Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

An approach to evaluate the energy advantage of two axes solar tracking systems in Spain
Fernando Cruz-Peragn a, Pedro J. Casanova-Pelez b, Francisco A. Daz a, Rafael Lpez-Garca a, Jos M. Palomar a,
a b

Dep. of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, Escuela Politcnica Superior de Jan, University of Jan, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071 Jan, Spain Dep. of Electronic Engineering and Automatics, Escuela Politcnica Superior de Jan, University of Jan, Campus Las Lagunillas s/n, 23071 Jan, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The present work shows an alterative method for determining the tracking energy advantage, dened as the additional electrical energy produced by two axes tracking systems respect to xed devices, in order to analyze the economical protability in Spain. For this purpose, 52 main cities of this country have been analyzed. The proposed methodology starts from irradiation data, combining diffuse models and daily hourly relations. Different types of losses have been evaluated, and the electrical behavior of the systems has been incorporated. Final annual energetic results demonstrate that two axes devices show a relevant energy advantage (higher than 20%) for most of the national territory. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 21 January 2011 Received in revised form 8 July 2011 Accepted 11 July 2011 Available online 20 August 2011 Keywords: Solar tracking Photovoltaic solar system Protability Spain

1. Introduction During the last few years, photovoltaic solar systems have become one of the most popular renewable energy sources in Spain. Nevertheless, the high cost of these installations in relation to the generated electricity constitutes one of the main drawbacks of this technology. In this sense, one and two axes solar tracking systems seems to be an attractive alternative compared to those xed systems since they make it possible to maximize the capture of solar energy [13], especially in Spain [4,5]. Previous analyses demonstrate that considerable gain in the generated electricity can be reached using this technology, in particular for two axes systems [611]. However, it is required to evaluate if additional economic costs still guarantee the protability of these systems. The best way to evaluate solar systems is to use information of solar irradiance, measured throughout the time. Nevertheless, this is only possible after a systematic and rigorous instantaneous measurement of the radiation at the location of study. In practice, the big quantity of data makes its use impracticable, making it necessary to reduce the information volume. For this purpose, pyranometers or satellite images are commonly used to catch the global irradiance on a horizontal surface (in the same way, it is possible to measure the direct and diffuse components over horizontal surface in a certain place). Most available information of different places in earth (for example, main Spanish cities), corresponds to
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 953212368; fax: +34 953212870.
E-mail address: jpalomar@ujaen.es (J.M. Palomar). 0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.018

monthly average daily radiation on horizontal surface HG (kJ/m2). This information has been obtained by integrating measurements of global irradiance distribution over horizontal surface IG (kW/ m2). In this sense, there exists different global irradiation databases available, such as METEONORM (http://www.meteonorm.com) [12], European Atlas of solar irradiation [13], PVGIS (http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/) [14], or CENSOLAR [15]. However, some mismatches between different sources are observed [16]. On the other hand, one major advantage of at plate solar systems (both thermal and photovoltaic) is the use of both components of the solar radiation (beam and diffuse). These components can be estimated from irradiance data and corresponding models [17]. The purpose of the current work is to quantify the additional solar gain of tracking system respect to xed devices to demonstrate their economical viability in Spain. For this reason different issues have been considered, such us irradiation data and models providing instantaneous irradiances over horizontal, tilted and tracking surfaces, motion limits, shadows inuence and efciency of the generation system (cells, inverters, etc.). Instantaneous results have been integrated over the year, obtaining annual results. Different issues have been evaluated for one location (Jan) over a year for instantaneous data, validating the proposed procedure for this location. In addition, some associated parameters have been estimated to adopt a simplied methodology in all the territory. Thus, the analysis has been extended to most of the cities in Spain, and a practical range of gains along this national territory has been obtained.

5132

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

2. Materials and methods 2.1. 1- Experimental devices for measuring instantaneous data and models To evaluate the robustness of the proposed method, some tasks have been carried out at a location corresponding to the city of Jan (latitude: 37.5N; longitude: 3.47W, altitude: 570 m.). Data of irradiance over horizontal surface for this location have been collected and published by the investigation group MatRas (http://www. ujaen.es/dep/sica/estacion3.htm) [18]. They employed a Kipp & Zonen CMP11 pyranometer placed over the roof of a building. Several instantaneous diffuse models have been evaluated (that will be discussed later) in order to predict the irradiances over both tilted and tracking surfaces, using instantaneous irradiance measurements over horizontal surface. To valuate the nal results and establish the efciency losses for the whole generation system, electrical generation data for a little tracking system has been used. This device incorporates a little amorphous photovoltaic cell, storing data along a year. The system takes into consideration the knowledge associated to mechanical, electrical and control tasks, such as other devices [19,20]. Although there are experiences to align the device with sensors [21], here the alignment has been done following the sun polar coordinates at each time. 2.2. General procedure Monthly average daily radiation over horizontal surface HG data [15] have been used as a starting point for this analysis. From these data, global irradiation over tilted surface can be obtained using certain diffuse models and associated relations: (a) One of the most widely known and used isotropic model in this work is the Liu and Jordan model [22], which assumes an uniform distribution of the diffuse radiation on the celestial hemisphere. This model underestimates the value of the diffuse radiation in clear skies, while it works very well for covered days. In any case, the whole estimated irradiation is below the real value within a 3% [23,24]. (b) On the other hand, anisotropic models consider a bigger diffuse component in the circumsolar zone that comes directly from the direction of the solar beams. [2530]. From the analysis of different methodologies, it has been observed that the Reindl anisotropic model [26] is quite useful in latitudes similar to those into the Spanish territory [24]. In any case, the use of both diffuse models makes it possible to establish the upper and lower limits in which results can be reliable. They will dene the most favorable scenario (with maximum annual radiation values) and the most unfavorable one (with minimum annual radiation values). Fig. 1 summarizes the general adopted methodology. The rst step (see Fig. 1) consists of determining both the maximum annual solar exposure FS (kWh m2 year1) and their corresponding surface tilt bop, using both isotropic and anisotropic diffuse models. The long-term established procedure that appears in the literature for determining the incoming solar energy in a tilted surface has been carried out [26,3133]. Different inclinations have been also considered (with surface azimuth angle cop equal to zero, that is, oriented to the south), and the corresponding annual irradiation have been evaluated. The maximum value determines the optimum surface slope bop at each place for the considered diffuse model. Subsequently, an average generation efciency for xed system geF is applied to FS, in order to obtain the energetic response of the system F (kWh m2 year1). This va-

