Floating Solar Panel Park
Midterm Project Report
Floating Ideas Team
Team Members:
Carlos Martin Delgado, Laura Ripoll Albaladejo, Stephan Fischer, Elizabeth Larsen, Amber Kauppila
Novia University of Applied Sciences European Project Semester
March 26, 2019
Abstract
This Midterm Report will detail the full work of the Floating Ideas Team throughout the beginning of this semester. The team worked on many things outside of the main project including team building, project management, and ecodesign. The results of these efforts can be found in the following report. They will detail the process taken to form a proper team and also show the project management steps taken to fully detail the project and come up with tools to ensure that the project is done on time, within budget, and covers the full scope intended. In addition to these basics, all the research completed by the team, including research on panel type, placement, solar tracking, mirrors, cooling systems, the floating structure, anchoring methods, rotation, and the connection to the grid, are included. Each section will detail the results of the research and detail the best options for future use. After all the research was done, the team compiled the component options into four workable designs. From here, the team plans to further compile all ideas into one design to test and simulate. In addition, the team also plans to complete a full economic and environmental analysis of this final design.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .………..7
1.1 European Project Semester (EPS) 1.2 The Team
1.2.1 Team Members 1.3 Wärtsilä
1.4 Project Scope
2. Project Management ………...9
2.1 Team Building & Intercultural Communication 2.1.1 Team Contract
2.1.2 Onion Model 2.1.3 Tuckman Chart 2.1.4 Belbin Test 2.2 Basic Project Elements 2.3 Mission and Vision 2.4 Objectives
2.5 Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS) 2.6 Project Schedule
2.7 RACI Matrix 2.8 Budgeting 2.9 Conclusion
3. Background Information………...22
3.1 Overview of How Solar Panels Work 3.2 Solar Cell Performance and Efficiency 3.3 Advantages and Challenges of Solar Energy 3.4 Progress of Floating Solar Park Technology Today 3.5 Floating Solar Park Examples
3.6 Conclusion
4. Research ………..28
4.1 Previous Floating Solar Panel Team, Fall 2018 4.1.1 Summary
4.1.2 Topics in Need of Further Research 4.2 Defined Research Assumptions
4.3 Weather, Wind & Location 4.3.1 Clouds
4.3.2 Precipitation 4.3.3 Wind
4.3.4 Sun 4.4 Types of panels 4.5 Placement 4.6 Solar Tracking
4.7 Mirrors & Concentrators
4.8 Cooling Systems 4.8.1 Significance
4.8.2 Cooling System Techniques 4.9 Floating Structures and Materials 4.10 Anchoring
4.11 Rotation
4.12 Connection to the Grid 4.13 Cleaning and Maintenance 4.14 Conclusion
5. Design………...70
6. Results ……….73
7. Conclusion ………..74
References Appendices
Appendix A: Team Contract Appendix B: Large Figures
List of Figures
Figure 1. Team’s onion model
Figure 2. Basic project elements diagram
Figure 3. Work Breakdown Structure - Research Track Figure 4. Work Breakdown Structure - Design Track Figure 5. Work Breakdown Structure - Testing Track Figure 6. Example of Trello Board
Figure 7. Example of Week’s Plan on Trello Figure 8. Earned Value Analysis for SPI & CPI
Figure 9. Diagram illustrating the operation of a PV cell Figure 10. PV cell I-V characteristic curve
Figure 11. Cloud Cover in Vaasa, Finland
Figure 12. Daylight hours over the course of a year in Vaasa
Figure 13. Average daily shortwave solar energy to reach the ground in Vaasa Figure 14. Yearly Solar Irradiation and Energy Output for Europe
Figure 15. Electrical specifications of the panel
Figure 16. Current-Voltage curves for different temperatures and radiation levels
Figure 17. Total fixed panels’ energy production for every month according to simulation Figure 18. Different rotation methods’ energy production for every month according to simulation
Figure 19. Connection of solar cells and bypass diodes in a standard solar panel Figure 20. Diagram of position of panels
Figure 21. Dimensions of the chosen solar panel
Figure 22. Plot showing the relation between distance between panel and sun angle Figure 23. Graph representing the variation of energy density depending on sun angle and slope angle
Figure 24. Graph representing the variation of energy density depending on sun angle and slope angle
Figure 25. Graph showing energy density for different sun angles with the optimus slope angle Figure 26. Triangular Solar Tracker, spin cell, double solar tracker
Figure 27. Types of concentrated solar power solutions Figure 28. Processing of Fresnel lenses
Figure 29. Fresnel lens
Figure 30. Archimedes V-Trough PV Concentrator Figure 31. Cross-section V-Trough
Figure 32. Vega energy WA layers Figure 33. Diagram of a WVC system
Figure 34. Visual of high- pressure sprinkler head for solar panel cooling system Figure 35. Visual layout of water sprinkler cooling system
Figure 36. Diagram of Photonic Crystal Cooling Material Figure 37. PE-HD floating photovoltaic power plant parts Figure 38. Submerged & floating photovoltaic systems
Figure 39. Swimming Solar Park by Statkraft, Albania Figure 40. Chains Crossed Inwards
Figure 41. Chains Going Outwards
Figure 42. Scheme of the typical connection to the grid of a solar park Figure 43. Connection of different types of inverters
Figure 44. Design 1: Rotating circular structures Figure 45. Design 2: Rectangular structure
Figure 46. Design3:Square with circular rotating platform Figure 47. Design 4: Triangle shaped inflatable structure
List of Tables
Table 1. Phases, characteristics and team leader roles of the Tuckman-Chart Table 2. Belbin Test results
Table 3. RACI Matrix
Table 4. Standard Testing Condition specifications Table 5. Detailed descriptions for each design
Table 6. Comparison between fixed and rotating panels Table 7. Raw calculation data for 10 degrees sun angle Table 8. Raw calculation data for 15 degrees sun angle Table 9. Raw calculation data for 20 degrees sun angle Table 10. Raw calculation data for 5 degrees sun angle
Table 11. Comparison of raw calculation data for different sun angles and slope angles Table 12. Parameters of 3 different options for placing the panels
Table 13. Advantages and disadvantages of a WVC system
Table 14. Advantages and disadvantages of a water sprinkler cooling system
Table 15. Advantages and disadvantages of a forced water circulation cooling system Table 16. Advantages and disadvantages of forced air circulation system.
