Key parameters in determining energy generated by CPV modules

We identify the key inputs and measurement data needed for accurate energy rating of concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) modules based on field observations of multiple CPV modules. Acceptance angle is shown to correlate with the observed module-level performance ratio (PR) for the modules studied. Using power ratings based on concentrator standard test conditions, PRs between 90% and 95% were observed during the summers with up to ~10% lower PRs during the winters. A module fabricated by Semprius showed 94% ±0.7% PR over almost 2 years with seasonal variation in PR of less than 1% showing how a module with relatively large acceptance angle may show very consistent average efficiency (calculated from the energy generated relative to the energy available), potentially simplifying energy ratings. The application of the results for translation of energy rating from one location to another is discussed, concluding that most of the translation differences may be correlated with temperature differences between sites with the largest variation happening when optical efficiency depends on temperature. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  William E. Boyson,et al.  Photovoltaic array performance model. , 2004 .

[2]  John F. Geisz,et al.  Analysis of Multijunction Solar Cell Current–Voltage Characteristics in the Presence of Luminescent Coupling , 2013, IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.

[3]  Sarah R. Kurtz,et al.  The difference between standard and average efficiencies of multijunction compared with single-junction concentrator cells , 1991 .

[4]  Eduardo F. Fernández,et al.  Models for the electrical characterization of high concentration photovoltaic cells and modules: A review , 2013 .

[5]  S. Kurtz,et al.  An Investigation into Spectral Parameters as they Impact CPV Module Performance , 2010 .

[6]  K. Araki,et al.  Which is the best number of junctions for solar cells under ever-changing terrestrial spectrum? , 2003, 3rd World Conference onPhotovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003. Proceedings of.

[7]  M. Vivar,et al.  Effect of soiling on PV concentrators: Comparison with flat modules , 2008, 2008 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference.

[8]  G. Peharz,et al.  YieldOpt, a model to predict the power output and energy yield for concentrating photovoltaic modules , 2015 .

[9]  M. Green,et al.  Radiative coupling as a means to reduce spectral mismatch in monolithic tandem solar cell stacks theoretical considerations , 2002, Conference Record of the Twenty-Ninth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2002..

[10]  Brent Fisher,et al.  Semprius Field Results and Progress in System Development , 2014, IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.

[11]  Gabi Friesen,et al.  Energy rating of PV modules: comparison of methods and approach , 2003, 3rd World Conference onPhotovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003. Proceedings of.

[12]  B. Kroposki,et al.  A comparison of photovoltaic module performance evaluation methodologies for energy ratings , 1994, Proceedings of 1994 IEEE 1st World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion - WCPEC (A Joint Conference of PVSC, PVSEC and PSEC).

[13]  Gerald Siefer,et al.  A method for using CPV modules as temperature sensors and its application to rating procedures , 2011 .

[14]  P.J. Verlinden,et al.  Energy rating of Concentrator PV systems using multi-junction III–V solar cells , 2008, 2008 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference.

[15]  S. Kurtz,et al.  The influence of spectral solar irradiance variations on the performance of selected single-junction and multijunction solar cells , 1991 .

[16]  William A. Beckman,et al.  Improvement and validation of a model for photovoltaic array performance , 2006 .