lue constitutes the reference datum to evaluate the tracking improvements. On the other hand, the yearly tracking response J (kWh m2 year1) is analyzed for the tracking device. It is obtained by integrating instantaneous daily results. The ratio between J and F constitutes the fractional gain in the energy production of a tracking system in relation to an optimum xed one. In a percentage basis, the tracking advantage DJ (%) is dened as follows:

DJ% 100

  JF F

1:a

Additionally, a maximum tracking advantage DJ0 can be dened in a similar way to Eq. (1.a) if no restrictions in the yearly response of the system are considered J0 (kWh/year). It will be discussed next.

DJ0 % 100

  J0 F F

1:b

2.3. Tracking analysis Fig. 2 summarizes de procedure for the daily instantaneous evaluation of a tracking system. All the parameters have been distributed into different vectors (with length N). In order to establish data along the day of study, all of them have been related to a time vector T corresponding to time steps of 1 min. Initially, the global irradiance GG0 (kW/m2) and their components (beam GB0, diffusive GD0 and reected GR0) over the surface of a tracking system surface are evaluated considering that the angle of incidence h of the beam component is always equal to 0 during the solar time (that is, assuring maximum beam irradiance). For this purpose, the hourlydaily relations have been considered [34] by determining the hourly irradiation HjG (kJ m2 h1) from daily solar exposures over horizontal surface HG (kJ m2 day1), for each hour j, such as Eq. (2) shows:

HjG r jG HG ;

r jG

p
24

a b cos xj

cos xj cos xs sin xs xs cos xj

a 0:409 0:5016 sinxs p=3; b 0:6609 0:4767 sinxs p=3

In this equation, xj corresponds to the sun hour angle and the sunset hour angle is denoted by xs. The same expression has also been used to determine an instantaneous distribution of the global irradiance along the day on a horizontal surface IG (kW/m2). Results inferred by integrating the obtained curve agree with HG. Subsequently, Erbs et al. correlation [35] makes it possible to nd the diffuse component of irradiation ID, using the clearness index kt at each time. The beam component IB is then obtained from the difference between IG and ID:

8 > 1:0 0:09kt for kt 6 0:22 > > < 0:9511 0:1604kt 4:388k2 16:638k3 t t ID =IG 4 > > 12:336kt for 0:22 < kt 6 0:8 > : 0:165 for kt > 0:8 I G I D IB

In addition, the two previous diffuse models (both isotropic and anisotropic ones) have been applied to these instantaneous data. They determine the incoming irradiance on the tracked surface GG0 (with instantaneous tilt angle b and surface azimuth angle c) [20]:

GG0 GB0 GD0 GR0

in which each component is denoted as follows:

GB0 IB RB ;

with RB

cos h sin aS

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

5133

LOCATION INITIAL DATA AND MODELS

GEOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS AND TRACKER LIMITS

ANNUAL GENERATION

DAILY DATA OVER HORIZONTAL SURFACE

IRRADIATION HG, HB, HD (kJ/m2) IRRADIANCE IG, IB, ID (kW/m2)

EXPOSURE AND GENERATION

LONG-TERM EXPRESSIONS INSTANTANEOU S ANALYSIS (Fig. 2)

RESULTS (Data integration)

OPTIMUM FIXED SYSTEM, F TRACKING RESPONSES, J

COMPARISON
Fig. 1. General analysis procedure developed for a particular location.

INSTANTANEOUS ANALYSIS FOR DAY n

INSTANTANEOUS SOLAR DAILY DATA Vectors with length N:

j=1

IB(), ID(), IG(), S(), S(), T, TSTOP

= T (j) NO MOTION LIMITS

TSTOP (j)

TSTOP (j) = 0?
YES

(j) = (j-1) ; (j) = (j-1) S(j), S(j)

(j) , (j)
INCIDENCE ANGLE DETERMINATION, (j)

IB(j), ID(j) , IG(j)

COMPONENTS ONTO TILTED SURFACE

GB0(j), GD0(j) , GG0(j)

PLATES EFFICIENCY, AUXILIARIES

ELECTRICAL BEHAVIOUR

SHADES EVALUATION

W(j)

GG(j)
j = N? YES NO

j = j+1

DAILY DATA INTEGRATION

Jday(n)
END
Fig. 2. General procedure of instantaneous evaluation of solar irradiation over a tracking surface.

5134

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

GR0 IG F R ; GD0 ID F D ; F D;Isotropic

with F R r

1 cos b 2

6 7 8:a

1 cos b 2

F D;Anisotropic kb RB 1 kb F D;isotropic 1 f sin0:5 b3 s IB IB ; kb with f IG I0 8:b

where the location latitude u, the angle of incident radiation h, surface azimuth angle c, declination d and extraterrestrial irradiance I0 (kW/m2) are additional variables to be considered in the analysis. Their instantaneous values can be easily obtained using expressions available in the literature [32]:

(+)

EAST

WEST

NORTH

S S

EAST WEST

cos h sin d sin / cos b sin d cos / sin b cos c cos d cos / cos b cos x cos d sin / sin b cos c cos x cos d sin b sin c sin x 9:a 9:b
L (-)
NORTH

L (+)

c signx cos1 

  cos hZ sin u sin d    sin hZ cos u

Fig. 3. Two axes tracking system scheme.