Table 17. Advantages and disadvantages of transparent cooling coating Table 18. Required characteristics of a floating material
Table 19. Options for design
1. Introduction
1.1 European Project Semester (EPS)
The European Project Semester (EPS) program is offered in eighteen universities throughout Europe and is a one semester project-based learning program designed for engineering students. Throughout the duration of 15 weeks, multinational teams are to work on an assigned project subject. This program allows students to improve their intercultural communication and teamwork skills while being challenged to solve real multidisciplinary problems.
For this report, the EPS is hosted at Novia University of Applied Sciences. The Floating Ideas Team has been assigned to the Floating Solar Panel Project to investigate the feasibility of a floating solar panel park in Finland. An introduction to the project, objectives, and more detailed information about the project will be addressed in the report.
1.2 The Team
The Floating Ideas Team is composed of five team members from different nationalities and fields of study. An introduction of each team member is given below.
1.2.1 Team Members Carlos Martin Delgado
I am an electrical engineering student at Valladolid College of Industrial Engineering. I have taken this EPS as a way
to do my Final Degree Project at my university. My field of study is electricity in every phase: generation, transportation and use of it.
Laura Ripoll Albaladejo
My name is Laura Ripoll and I am from Sitges, a nice town near Barcelona. I study Mechanical Engineering in UPC Vilanova. After this project I will get my degree and I am looking forward to work on new sustainable and ecological projects.
Stephan Fischer
My name is Stephan Fischer from Kiel, Germany and I am earning my Bachelor’s Degree in International Sales and Purchase Engineering. After the mechanical engineering fundamentals my degree program focuses on strategic and operational activities in the commercial sector.
Elizabeth Larsen
My name is Elizabeth Larsen. I study Civil, Environmental, and Sustainable Engineering. I am originally from Minnesota, but study at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in Rapid City, South Dakota. I will be earning my Bachelor’s Degree after the completion of this project.
Amber Kauppila
My name is Amber Kauppila and I am earning my Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Engineering. I am from Marquette, Michigan in the United States. Major focuses in my studies include waste to energy technology, sustainability, and remediation.
1.3 Wärtsilä
Wärtsilä is a Finnish company that was founded in 1834 with locations in Helsinki, Vaasa, Turku, and other European locations. Wärtsilä is a world leader in smart technologies and product lifecycle solutions for the marine and energy businesses. The goal of Wärtsilä is to sustainably meet the world’s increasing energy demand through maximizing the environmental and economic performance of customers vessels and power plants (Wärtsilä, 2019). The Floating Ideas Team is fortunate to have Sören Hedvik, a current employee of Wärtsilä and sustainability enthusiast, to serve as a contact for the company and to help assist with the Floating Solar Panel Park project.
1.4 Project Scope
Floating solar panels are an emerging technology that is becoming increasingly popular amongst countries that are shifting to renewable energy options. As the material for solar technology is rapidly dropping in price level and developing worldwide, it is becoming possible to engineer the technology to make it feasible for locations with low solar energy potential. Due to the country’s northern location, Finland is currently considered a country with low solar energy potential. However, as a result of Finland’s cooler climate and landscape with over 180,000 lakes, floating solar technology still has the potential to be feasible in Finland.
The purpose of the Floating Solar Panel Park project is to determine, and verify the feasibility of floating solar technology in Finland. The project will design and build a floating solar panel prototype that will be tested in different locations in Vaasa, Finland. The project will estimate the yearly power output and efficiency of the panels in regards to interested parties such as energy companies and other countries with low solar energy potential. These concepts will be further built upon throughout the project through research, simulation, and testing.
2. Project Management
The following section provides information pertaining to the group work and exercises completed by the Floating Ideas Team as a part of the Project Management course.
2.1 Team Building & Intercultural Communication
During the beginning of the semester, the Floating Ideas Team performed various exercises that are explained in detail below. The objective was to build stronger teamwork practices,
communication, and time management skills by highlighting challenges and opportunities of different work strategies amongst team members.
2.1.1 Team Contract
Working in a team usually can be difficult, even more when people do not know each other.
Before problems appear it’s very important to define working rules and that is what a team contract covers. For this project, the team decided to write a team contract facing all possible situations that can become in all the project phases. The contract specifies how members have to treat each other, timetable rules, compromise, and vision of the project.
The team contract can be find at the end of the report as the Appendix A.
2.1.2 Onion Model
There are many ways to visualise the concept of culture, but one of the most popular models is based on an onion. The Onion Model of Culture shows how culture has a number of layers.
