two [15] Felske JD. The effect of off-south orientation on the performance of ﬂat-plate

different measuring instruments of the same type (e.g. two pyr- solar collectors. Sol Energy 1978;20:29e36.

[16] Tsalides Ph, Thanailakis A. Direct computation of the array optimum tilt angle

anometers) may differ by a predeﬁned value of “do” (currently

in constant-tilt photovoltaic systems. Sol Cells 1985;14:83e94.

taken equal to zero) eat a reliability level of 95%- only if the [17] Balouktsis A, Tsanakas D, Vachtsevanos G. On the optimum tilt angle of

following condition is validated, a photovoltaic array. Sol Energy 1987;5:153e69.

[18] Kacira M, Simsek M, Babur Y, Demirkol S. Determining optimum tilt angles

and orientations of photovoltaic panels in Sanliurfa, Turkey. Renew Energy

jqc j < qo < jqc j (A.1)

2004;29:1265e75.

[19] Gaglia A, Argiriou A, Balaras K, Lykoydis S. Experimental photovoltaic instal-

with “qo” being calculated on the basis of the Student distribution,

lation efﬁciency-optimum photovoltaic angle and solar energy in Greek areas.

using the following equation In: 8th National Conference for the Soft Energy Sources, Thessaloniki-Greece;

29e31 March 2006.

ðx x2 Þ do [20] Mehleri ED, Zervas PL, Sarimveis H, Palyvos JA, Markatos NC. Determination of

qo ¼ s1ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ sﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ (A.2) the optimal tilt angle and orientation for solar photovoltaic arrays. Renew

s21 s22 Energy 2010;35:2468e75.

[21] Koronakis P. On the choice of the angle of tilt for south facing solar collectors

N1 N2 in the Athens basin area. Sol Energy 1986;36:217e25.

[22] Benghanem M. Optimization of tilt angle for solar panel: case study for

where “xi ”, “si” and “Ni” are the average, standard deviation and Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Appl Energy 2011;88:1427e33.

number of measurements respectively. [23] Skeiker K. Optimum tilt angle and orientation for solar collectors in Syria.

Furthermore, by using the necessary input values (e.g. see also Energy Convers Manage 2009;50:2439e48.

[24] Kaldellis JK, Spyropoulos G, Kavadias KA. Computational applications of soft

Table 3) and Eq. (A.3) following, the value of freedom degrees “x” energy resources: solar potential-photovoltaic applications-solar heat

may be estimated. systems. 1st ed. Athens: Stamoulis; 2007.

314 J. Kaldellis, D. Zaﬁrakis / Energy 38 (2012) 305e314

[25] Lehmann EL, Romano JP. Testing statistical hypotheses. 3rd ed. New York: [28] Kaldellis JK, Kokala A. Quantifying the decrease of the photovoltaic panels’

Springer; 2005. energy yield due to phenomena of natural air pollution disposal. Energy 2010;

[26] Holman JP. Experimental methods for engineers. 1st ed. New York: 35:4862e9.

McGrawHill; 1984. [29] Kalogirou S. Solar energy engineering processes and systems. Academic Press,

[27] Kaldellis JK, Kapsali M. Simulating the dust effect on the energy performance Elsevier Science, ISBN 978-0-12-374501-9; 2009.

of photovoltaic generators based on experimental measurements. Energy [30] Balaras CA, Argiriou AA, Karagiannis FE. Conventional and renewable energy

2011;36:5154e61. sources. 1st ed. Athens: Tekdotiki; 2006.

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.