  284 n d 23; 45 sin 2p 365 I0 ISN cos h

9:c 9:d

The solar zenith angle is denoted as hZ. In addition, the reectance coefcient r (dimensionless) is required to estimate the reected irradiance. It will take a value of 0.2. Finally, the solar constant ISN can vary during the year, taking values between 1.31 and 1.39 kW/m2 [32]. These data correspond to values with no restrictions associated to the device. However, several restrictions sources may appear: 2.3.1. Motion limits The maximum exposure considers that the surface azimuth angle of the system c is always equal to the solar azimuth cS, as well as the surface slope b (deg) is equal to 90 aS (deg). Where aS (deg) is the solar altitude angle at each time. However, the mechanical conguration of the system does not make it possible to reach these limits [36]. In this case, according to the maximum surface azimuth angle |cL| and maximum tilt angle bL of the system, there exist some tracking positions (near sunset and sunrise) in which the angle of incidence is different from 0. It occurs when |cS(s)| > |cL| and aS(s) < 90 bL. As an example, Fig. 3 shows a scheme of a previous designed mechanical system [12]. 2.3.2. Time steps motion An ideal solar tracking process consists on following the solar motion instantaneously along the time. Nevertheless, mechanical congurations, control devices and actuators make the system moving by steps, with no motion time periods. In this case, it is necessary to determine the energy losses for different time steps according to the daily sun path. In this sense, a time stop vector TSTOP has been included into the analysis. It contains only zeros and ones values. The values j into this vector will be equal to 0 when the system must stay blocked and 1 if it is moving. The distribution of values equal to 1 into this vector depends on the time intervals in which the system must be blocked.

2.3.3. Shadow losses The geometric conguration of the solar eld implies that some plates over one individual tracker receive shadows from others at each moment. Thus, annual integrated global losses between 2% and 6% appear [37]. Geometric considerations must be considered in the instantaneous analysis (described in Fig. 3), in order to establish an initial evaluation of shadow losses [3840]. The highest inuence in partial shadowing is always produced by the nearest 3 sets [37], such as Fig. 4 shows. Distances X, Y and Z, and surface width L and height H will be the main geometric characteristics associated to this study. A simplied method to analyze the shadow problem is to evaluate a typical squared distribution (X = Y), in horizontal position (Z = 0) and observe what happens throughout the solar day, modifying separation distances between trackers, considering unitary height H = 1 [41]. It must be considered that shades only affects the reception of the beam constituent of radiation in the related surface. Nevertheless, the diffuse part is always captured from the sky, although in a less quantity. In relation to the reected constituent, this can be considered as negligible, due to the obstacles surrounding the system in study. 2.3.4. Plates efciency It is well known that power generation in a photovoltaic panel drops as the inner temperature increases. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the losses of the system and compare them with optimized xed systems (with maximum annual energetic gain). This analysis starts from a thermal study of the system. It considers heat transfer parameters [42,43] next to currentvoltage correlations of the photovoltaic panel [4446]. From the plate model equations, the plate temperature can be calculated at each moment. Nevertheless, the great quantity of cells typologies, and the panel characteristics and congurations, make it difcult to perform a generic study. In this case, several aspects must be remarked: (d.1) Taking as a reference a typical efciency for 25 C, every increased degree implies an efciency fall between 0.4% and 0.5% (between 12 %, in other cases). [47,48].

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

5135

(a)
SUN s Azimuth angles

(b)

South East West L Y

SOLAR ANGLE, h Projected shadow TRACKER ON STUDY

TILT ANGLE,

Projected shadows

TRACKER ON STUDY

(c)

0.8

HEIGHT H, (m)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

SURFACE WIDTH L, (m)

Fig. 4. Geometric considerations for shadow losses determination at one point of the tracker path: (a) Ground view; (b) front view; (c) shadow over surface.

(d.2) In a xed system (south positioned) a high value of the incident angle (corresponding to a low value in the beam component), considerably increases the efciency. Differences can reach up to 25% during the sunset and the sunrise [43]. Nevertheless, these differences disappear quickly, as the beam component increases. (d.3) In addition, for an incident angle close to 0, the cell temperature increases considerably (up to 70 in conventional cells) while the efciency decreases. Nevertheless, the relative differences are small (up to 10%) [43]. Thus, the minimum efciency is reached for high temperatures and high beam component. It is only 10% lower when considering a typical conditions scenario. In a xed system, this condition is reached around the solar midday, and a similar situation (with higher incident angle and less beam component of radiation) is repeated during most of the solar time. Thus, the difference between xed and tracking systems will be always less than 10%. In any case, the distribution of the efciency along the day has been obtained from the reviewed literature, following the tendencies that appear in Fig. 5. The rst source (time step motion of item a) must be incorporated to the GG0 determination. Thus, the second and third sources, that is, those indicated in items (b and c), imply that the global irradiance GG can be achieved and always will be less than GG0. Subsequently, the effectiveness of the system ge (see item d)

denes the instantaneous electrical production W. These instantaneous data must be integrated, providing a value of the energy response from the device Jday(n) (kWh m2 day1) for the day n in study, as Fig. 2 shows. The addition of all these nal daily value along the 365 days of the year provides the annual energy response of the tracked surface J (kWh m2 year1). The method is validated for a particular location in the next section. From this analysis it will be possible to obtain several parameters that can be used in a simplied methodology that can be extended for all the cities analyzed in the current work. 3. Detailed local results for one location The global procedure previously described will be detailed for one particular location: Jan. The historical Database CENSOLAR provides a value of 5.8 GJ/m2 for yearly irradiation, while the integration of the instantaneous measurements along 2008 of MatRas group is 5.2 GJ/m2 (difference around 10%). This analysis has been carried out for instantaneous data along the year. 3.1. Optimum tilt for xed system Following the steps described above, the established procedures have been carried out [32,33] for different tilts in order to determine the optimum inclination for a xed system with a maximum