There are a number of interpretations of this model but the simplest one consists of four key layers.
The outer layers represent cultural artefacts or symbols such as flags, architecture or traditional clothing. The next layer is composed of common rituals and traditions. This could include how people greet each other, eat meals, get married or practise their religion. Heroes make up the next layer, such as Winston Churchill in the UK, and tend to represent many of the culture’s values and beliefs.
In the centre of the onion are the underlying values and cultural assumptions which influence all of the other layers. These beliefs, norms and attitudes are much harder to recognise without a deeper analysis and thorough understanding of each of these layers and how they interact.
We have tried to create an onion model representing our team’s new “culture” finding some symbols, rituals, heroes and values we all share.
Figure 1. Team’s onion model 2.1.3 Tuckman Chart
The Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing model or Tuckman-Chart was developed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 to describe the phases of team building. Especially for team constellations consisting out of complete strangers and foreigners it normally takes a lot of time to figure out how every personality works and how the individuals fit together. With the Tuckman-Chart the Phases of team building are defined and described in a way which supports building teams in a more efficient way.
Especially in order for the team to grow, face up challenges, tackle problems, find solutions, plan work and deliver results the phases are a necessary part of team building.
The Phases, Characteristics and Team Leader roles shown in the table below are as follows:
Table 1. Phases, characteristics and team leader roles of the Tuckman-Chart
Phase 2nd Name Teamleader Characteristics Forming Orientation
phase
❏ Support process
❏ Smooth climate in the Team
❏ Defining Goals & Structures
❏ First gathering
❏ Uncertainty about the roles in the Team
❏ Restraint Storming Closeup fight
phase
❏ moderating
❏ Find & propose ways to resolve conflicts
❏ Role of the mediator & the impeller
Task conflicts
❏ Team member not able to fulfil tasks
❏ Emotional conflicts due not fulfilling of expectations Role conflicts
❏ Expectations unequaled reality in terms of roles
❏ Dominant characters influence work process through power struggles Norming Organisation
phase
❏ Sharing interests, strengths &
needs
❏ Advisory activity
❏ In compliance with standards for compliance & execution
❏ Development of
self-responsibility depending on management style
❏ Unity, group cohesion, community
❏ New rules regarding working methods,
communication, feedback, cooperation
❏ Developed conflict culture!!
Performing High-perform ance phase
❏ Productivity, efficiency, independence
❏ Act as a collective, for each other, with each other
❏ High team identity, team morale, loyalty
❏ Retiring
❏ Conducting regular meetings & the like
❏ Further development of the individual
Adjourning Resolution phase
❏ Group Works
❏ Proud of one's own achievements
❏ Praise
❏ Guidance for future work
❏ Feedback
2.1.4 Belbin Test
The Belbin Test helps individuals in identifying their specific, different role or roles they contribute to a team setting. This is significant in enabling team members to understand and discuss differences and similarities about their behavioural strengths in a productive, safe, and
non-confrontational way. By having a greater self-understanding of each team member’s
strengths and weaknesses can result in more efficient and successful working team. The Belbin team roles are categorized as follows: Shaper, Completer-Finisher, Implementer, Plant,
Monitor-Evaluator, Specialist, Team worker, Coordinator, and Resource Investigator. Each team member’s Belbin Test results are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Belbin Test results
Team Members Belbin Roles Role Description
Laura Plant Creative, imaginative, good at solving problems in unconventional ways
Implementer Practical, helps in planning a workable strategy and carrying it out efficiently
Carlos Team worker Cooperative, helps the team to work together effectively and efficiently
Specialist Dedicated, brings in-depth knowledge of a key area to the team
Stephan Plant Creative, imaginative, good at solving problems in unconventional ways
Shaper Thrives on pressure, provides the necessary drive to ensure the team keeps moving and doesn’t lose focus or momentum Elizabeth Shaper Thrives on pressure, provides the necessary drive to ensure
the team keeps moving and doesn’t lose focus or momentum Coordinator Confident, helps team to clarify goals, delegates work to team
members and keeps everyone on track
Amber Coordinator Confident, helps team to clarify goals, delegates work to team members and keeps everyone on track
Resource Investigator
Outgoing, uses inquisitive nature to find ideas to bring back to the team
From the Belbin Test results, the Floating Ideas Team as a whole predominantly agrees the Belbin Test is an accurate representation of each team member’s role in the team. Reflecting on the Belbin Test individually, Carlos felt the Team Worker role did not reflect the work he has put in the team project so far as the team has not needed any assistance in collaborating well
together or resolving conflict between team members. Likewise, Stephan also does not feel the role, Shaper, reflected his performance throughout the project up to this point as the
responsibilities of a Shaper haven’t been a significant need to the team for the role.
In addition, the team agrees the Belbin Test is a useful tool in understanding similarities and differences amongst team members as well as the potential challenges the team may face in the future. The team concurs challenges specific to the team that are important to be aware of are effective communication, managing conflicting Belbin roles, maintaining a motivated approach throughout the duration of the project, and taking responsibility for Belbin team roles that have not yet been filled by members of the team.
2.2 Basic Project Elements
When given a project, it is imperative to detail the most basic project elements to better understand the tasks at hand and get a good feel for the outside factors pushing this project along. These outside factors generally come in the form of interested parties, the environment it is set in, and the resources that can be utilized for this project.
The following figure details the most basic project elements for this design project.
