Energy production of photovoltaic systems: Fixed, tracking, and concentrating

Abstract This work compares the energy production (EP) of four photovoltaic system configurations: fixed, 1-axis and 2-axis tracking flat plate, and concentrating photovoltaics (CPV). The EP comparison is based on real performance data from systems installed in Spain in 2009. These systems are located close to each other but house different configurations. Many of the systems analyzed are new installations in 2008, including two of the largest CPV systems in the world that together have 9.3 MW and represent more than 50% of the world's total CPV. The EP analysis shows: (1) compared with the fixed flat plate systems, 1-axis and 2-axis tracking flat plate systems have 22.3% and 25.2% gain in the annual EP, respectively. These real EP gains are less than 32.1% for 1-axis and 38.7% for 2-axis tracking, which are the predicted gains when only considering the difference of captured illumination by these configurations (based on the data from Photovoltaic Geographical Information System (PVGIS)). (2) The EP from CPV systems is quite close to that from fixed flat plate systems. This differs from the predicted 16.1% gain from CPV when only considering the illumination difference. Besides comparing the energy production, the performance ratio (PR) is also estimated and analyzed for the different configurations, based on the best available irradiation data. PR measures the agreement between the operation of a real system and of an ideal system that only considers the nominal module efficiency loss. The analysis shows the PR decreases in the order: fixed, 1-axis, 2-axis tracking flat plate, CPV.

[1]  Rick Hurt,et al.  Operation and Performance of the Amonix High Concentration Photovoltaic System at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas During the Second Year of Operation , 2006 .

[2]  Jaroslav Hofierka,et al.  A New GIS‐based Solar Radiation Model and Its Application to Photovoltaic Assessments , 2004, Trans. GIS.

[3]  P. Banda Rueda,et al.  Status of CPV Technology , 2010 .

[4]  Karen Abrinia,et al.  A review of principle and sun-tracking methods for maximizing solar systems output , 2009 .

[5]  Larry M. Moore,et al.  Photovoltaic power plant experience at Arizona Public Service: a 5‐year assessment , 2005 .

[6]  Thomas Huld,et al.  PV-GIS: a web-based solar radiation database for the calculation of PV potential in Europe , 2005 .

[7]  E. Dunlop,et al.  Analysis of one‐axis tracking strategies for PV systems in Europe , 2010 .

[8]  Thomas A. Huld,et al.  Estimating average daytime and daily temperature profiles within Europe , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[9]  Chia-Yen Lee,et al.  Sun Tracking Systems: A Review , 2009, Sensors.

[10]  I. Luque-Heredia,et al.  Photovoltaic concentration at the onset of its commercial deployment , 2006 .

[11]  E. Dunlop,et al.  Comparison of potential solar electricity output from fixed‐inclined and two‐axis tracking photovoltaic modules in Europe , 2008 .

[12]  Richard M. Swanson,et al.  The promise of concentrators , 2000 .

[13]  E. Dunlop,et al.  Geographic Aspects of Photovoltaics in Europe: Contribution of the PVGIS Website , 2008, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.

[14]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Opportunities and Challenges for Development of a Mature Concentrating Photovoltaic Power Industry (Revision) , 2012 .

[15]  E. Dunlop,et al.  Potential of solar electricity generation in the European Union member states and candidate countries , 2007 .