5136

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

EFECTIVENESS RELATED TO TYPICAL VALUE FOR FIXED SYSTEM EFECTIVENESS RELATED TO TYPICAL VALUE FOR TRACKED SYSTEM

1.25
EFFICIENCY RATIO (dimensionless)

1 0.9

SUNRISE

MIDDAY

SUNSET SOLAR TIME (hours)

Fig. 5. Efciency ratio tendencies for a photovoltaic system along a day.

annual energetic capturing. The maximum value of yearly energy collection corresponds to 30 tilt. In any case, variations of exposures with tilts between 20 and 40 are below 1% of the maximum value. There exists a 3 difference between the optimum slope for annual evaluation considering isotropic model (30), and the evaluation considering anisotropic model (33). 3.2. Two axis tracking without restrictions To improve the energetic optimization, the theoretical limit occurs when the incidence angle of the radiation is always zero. Eq. (2) has been used to determine the irradiance distribution along the day for horizontal surface. Fig. 6 shows an example for a particular day of the year. The measured instantaneous irradiance over a horizontal surface together with additional predicted values for other conditions has been presented. At that day, the midday solar angle is around 56. Thus, the tracker tilt at this time is about 34, very similar to 30 dened for a xed system, and consequently they provide very similar results (in fact, the irradiance on the cells of the tracker is slightly higher than for the case of a xed system). It demonstrates that Eq. (2) can be used to infer the instantaneous irradiances. Once data along the year (with both clear and cloud sky days), have been evaluated, the average annual exposure of a tracked system regarding to the optimum xed one without restrictions, is around 30% higher with an isotropic model. On the other hand,

an anisotropic model provides up to 38%. As plate efciency is considered with the same value as for xed system, the lower and the upper limits for the maximum tracking advantage DJ0 correspond to those values. 3.3. Motion restrictions Geometric and mechanical limitations of the tracking system could make not possible to reach certain positions, making the angle of incidence to be different from zero in these cases. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate how these limits affect to the incoming solar energy. An analysis of different combinations of cL and bL for the tracker has been evaluated, resulting in the incoming energetic losses shown in Fig. 7. For example, for |cL| > 95, and bL > 60, annual losses lower than 1% can be assured. This procedure has been repeated in two additional cities, with maximum and minimum latitudes into the country: Oviedo (43.22N, 5.50W) and Las Palmas (28.06N, 15.25W). Results are very similar, demonstrating that Jan represents a typical city to evaluate this kind of losses. 3.4. Tracking strategy For any control system, it is always required to analyze different time intervals in which the tracker will remain blocked. It implies that the angle of incidence of direct radiation differs from zero, resulting in a lower solar isolation, which decreases as the stop

1000 900

90
6

85

MAXIMUM TILT (degrees)

800

80
4

Irradiance (W/m2)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 6 4 2

Horizontal (measured) 2axes tacking 30 tilt Horizontal (modelled)

75 70 65 60
8

6
4

55 50 45
10
6

2 3 4

4
6
8 10

8
13
10

40

SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h)

Fig. 6. Measured instantaneous irradiance over horizontal surface (from MatRas group), modelled irradiance form daily irradiation and predicted irradiance for tilted (30), tracking surface (anisotropic diffuse model) and (26/03/2009).

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

6 8 10

MAXIMUM AZIMUTHAL ANGLE (degrees)

Fig. 7. Energetic irradiation losses (%) derived from angle limitations of both axes in Jan for a tracking system.

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

5137

Solar capturing gain over 30 tilted surface (%)

intervals increase. The incoming losses depending on each new strategy must be evaluated. Thus, Fig. 8 shows instantaneous irradiances on the tracker surface for different stop times: 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 60 min. As a result of integrating the instantaneous data throughout a year, the global energetic capture and losses due to this concept can be obtained giving relative results that are always below 0.5%. Again, this analysis has been extended to both cities with extreme latitudes within the country: Oviedo and Las Palmas, observing very similar results. Thus, several considerations can be remarked: (i) Losses are almost identical in the three analyzed cities, which leads to consider the analysis in Jan as very signicant. Thus, results can be extrapolated to the rest of the country. (ii) Stop interval times below 10 min do not introduce signicant differences. (iii) Incoming radiation losses higher than 1% are only possible with stop intervals of 30 min or more. (iv) The most useful stop time strategy consists on reducing the intervals as the solar time reaches the midday. 3.5. Shadow losses Shadow analyses must reect what exposure can be obtained considering different congurations, widthheight relations (LH) in the tracking systems and their separation. In those cases with high separation distances, exposures correspond to those results without restrictions (for example, 38% for anisotropic model in Jan). If geometric parameters associated to separation are modied (X and Y), the gain percentages can be estimated, such as Fig. 9 shows. A comparison between both scenarios (isotropic and anisotropic models) shows that reliable distances correspond to those with 810% losses (exposure gains related to optimum xed systems of 2830%). More detailed studies will be the goal for a future work. In this analysis, an average global gain is needed to estimate the inuence of this kind of losses in the whole nal annual result. 3.6. Generation energetic losses From the tracker installation, some results have been presented in Figs. 10 and 11. Fig. 10a shows the measured results for one day obtained using the tracking system (March 25, 2009). In this gure,