Figure 2. Basic project elements diagram
As one can see, the basis task of this project is to design a floating solar panel park that will give back a statistically significant amount of energy to Vaasa, Finland. As mentioned, Wärtsilä is the main interested party, but other parties might be interested once the project is completed.
In addition, the environment and resources available correspond with what has been provided
by Novia University of Applied Sciences and EPS. With these basic principles in mind, the project can be completed.
2.3 Mission and Vision
The mission statement for the project is as follows:
“Create an economically, socially, and environmentally feasible floating solar energy source for Northern Europe first concentrated in Vaasa, Finland and then extend it to other locations with
similar latitudes.”
The vision statement for the project is as follows:
“Design a sustainable and economically successful floating solar park technology that is adaptable for areas that are not yet energy efficient in reference to solar energy.”
2.4 Objectives
The team’s objectives for the project are listed below.
1. Increased efficiency for solar panel parks in Northern Europe.
2. Solar panel parks are adaptable to account for ice and snow-related efficiency loss.
3. Increased solar insolation for each solar panel resulting from added solar insulation.
4. Have adaptable systems for cooling solar panels, if necessary.
5. Reach solar panel’s maximum solar capacity through experimentation.
6. The net economic balance for the solar panel park will equate to zero after 10 years.
7. Modifiable solar panel park options for multiple weather-similar locations.
2.5 Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS)
Having a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is one of the most important things to start with when defining a project and starting to work on it. For a Floating Solar Panel Park, there are many components. Due to this, the Work Breakdown Structure was split into three main parts. It was broken down simply into Research, Design, and Testing. From there, these main tasks were split further into simpler tasks until they could be defined easily. The following figures detail the WBS.
Figure 3. Work Breakdown Structure - Research Track
The research track was further split down into cost, location of the panel park, additions that would positively influence efficiency, and the functionality of the panels themselves. A WBS is to be broken down until the time, cost, and resources needed for that task are abundantly clear.
Although it is not detailed in these figures, the time and resources needed, in our case, team members, are detailed in the following sections (See Project Schedule and RACI Matrix, respectively.) To plan and to complete this research, each team member was given a portion that they would research and teach all other members about. This research is the main component to coming up with possible options for the floating panel park. This research was given approximately three weeks time. Each time the team came together, the research got more focused until it was focused enough to pull together a design for this project. The focus of this subsection of the WBS is how a floating solar panel park can actually work and how it can be improved upon to be more efficient.
In the next figure, the design track is detailed.
Figure 4. Work Breakdown Structure - Design Track
The design track is similar to the research track in that it is split into further tasks. In this WBS, the structure of the park and the “boosters”, or added efficiency influences, are detailed further into smaller tasks. The structure is broken down into pieces such as the electric installation, the actual placement of the panels, getting a working prototype going, and designing a full floating structure for the park. The boosters are further broken down into the rotation system, insulation techniques, temperature systems, and mirrors. These smaller components are things that will eventually have a full design associated with them. These small tasks are part of the design phase as they are not simply things that one can research and pick out, but are things that need deep thought and an engineering design behind them. Each team member has an interest in helping design specific portions of the solar panel park. Each team member’s contribution can be referenced in the RACI Matrix. The design phase of this project should take approximately nine weeks. This includes adding things to the design as testing is completed, so a detailed time breakdown is not available at this time.
The next figure details the testing track.
Figure 5. Work Breakdown Structure - Testing Track
The testing portion of the WBS is broken into similar smaller tasks. A simulation will be done for all scenarios to find out the expected energy output for the design. The team also hopes to test some specific efficiency influences such as mirrors, different cooling systems and insulation techniques, and get real-time data on how panels work in the given weather conditions of Vaasa, Finland. The floating system will also be testing and possibly an overloaded cell will be too. An overloaded cell would be one with an excessive amount of insulation aimed at
increasing its efficiency. These tasks, again, are broken down similarly in the schedule and the RACI matrix. Each team member takes part in the testing, but in various different ways. The total time given for testing is six weeks with some intermittent design work included.
A visual of the entire WBS put together is shown in Figure 1, Appendix B. The full work
breakdown structure was added simply to provide context on how big this project really is. It is just a compilation of the three previous figures in one.
2.6 Project Schedule
The schedule for any project is arguably the most important part of the planning phase to get straightened out and adhere to as quickly as possible. Schedules help to ensure that all project tasks get done on time and to the completion level they need. It is imperative that project managers check back with the schedule regularly to make sure they are staying on track and in the right time frame. The estimated schedule for the full project can be found in Figure 2, Appendix B.
The above schedule shows how large one project can be. The colors off to the left side denote the tasks that need to be completed. These tasks are, again, divided into Research, Design, and Testing. However, a fourth task group is added here. This group is Managerial Tasks, which when broken down further includes writing the midterm report, editing the report, making
presentations, etc. Each piece of this project is very fluid and depends on the portions before it to run smoothly.
The team comes back to this schedule frequently to either adjust the schedule due to various schedule changes from EPS/other courses or to check their progress. The schedule in Figure 10 is updated to 19.3.2019. One can see that the team’s research is on schedule and in some cases ahead of schedule. The other tasks that were scheduled before 19.3.2019 are in the Managerial Tasks section and are not as far along as they should be. This is something that the team has noted and is trying to correct immediately. The managerial tasks, however, are not considered to be on the critical path, meaning some slack in those tasks is okay.