38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

L=H L = 1.2 H L = 1.4 H L = 1.6 H L = 1.8 H L=2H Maximum

DISTANCE BETWEEN TRACKERS (m)

Fig. 9. Percentage of capture gains (respect to an optimum xed system) considering the shadow effect using an anisotropic model for a tracker with unitary height (H = 1 m) and a squared eld distribution.

data have been compared with those measured on horizontal surface and diffuse models for the tracking strategy, considering a 0.14 reference value of effectiveness in the electrical generation system (ge) for that particular day. This value has been achieved in order to adjust the generation with the model as much as possible. Results demonstrate that an anisotropic model is closer to evaluations than an isotropic model for that particular case. The ratio between the instantaneous efciency and that referenced value ge varies as Fig. 10b shows. On the other hand, Fig. 11a and b shows results in a midday when the system remained in horizontal position due to wind (April 25, 2009), with a reference value of effectiveness of 0.12 in that particular day. In both cases, the integration of curves in Figs. 10b and 11b provides a mean relative efciency loss of 20%. After evaluating multiple days with reliable results, these relative efciency losses vary from 2% to 7.5%, with a mean value of 5%. 3.7. Global results. Towards a simplied methodology Table 1 summarizes the prediction of gains and losses due to the different sources considered for the case of Jan. If the analyzed procedure is extended to a number of localities, it is possible to obtain an idea of the potential of the tracking system. In addition, there are some aspects that are not necessary to be repeated: both stop timing and motion limits can be adopted in order to assure always losses below 1%, as Table 1 shows. Thus, their inuence can be removed from the analysis. In this way, an individual analysis can be done considering the long-term evaluation for xed system (providing a F value), next to the tracking surface behavior without restrictions. For this particular case a vector containing all those daily gains J 0day and a yearly value J0 without restrictions can be obtained. It gives a maximum tracking advantage DJ0 (%) previously dened (see Eq. (1.b)). However, shades and generation losses can also be assumed as those indicated in Table 1. All these losses can be easily inferred in an easy way and their mean values can be adopted for all the cases to study. Then, the nal tracking advantage DJ can be obtained from DJ0 considering the percentage losses indicated in Table 1. It implies that it is necessary to modify the initial procedure described in Figs. 1 and 2 as Fig. 12 shows. Nevertheless, no instantaneous data are known, and the procedure must start with monthly average daily radiation on horizontal surface HG (kJ/m2). The hourly/instantaneous solar estimation for

0.4108 0.4106

Irradiation (kW/m )

0.4104 0.4102 0.41 0.4098 0.4096 0.4094 0.4092 0.409 11.7 11.75 11.8 11.85 11.9 11.95
1 minute 5 minutes 10 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes 30 minutes

SOLAR TIME (hour)

Fig. 8. Instantaneous incident irradiances over surface for several stop time intervals of the tracker in Jan in a particular day in December.

5138

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

(a)
Electrical Power Generation (W/m2)

150

(a)
Electrical Power Generation (W/m )
2

120

Horizontal and =0.12

e

Real measurements 100

100

80

60

50
Horizontal and e=0,14 Tracking and e=0,14 Real measurements

40

20

0 6 4 2 0 2 4 6

SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h)

SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h)

(b)
1.1

(b)
1.2 1.05 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 5 0 5

Relative Efficiency (dimensionless)

Relative Efficiency (dimensionless)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h)

Fig. 10. Generation (a) and efciency tendencies (b) for a tracking photovoltaic system along a day (25/03/2009).

SOLAR TIME FROM MIDDAY (h)

Fig. 11. Generation (a) and efciency tendencies (b) for a tracking photovoltaic system along a day (25/04/2009).

the mean day of each month of the year incorporates the mean behavior for all the days for that particular month. Jain et al. [49] obtained horizontal instantaneous irradiance from daily values. They inferred better tting results than expression in Eq. (2), but its use cannot be generalized. Thus, expressions in Eq. (2) are quite affordable [34]. In any case, the values correspond to average irradiation, integrated from a large amount of instantaneous measurements along the time (usually during some years). In addition, the adopted models consider statistical analyses from all these data [17,32]. It means that models account for the weather conditions for both cloudy and clear days. In this sense, the analysis without restrictions has been repeated for the case of Jan, starting now from published HG values [15]. Although nal annual irradiation is slightly different for both cases, the main task to remark is that the difference between the gain ratios is below 1%. For the case of an anisotropic model, DJ0 was obtained from instantaneous data, providing a value of 38.5%, while when using monthly average daily radiation the value
Table 1 Summarizing of results in Jan compared with optimum xed system. Diffuse model Isotropic Anisotropic
a

was 37.97%. It demonstrates that the proposed procedure can be efciently used when employing monthly average daily radiation values.

4. Global estimation results along the country Therefore, the indicated procedure has been carried out for all the main cities in Spain (52). There are three locations that belong to island territories, and two national cities into African continent (next to Morocco). The other 47 cities are distributed into the peninsular territory. Thus, the geographical locations approach can be seen in Fig. 13. Annual results from integration of instantaneous daily data can be observed and compared throughout the DJ0 term in Fig. 14. There are some conclusions that it is possible to extract from Fig. 14: optimum tilt for xed systems implies an exposure respect to horizontal surface that ranges between 5% and 20%. However, a

2-axes DJ0(%) 30 38

Motion limits losses (%) <1

a

Time stops losses (%) <1

a

Generation losses (%) 5

Shadow losses (%) 4 8

Annual generation global gain (%) 21 25

These values are related to the case of a tracking system without restrictions.

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

5139

(a)

LOCATION INITIAL DATA AND MODELS

GEOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS

MEAN eF

DAILY DATA OVER HORIZONTAL SURFACE

IRRADIATION HG, HB, HD (kJ/m 2)

CAPTURING

INTEGRATION RESULTS WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS

OPTIMUM FIXED SYSTEM, F

LONG-TERM EXPRESSIONS

Instantaneous -daily relations INSTANTANEOU S ANALYSIS WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS

IRRADIANCE IG, IB, ID (kW/m2)

TRACKING RESPONSES, J0

MAXIMUM TRACKING ADVANTAGE J0

MEAN VALUES OF LOSSES (See Table 1)

TRACKING ADVANTAGE J

(b)

INSTANTANEOUS SOLAR DAILY DATA Vectors with length N: IB(), ID(), IG(), S(), S(), T, TSTOP S(j), S(j)

INSTANTANEOUS ANALYSIS DAY n

j=1

INCIDENCE ANGLE DETERMINATION, (j) (j)

IB(j), ID(j) , IG(j)

COMPONENTS ONTO TILTED SURFACE

GB0(j), GD0(j) , GG0(j)

j = N? NO YES

j = j+1

GG

DATA INTEGRATION

Jday(n)
END
Fig. 12. Modied evaluation procedure for tracking analysis: (a) global procedure; (b) daily energetic assessment without restrictions.

tracking system implies an exposure that ranges between 27% and 40% (anisotropic model), or between 22% and 33% (isotropic model). These differences vary between 5% and 8% depending on the diffuse model. Therefore, three different scenarios can be deduced:

pessimist, associated with the isotropic model; optimistic, associated to the anisotropic model, and in addition, an average or moderate scenario with intermediate values between the two previous ones.

5140

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

8 W

CANTABRIC SEA
4 W 0

FRANCE
42 N

MEDITERRANEAN SEA
40 N

PORTUGAL

BALEARS ISLANDS

38 N 18 W 16 W 14 W CANARY ISLANDS CEUTA 36 N MELILLA 28 N

ATHLANTIC OCEAN MOROCCO

Fig. 13. Locations on study have been marked with points.

(a)
OPTIMUM TILT (degrees)
45 40 35
Linear approach to isotropic model response Linear approach to anisotropic model response

TRACKING vs. FIXED (ANISOTROPIC) TRACKING vs. FIXED (ISOTROPIC) AVERAGED SCENARIO TRACKING-FIXED

27 25 23

TENDENCY OF MODERATE SCENARIO

J (%)

30 25 20 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44

21 19 17

ADDITIONAL COSTS

LATITUDE (degrees)
FIXED vs. HORIZONTAL (ANISOTROPIC) FIXED vs. HORIZONTAL (ISOTROPIC) TRACKING vs. FIXED (ANISOTROPIC) TRACKING vs. FIXED (ISOTROPIC) AVERAGED SCENARIO TRACKING-FIXED

15 13 28 33 38 43

LATITUDE (degrees)
Fig. 15. Final results for tracking advantage.

(b) 50
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 28

J0 (%)

33

38

43

LATITUDE (degrees)
Fig. 14. Annual results without restrictions along the country: (a) Optimum slope for xed systems; (b) maximum tracking energy advantage.

In all the cases, tendencies follow exponential laws. These trends are not related only to the latitude. Cities placed in the coastal top band of the country next the Cantabric Sea, originate worse results, not only for its latitude, but for the minor irradiation that takes place in them, principally diminished by the proximity to the sea and a major rainfall. It has not been reected so drastically in the Pyrenean area (French border) with similar latitudes. The main conclusion is that for a moderate scenario, two axes tracking systems assure a 30% of gain over a xed system in the

major of the country. In an optimistic scenario (anisotropic model), it can be assured that this limit would reach a 35% value. All the losses related to the limitations of the system (motion limits, control, shadows, etc.) have been incorporated into the previous results without restrictions, obtaining an estimation of the electric production. Thus, in Fig. 15 it can be observed all these situations throughout DJ, depending on latitude of the cities. Economical approaches indicate there exist a 1520% additional costs in tracking systems compared to xed ones, due to higher investments, as well as other costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the plant (usually related to the electricity production). Thus, locations with an energy advantage DJ higher than 20% (see Fig. 15) can experience a better protability if a tracking system is considered instead of a xed one. It can be observed that two axes tracking systems can be in 37 of the 52 main cities in Spain. Nevertheless, there are seven cities where these systems are not recommended in any case: A Corua, Orense, Oviedo, Santander, Bilbao, Vitoria, San Sebastin. There are ve additional cities, where some uncertainties also appear: Barcelona, Gerona, Lugo, Pamplona, Las Palmas and Pontevedra. Ten of these cities correspond to the North coastal band of the country,