The team’s critical path, essentially follows a diagonal line down from left to right. It starts with the research tasks and then goes to the design, then testing, then back to design, then more testing, and so on. The research is necessary to get started on the design and the design is necessary to start testing. After that, additions are added to the design and testing making the critical path jump between the two task sections.
As an additional tool to go on with the schedule and follow weekly all steps the team agreed to use Trello. Trello is a collaboration tool that organizes projects into boards. Is a efficient way to know what is being worked on, who is working on what, and where something is in a process.
Figure 6. Example of Trello board
The Solar Panel Team board has been divided in different sections such as project
management, project basics, project structure, working packages and deadlines. There are documents, images, task lists and notes inside every section. The most important ones are the working packages, divided into project weeks because, as it is shown in the schedule, tasks are weekly defined. The next image shows an example of week six where the agenda and the meeting notes are attached. The green tab means that all the tasks were done. When the tab is orange it means that is the actual week and the tasks are being done and when the tasks are not completed the tag has to be changed to a red one. The deadline concerns to the weekly meeting with Mikael and Sören and it appears also in the calendar format of Trello. Task lists are shown at the end, start doing, doing and must finish.
Figure 7. Example of week’s plan on Trello
Trello board can be updated and modified from all smartphones, that makes it easy to use and it is a good way to be to be up to date and communicated with the rest of the team.
2.7 RACI Matrix
Human Resource Management is a large part of Project Management. Because of this, our team developed an RACI Matrix to help divvy up tasks as well as ensure that each task had an owner or someone who would be responsible for checking up on its progress and completion.
This matrix also helps make sure that we are not all devoting time to the same task when we can be productively splitting up the work and keeps people not involved in each task informed about what is being done. An RACI Matrix does this by simplifying every person’s role for a given task into four categories. RACI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Consulting, and Informing. These four words detail what each role is for the task.
Responsible - Who is responsible for this activity? This individual is in charge of checking up with others to see what work is being done and to ensure that the task will get done on time.
These individuals are also tasked with informing the individuals who are not involved, how everything is going.
Accountable - Who is also accountable for this task? These individuals are also working on the given task, but are not in charge of ensuring its completion. These members are completing the tasks alongside the “responsible” individual.
Consulting - Who should be we consulting with for this task? These individuals are not doing the actual work on the task but help in the form of giving advice through consultation. These
individuals are not needed at every meeting about this task but are asked to help when needed or when a large decision needs to be made.
Informing - Who do we need to inform about this task? These individuals are being informed about the progress and completion of these tasks only. They are not working on the project nor being consulted for help.
Table 4, below, is the working RACI Matrix for this project team. The tasks from the Work Breakdown Structure are featured to the left in this table. It is color-coded by job type with a key to the right.
Table 3. RACI Matrix
As one can see from the RACI Matrix, every task has one, and in some cases two, responsible parties. This is to ensure that the task gets done and one person can communicate with
everyone else about its progress. In most cases, everyone in the team wanted to be involved with every task. Usually, this wouldn’t be the case in design projects elsewhere, but with this
being a multicultural and multidisciplinary team, everyone wanted to try to be involved to learn from one another. Additionally, the supervisors for this project were included. The team would like to consult with them regularly, but only inform them about progress for some of the more basic, non-design, tasks.
2.8 Project Cost and Budget
With the Earning Value Analysis, both the average workload in comparison to the setpoint can be set, as well as the resource consumption over a defined period of time. In this case the SPI (schedule performance index) tends to grow during the last days, after team building activities and trips have been finished and the natural configuration within the team was found. With an average amount of working hours of 187.5h, the calculation was made on the basis of an 37.5h work week per employees.
Calculating with an average wage of 80€ per hour/Person and 120€ per hour/Teacher for further educations, the CPI (Cost Performance Index) deviates from the course of the SPI. The
Deviation can also be explained by the additional costs during the lower work hour period. The growing gap was especially created by team building activities and official flights.
Figure 8. Earned Value Analysis for SPI & CPI
2.9 Conclusion
Throughout the first few weeks of the EPS Project, the team spent time learning about team building and project management. The team learned about Tuckman’s phases of working in a team, Belbin’s team roles, and about each other. The team building course set the stage for the team to recognize who in the group would excel at certain things and what they may struggle with. It also helped prepare them for group work and taught them more about themselves in the process. The team was also able to create a team identity through the use of the Onion Model and other similar activities.
The Project Management course was all about learning about what it takes to actually run and complete a project. Through this course, the team set themselves up for future success, by coming up with clear and concise objectives, breaking down the work into smaller work packages, and creating a schedule that everyone could follow. These tasks have helped the team to stay on track when it comes to scope and time. The final important pillar of a project is cost. This is not easy to estimate as we do not have a large budget, but was estimated to shows just how expensive larger projects can be. Overall, the project management course helped the team to realize where they stood when it came to scope, time, and money. And through doing the exercises they are now able to stay on track throughout the project.
3. Background Information
3.1 Overview of How Solar Panels Work
Solar panels are a type of renewable, green technology that utilize the sun’s energy to produce electricity. A solar panel works by absorbing photons of light and releasing and separating electrons from their atoms. This physical and chemical phenomenon is called the photoelectric effect. Smaller units called photovoltaic (PV) cells contained in the solar panel are responsible for directly converting the energy of light into direct current (DC) electricity by capturing the free electrons (Knier, 2008). The DC electricity produced from solar panels must be converted into a more stable, and safer alternating current (AC) electricity by a PV inverter before use in a national or local grid. Figure 1 below shows a schematic of the operation of a basic PV cell.