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142

5141

while two of them belong to the highest latitudes in the Mediterranean zone. Moreover, Las Palmas belongs to the Canary Islands with low latitude (28.2). A high humidity and rainfall because of the proximity to the sea, next to the locations latitude could be the main reasons for non-advisable installations in these locations. Results illustrate that in most of the national territory two axes tracking systems seems to be protable. Obviously, a more detailed analysis in a higher number of locations must be done if gains must be quantied. 5. Conclusions This work demonstrates that two-axes tracking systems can assure an economic viability respect to xed ones in most of the Spanish national territory. There are some areas where high humidity, rainfall and latitude combine making not recommendable these solutions. In any case, this work is a starting point to dene a further detailed economic analysis. For this purpose, it is necessary to add some technical details to the present model, such as different eld congurations and systems separation (in order to optimize the shadow losses) and detailed instantaneous thermalelectrical model of the plates. It is also necessary to evaluate the investment costs in detail, by evaluating different market solutions, and incorporating the ground eld price, in order to reduce the additional investment costs band (as Fig. 14 shows). At this point, investment decision criteria can be adopted, such as the Internal Rate of Return (IIR) of Payback Period (PB), searching the optimum one for a given surface size and separation distances between systems into the trackers eld. Acknowledgments The authors thank to the University of Jan (Project Desarrollo y optimizacin mecnica de un sistema de seguimiento solar de dos ejes para el aprovechamiento energtico del olivar jiennense, Code RFC/ PP2006) for technical help and nancial supports provided. It has made it possible to carry out the presented analyses. Appendix A. Symbols a, b F FS f1 f2 f3 GB0 GD0 GG0 GG GR0 H HG Hj G IB ID coefcients to rjG determination (see Eq. (2)) annual electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for xed system maximum annual solar irradiation (kWh m2 year1) for a xed system function to approach GB0 function to approach GD0 function to approach GR0 vector of beam component of irradiance (W/m2) on a tracked system vector of diffusive component of irradiance (W/m2) on a tracked system global irradiance vector (W/m2) considering only motion limits restrictions for a tracker system global irradiance vector (W/m2) for a tracker system, considering motion limits, shadow losses and plates efciency vector of reected component of irradiance (W/m2) on a tracked system surface height (m) monthly average daily radiation on horizontal surface (kJ m2 day1) hourly irradiation (time j) from HG (kJ m2 h1) beam component of irradiance over horizontal surface (kW/m2) diffusive component of irradiance over horizontal surface (kW/m2)

IG I0 ISN J J0 Jday J0day kt L N rj G T TSTOP

aS
b bL bop

c
|cL|

cS ge geF
h hZ

x xS u
d

r
DJ0

DJ

global irradiance over horizontal surface (kW/m2) extraterrestrial irradiance (kW/m2) solar constant (kW/m2) annual electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for a tracking device annual electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for a tracking device without restrictions daily electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for a tracking device daily electricity to the grid (kWh m2 year1) for a tracking device without restrictions instantaneous clearness index (dimensionless) surface width (m) length of vector T (number of components ratio of hourly total to daily total radiation time vector for daily analyses (from sunrise to sunset) time stop vector for daily analyses (from sunrise to sunset). Indicates when the tracker changes its position along the time electrical production of a tracked system (W/m2) solar altitude angle (deg) instantaneous tilt for a tracking system (deg) maximum tilt that a tracking system reaches (deg) optimum tilt for a xed system to assure maximum solar capturing (deg) surface azimuth angle (deg) absolute value of maximum surface azimuth angle that tracking system reaches (deg) solar azimuth angle (deg) average electricity generation efciency for a tracked system (dimensionless) average electricity generation efciency for a xed system (dimensionless) angle of incidence of radiation (rad) zenith angle (rad) sun hour angle (rad) sunset hour angle (rad) latitude angle (deg) declination (deg) reectance coefcient (dimensionless) maximum tracking advantage: annual relative gain in electrical production of a tracking system without restrictions respect to a xed one (%) tracking energy advantage: annual relative gain in electrical production of a tracking system respect to a xed one (%)

References
[1] Chang TP. The gain of single-axis tracked panel according to extraterrestrial radiation. Appl Energy 2009;86(78):10749. [2] Lubitz WD. Effect of manual tilt adjustments on incident irradiance on xed and tracking solar panels. Appl Energy 2011;88(5):17109. [3] Ma Yi, Li G, Tang R. Optical performance of vertical axis three azimuth angles tracked solar panels. Appl Energy 2011;88(5):178491. [4] Salas P. Incremento de la produccin solar. Infopower 2005;78:1016. [5] Lorenzo E. Seguidores y huertas solares: retratos de la conexin fotovoltaica a la red (IV). Era Solar 2004;119:523. [6] Abdallah S. The effect of using sun tracking systems on the voltagecurrent characteristics and power generation of an plate photovoltaics. Energy Convers Manage 2004;45(2004):16719. [7] Almeida P, Sila P. Practical advantages of the use of tracking systems in power applications of photovoltaic solar panels. In: Abstracts of I International Congress of Energy and Environment Engineering and Management, 1820 May, 2005, Portalegre, Portugal. [8] Abella MA, Chenlo F. Sistemas fotovoltaicos conectados a red. Estimacin de la energa generada (II). Era Solar 2006;132:5267. [9] Daz FA, Cruz-Peragn F, Carazo-lvarez JD, Casanova-Pelez PJ, Palomar JM, Lpez-Garca R. Justicacin energtica para sistemas solares con seguimiento en dos ejes. In: Abstracts of II International Congress of Energy and Environment Engineering and Management, 67 june, Badajoz, Spain, Comit Organizador IICIEM, p. 51, @becedario, Badajoz; 2007.