Figure 9. Diagram illustrating the operation of a PV cell (Lighting Research Center, 2006).
PV cells are composed of specially treated semiconductor material that share properties of both metal and insulators in order to convert sunlight into electricity. Light that is absorbed by a semiconductor is transferred as energy to electrons. This allows the electrons to freely flow through the material as electrical current. The direction of electron flow is controlled by the positively and negatively charged electric fields in the PV cells. By drawing the current off of the PV cell, the power produced by the solar cell can be used for external use (Kneir, 2008).
Silicon is the most common semiconductor material used in solar cells. Infact, ninety percent of solar panels sold today use silicon as a semiconductor material (Solar Energy Technologies Office, 2013). Silicon’s marketability is contributed to it’s crystal lattice structure of the atom that makes it capable of providing solar cells with a higher efficiency, lower cost, and a longer lifetime. Silicon is doped with phosphorus resulting in n-type silicon, and doped with boron resulting in p-type silicon to increase the conductivity of it’s crystal lattice. The increase in conductivity helps to move electrons across the positive-negative junction and create electric current flow and voltage in the PV cell, thus, producing power. Other semiconductor materials used in solar cells include thin-film photovoltaics, organic photovoltaics and concentration photovoltaics (Solar Energy Technologies Office, 2013).
3.2 Solar Cell Performance and Efficiency
An assembly of PV cells electrically connected together form a photovoltaic module, also known as a solar panel. The typical solar panel consists of approximately 40 PV cells. Solar panels can be further wired together to form a solar array. The electrical energy produced will increase with increasing area size of solar panel or solar array. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), an array of between 10 to 20 solar panels is required in order to provide enough electricity to power the average home (Solar Research, 2018).
The amount of electrical energy produced by a PV cell is dependent on the intensity and wavelength of the light source, and various performance characteristics of the PV cell.
Significant parameters affecting PV cell performance include the maximum current and voltage, efficiency, characteristic and parasitic resistance, temperature, diode ideality factor, and the band gap energy (Alternative Energy Tutorials, 2019). Out of all factors, temperature and solar irradiance have the largest influence on PV cell performance. A graph showing the current and voltage (I-V) characteristics of a PV cell operating under normal conditions is shown in Figure 2 below. PV cell I-V characteristic curves are significant for determining the relationship between the current and voltage at present temperature and solar irradiance conditions. Information provided by the I-V characteristic curves yield necessary information for designing a solar system to operate as close to the PV cell’s optimal peak power point (MPP) as possible (Alternative Energy Tutorials, 2019).
Figure 10. PV cell I-V characteristic curve (Alternative Energy Tutorials, 2019).
The efficiency of each PV cell determines the total efficiency produced from the solar panel.
Solar panel cell efficiency can be defined as the ratio of electrical power produced from the PV cell to the amount of sunlight captured by the PV cell (Solar Energy Technologies Office, 2013).
Simply stated, the efficiency of a solar panel determines how much of the energy captured by the PV cell will be converted into electrical energy. Solar panels are tested at Standard Test Conditions (STC), an industry-wide standard, to compare, rate, and determine the efficiency and performance of solar panels. These conditions correspond to a clear, sunny day with the
incident light hitting a sun-facing 37 degree-tilted surface with the sun at an angle of 41.81 degrees above the horizon. Standard test conditions are displayed in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Standard Testing Condition specifications
It is important to note that STC is not a sufficiently accurate standard to stimulate a panel’s real world operation and performance due to major climatic and geographic conditions on Earth.
Regularly occurring deviations in lamp spectrum, module and environment temperature, and solar irradiation are examples of sources that cause panel’s of manufacturers to not effectively meet STC, resulting in incorrect output data. Today, the typical efficiency of commercially available PV panels is 7 to 17%, with the most efficient solar panels on market today having efficiency ratings as high as 22.2%. Efficiency values of panels and cells will vary with each manufacturer and panel type.
For this report, the Floating Ideas Team will further elaborate on other weather and performance related conditions of hail impact, wind, snow, and ice load, exposure to humidity, thermal
cycling, UV degradation, insulation resistance, and chemical exposure that have the ability to affect solar panel efficiency.
3.3 Advantages and Challenges of Solar Energy
The sun is a powerful energy source that has the ability to meet the global energy demands of Earth for an entire year with only an hour of sunlight. However, solar energy technology by today's standards is only able to utilize 0.001% of the energy given off by the sun (Oni B., 2017).
By effectively, and efficiently harnessing the sun’s radiation, solar power has the potential to become an advantageous, renewable, and clean energy source. Increasing demand for solar energy has also considerably improved the technology making investment and installation more realistic for consumers. Nevertheless, there are still a number of associated challenges that make the technology financially impractical and an inadequate power source for meeting current global energy needs. Below you will find an outline of key advantages and challenges faced of solar energy technology.