5142

F. Cruz-Peragn et al. / Applied Energy 88 (2011) 51315142 [32] Dufe JA, Beckman WA. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. 2nd ed. NewYork (US): Wiley; 2006. [33] Benghanem M. Optimization of tilt angle for solar panel: case study for Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Appl Energy 2011;88(4):142733. [34] Collares-Pereira M, Rabl A. The average distribution of solar radiationCorrelations between diffuse and hemispherical and between daily and hourly insolation values. Sol Energy 1979;22:15564. [35] Erbs DG, Klein SA, Dufe JA. Estimation of the diffuse radiation fraction for hourly, daily and monthly average global radiation. Sol Energy 1982;28:293302. [36] Daz FA, Casanova-Pelez P, Cruz-Peragn F, Palomar JM, Lpez Garca R, Gmez Moreno A. Diseo de Seguidor Solar de dos ejes basado en un mecanismo biela-manivela. In: Proceedings of XIV Congreso Ibrico y IX Congreso Iberoamericano de Energa Solar, Vigo (Spain), vol. 2. 1721 June, 2008. p. 9316. [37] Gordon JM, Kreider JF, Reeves P. Tracking and stationary at plate solar collectors: yearly collectible energy correlations for photovoltaic applications. Sol energy 1991;47(4):24552. [38] Appelbaum J, Bany J. Shadow effect of adjacent solar collectors in large scale systems. Sol Energy 1979;23:497507. [39] Braun JE, Mitchell JC. Solar geometry for xed and tracking surfaces. Sol Energy 1983;31(5):43944. [40] Saleh A Monem. The shadow template a new method of design of shunshading devices. Sol Energy 1982;28(3):23956. [41] Gmez Moreno A, Casanova-Pelez P, Palomar JM, Daz FA, Lpez Garca R, Cruz-Peragn F. Estimacin analtica de prdidas de captacin debido a sombras en huertos solares con sistemas mecnicos de seguimiento. In: Proceedings of XIV Congreso Ibrico y IX Congreso Iberoamericano de Energa Solar, Vigo (Spain), vol. 2. 1721 June, 2008. p. 90712. [42] Jones AD, Underwood CP. A thermal model for photovoltaic systems. Sol Energy 2001;70(4):34959. [43] Krauter S, Hanitsch R. Actual optical and thermal performance of PV-modules. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 1996;41(42):55774. [44] Barker AS, Power HJ. Photovoltaic solar cell array used for supplemental power generation. Sol Energy 1979;23:42734. [45] Kaushika ND, Gautam NK, Kaushik K. Simulation model for sizing of standalone solar PV system with interconnected array. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2005;85:499517. [46] Kawamura H, Naka K, Yonekura N, Yamanaka S, Kawamura H, Ohno H, et al. Simulation of IV characteristics of a PV module with shaded PV cells. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2003;75:61321. [47] Brinkworth BJ, Cross BM, Marshall RH, Yang H. Thermal regulation of photovoltaic cladding. Sol Energy 1997;61(3):16978. [48] Brinkworth BJ, Marshall RH, Ibarahim Z. A validated model of naturally ventilated PV cladding. Sol Energy 2000;69(1):6781. [49] Jain PC, Jain S, Ratto CF. A new model for obtaining horizontal instantaneous global and diffuse radiation from the daily values. Sol Energy 1988;41(5):397404.

[10] Chang TP. Output energy of a photovoltaic module mounted on a single-axis tracking system. Appl Energy 2009;86(10):20718. [11] Koussa M, Cheknane A, Hadji S, Haddadi M, Noureddine S. Measured and modelled improvement in solar energy yield from at plate photovoltaic systems utilizing different tracking systems and under a range of environmental conditions. Appl Energy 2011;88(5):175671. [12] Remund J, Kunz S, Lang R. METEONORM: Global meteorological database for solar energy and applied climatology, Solar engineering Handbook, ver. 5.0, Bern, Meteotest. http://meteonorm.com. [13] Scharmer K, Greif J. The European Solar Radiation Atlas, Les Presses de Lcole des Mines, Paris; 2000. http://www.helioclim.net/esra/index.html. [14] Photovoltaic Geographical Information System (PVGIS), JRC European Comission. http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/. [15] CENSOLAR (1993). Valores medios de irradiacin solar sobre supercie horizontal. Centro de Estudios de la Energa Solar. Sevilla. [16] Labed S, Lorenzo E. On the impact of solar radiation variability and data discrepancies in the design of PV systems. Renew Energy 2003;29(7):100712. [17] Myers DR. Solar radiation modelling and measurements for renewable energy applications: data and model quality. Energy 2005;30:151731. [18] MatRas group site: http://www.ujaen.es/dep/sica/estacion3.htm. [19] Palomar JM, Casanova-Pelez P, Daz FA, Cruz-Peragn F, Lpez-Garca R. Nuevo sistema de seguimiento solar de dos ejes basado en el mecanismo bielamanivela. Dyna 2009;84(8):67180. [20] Al-Soud MA, Abdallah E, Akayleh A, Abdallah S, Hrayshat ES. A parabolic solar cooker with automatic two axes sun tracking system. Appl Energy 2010;87(2):46370. [21] Prapas DE, Norton B, Probert SD. Sensor system for aligning a single-axis tracker with direct solar insolation. Appl Energy 1986;25(1):18. [22] Liu BYH, Jordan RC. The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of direct, diffuse an total solar radiation. Sol Energy 1960;4:119. [23] Orgill JF, Hollands KGT. Correlation equation for hourly diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface. Sol Energy 1977;19:3579. [24] Kambezidis HD, Psiloglou BE, Gueymard C. Measurements and models for total irradiance on inclined surface in Athens, Greece. Sol Energy 1994;53(2):17785. [25] Klucher TM. Evaluation of models to predict insolation on tilted surfaces. Sol Energy 1979;23:1114. [26] Reindl DT, Beckmann WA, Dufe JA. Evaluation of hourly tilted surface radiation models. Sol Energy 1990;45:917. [27] Gueymard C. The suns total and spectral irradiance for solar energy applications and solar radiation models. Sol energy 2004;76:42353. [28] Hay JE. Calculation of monthly mean solar radiation for horizontal and inclined surfaces. Sol Energy 1979;23:3017. [29] Prez R, Stweart C, Arbogast C, Seals R, Scott J. An anisotropic hourly diffuse radiation model for sloping surfaces: description, performance validation, site dependency evaluation. Sol Energy 1986;36(6):48197. [30] Feuermann D, Zemel A. Validation of models for global irradiance on inclined surfaces. Sol Energy 1992;48(1):5966. [31] Liu BYH, Jordan RC. A rational procedure for predicting the long-term average performance of at-plate solar-energy collectors. Sol Energy 1963;7(2):5374.