Advantages
Renewable energy source that will not be exhausted within reasonable usage Aesthetically pleasing for residential, urban applications (silent, odor-free)
Clean, green energy source that doesn’t pollute the environment directly Require very little maintenance after installation
Primarily safe, no dangers of radioactive waste production or toxin/fume leakage Reduction in energy costs by electricity or heat production
Land conservation
Improved water quality from reduction in water evaporation and algae growth Promising technological advancements/improvements in future
Challenges
Uncompetitive high energy source, cannot meet today’s global energy demand High initial capital costs and long payback period
Irregular energy production due to weather, seasons, and day-night cycle
Technology has a lifetime of 25 years, beyond 25 years the efficiency decreases rapidly Issue of finding storage for energy generated at peak times
Installation of technology has a large area requirement
Monitoring required to restrict maximum amount of energy generated not be exceeded Difficult to move solar panels once installed
Obstruction to aquatic habitats, water transportation, and recreational activities Increased exposure to harsh hydraulic and weather conditions that reduce system lifetime
3.4 Progress of Floating Solar Park Technology Today
In today’s society and growing population, 80% of the world’s current energy demand is produced using fossil fuels. Fossil fuels not only pose grave environmental consequences, but are nonrenewable resources that will eventually be exhausted. Thus, the need for, and
transition to renewable, green energy sources are becoming more and more dire. Solar power is a type of green energy that is growing fast in recent years as a result of technological
advancement, solar PV capacity growth, significant cost reduction in material, and worldwide need for green, renewable energy sources.
Floating solar, also known as a floating photovoltaic, is a relatively new solar energy technology that consists of a solar array that floats on top of a body of water. From the design, this
technology is able to take advantage of unutilized water spaces and convert them into profitable and eco-friendly energy generating areas. Due to the rapid drop in the price of solar PV
modules, and factors of land encroachment and increasing purchasing cost of acquiring land have helped to aid the floating solar industry in becoming a popular alternative to traditional solar methods. According to NREL, floating solar park technology is estimated to save 2.1 million hectares of land saved if solar panels were installed on top of water bodies instead of on the ground (DOE/NREL, 2019).
Although the solar PV industry has been around and developing for over one hundred years, the first floating solar panel systems installation was in 2007. After the Fukushima nuclear disaster that occurred in 2011, Japan was one of the first countries to heavily invest in the floating solar industry as an effort of energy transition. Since then, Japan has experienced enormous benefits that has helped put the country in a better economic and environmental state. From Japan’s success with their floating solar projects, the floating solar market is growing more popular and is being developed worldwide as other countries are following in pursuit (Thi N., 2017). Floating solar has predominantly been installed in China, Japan and the UK, but the technology is expanding to the US, South America, China, South Korea, ASEAN countries, Latin America, and Asia (DOE/NREL, 2019). Floating solar is projected to continue to be adopted by developed countries, and especially amongst island nations with land-scarce regions. In fact, the use of floating solar has grown more than a hundred-fold in less than four years, from a worldwide installed capacity of 10 megawatts at the end of 2014 to 1.1 gigawatts by September 2018 according to the World Bank Group and the Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore (SERIS) (The World Bank, 2018). The democratization of floating solar takes time, which is why some nations have yet to adopt the technology. However, with greater awareness and
increasing need for renewable energy sources, floating solar panels have a bright future and the rapid adoption of floating solar technology can be expected.
3.5 Floating Solar Park Examples
Many countries have been working on floating solar parks the last years. Japan has nearly 50 floating solar facilities of more than 1 MW and plans to install several dozen more.The country’s largest farm (13.7 MW) was opened in March 2018 in Chiba, near Tokyo, where it supplements the output of the hydroelectric dam on the same site.
Following the steps of Japan, a pioneer in the field, China is developing floating solar
photovoltaic (PV) farms on a gigantic scale, thanks to the variety offered by its landscape. The Huainan farm in Anhui province is now operational, with a capacity of 40 megawatts (MW), and another 150 MW facility is planned for the same region by 2019.
Leading Saudi developer and operator ACWA Power has announced it has won the right to develop the first utility-scale renewable energy project in Al Jouf region in Saudi Arabia, the 300
megawatt Skaka IPP PV solar project, at a record-breaking tariff of 2.34 US-cents per kilowatt-hour.
India, home to a huge number of irrigation reservoirs (36,000 in the state of Karnataka alone), has announced an ambitious floating solar program supported by the public authorities.
Australia has also started to move into the market.
However, apart from the United Kingdom, which has two of the world's ten largest floating solar farms (the Queen Elizabeth Reservoir near London and the Godley Reservoir near
Manchester), European countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Italy and Portugal have so far opted for sites with capacities of less than 1 MW. In France, discussions have been ongoing for several years for an ambitious project in a former aggregates quarry in Piolenc, Vaucluse. If it goes ahead, the floating solar farm should be ready in 2019. In the Alsace region, a small site on a lake in the Strasbourg suburb of Illkirch-Graffenstaden is being finalized for use by the local authorities, but is facing opposition from environmental activists.
3.6 Conclusion
Solar panel technology is used all over the world. It is able to help harness a renewable energy, such as the sun, and use it for powering the society we live in today. The technology used is a type of PV cell that converts photons from the sun into electricity that can then be used. This is done by exciting electrons in the p-type silicon layer so that they want to go to the n-type silicon layer. The process by which they go from one layer to the next is where the electricity is made.
This technology has been very helpful in providing places across the world with electricity and is something that will continue to help countries reach their sustainability goals. Floating solar parks are just one way to harness this solar energy, but there are many other ways out there.
4. Research
To start any project, immense amounts of research need to be done. To complete a project, one must essentially be an expert on what they are writing about and designing. Because of this, a lot of research was done to get to a few final design options. Additionally, this project had been started before. This project was previously done by another EPS team in the Fall of 2018.
Because of this, extensive work had to be done to understand the work they had completed and where the team should go next. The following section details the previous teams work as well as the new research done to further this design project.
4.1 Previous Floating Solar Panel Team, Fall 2018
4.1.1 Summary
The previous project team worked on the same project. They were tasked with designing a floating solar panel park and had similar goals to that of this team. The previous team thought of many different options for a design and in the end, recommended some best options, but
concluded that a floating solar panel park like this would not be feasible for a location like Vaasa, Finland.
The previous team considered many different efficiency boosters such as cooling techniques (plunging cooling systems and trickling water), solar tracking (tilting the panel to an optimum angle), and mirrors (flat mirrors and parabolic ones). For their designs they considered rotation, anchoring, the structure holding the panels, an antifreeze system, solar tracking, and cleaning.
They came up with six designs in total. Each design had a cost associated with it. The table below details the basics of each design.
Table 5. Detailed descriptions for each design
Design Basics Cost (Euro)
Floating Platform Hexagonal support structure with circular one on the inside that rotates above water. Small holes in the outside tubing to pump water through.
2,179,167
Off-Board Engine Same structure as above, but the rotation is done with an off-board engine.
2,179.167
Cylindrical Shape Bendable panels are placed on the cylindrical inner tube. Weights on the inside move to cause rotation of the whole structure.
1,791,445
Adapted Cylindrical Shape
Same inner tube as above, but the panels are placed on top of the inner tube on poles. Same rotation as above.
1,557,675
Biflotant Design A structure is made of one large inflatable tube and the other side is a bunch of small inflatable tubes. The panel rests on top of an A-frame shape and can be tilted by adding or taking away air from the small inflatable tubes on the one side.
1,773,084
The Pole A pole holds up a large array of panels.
This pole is set in the ground. This design does not float.
720,360
These designs were all compared. The least expensive option, The Pole, was deemed to be the best since it had the lowest cost to energy output ratio.
In addition to the design, the previous team also did some small experiments that determined that for solar panels to work clouds should preferably be nowhere in sight and tilting the panels helps increase efficiency. Overall, the testing was very short and they couldn’t conclude much.
With this work and these designs already in mind, the team had to come up with how they would like to add to the knowledge already created on this project. The following section details the information that the team would like to expand upon or add to the previous work.
4.1.2 Topics in Need of Further Research
1. Types of solar panels: a little deeper research is needed.
2. Cooling: the methods proposed in the previous report did not seem to work, so new methods should be studied. Moreover cooling systems may not be
necessary in such a cold climate.
3. Solar tracking: the simulations done were not very realistic. New simulations must be done and the best way to rotate must be determined.
4. Mirrors: new ways of concentrating the light should be researched and it must be tested how the temperature increase caused by the mirrors affects performance.
5. Shadows: they may be an important cause of energy losses. This must be studied.
6. Electrical grid connection: the decisions are not justified. A further study about different types of inverters should be done.
7. Floating Structures and Materials: there is not research about this in the previous report.
8. Designs: new designs should be developed. The cost estimations in the previous report were not very realistic. Better estimations must be done.
4.2 Defined Research Assumptions
To start this design and research process, some things had to be decided upon and assumed so that everyone on the team was on the same page. These decisions and assumptions are the following.
1. We are focusing on lakes, not the sea. This removes the salt water component and makes designing the structure easier due to less corrosion possibility.
2. Cold weather climates (with Ice and Snow) should be expected. The scope of this project lies in locations in Northern Europe with cold climates.
3. Vaasa, Finland is the first focus and then it can be determined later if another location would be able to also be apt to host a floating solar park of this design.
4. The location should be near a populated area (for maintenance) and the
electricity is going back to the grid. The size of this park is also being assumed to be 1 MW.
5. A silicone monocrystalline panel will be used for this design. Assuming this helps with simulations and energy output calculations.
4.3 Weather, Wind & Location
Vaasa, Finland is located on the West Coast of Finland right on the Bothnian Bay. With the sea being so close, Vaasa, Finland is a more temperate place in the summer, while being very cold in the winter. Over the course of the year, the temperature ranges from -10 C to 20 C (Average Weather…). This means that for most of the year the weather isn’t that warm. In addition to the temperature, Vaasa, Finland is also very cloudy and has a lot of precipitation.
4.3.1 Clouds
Vaasa, Finland’s weather can be described as cloudy/overcast or slightly less cloudy for most of the year. In the figure below, one can see that even on the clearest days, it is still cloudy 46% of the time. With the weather bouncing between 46% cloudy and 76% cloudy, it makes it difficult to recommend using solar panels in this location. However, the sun does shine in the summer and for long periods of time at that. The sun’s availability will be described later.
Figure 11. Cloud Cover in Vaasa, Finland
The cloud cover is generally worse from October until April making it slightly more difficult to produce energy during this time. Because of this, it might not be worth it to collect energy during this period of time.
4.3.2 Precipitation
Precipitation takes the form of both rain and snow. Rain alone is very common for 9.7 months out of the year (Average Weather…). This means that the weather will generally be overcast for this portion of the day as well. The rain could act as a cleaning method for the panels, but is generally not that helpful when it comes to collecting energy.
There are also parts of the year that commonly have mixed snow and rain and then further, parts of the year are completely snowy. The snow is common for 6 months out of the year, October to April (Average Weather…). This again, might mean that neglecting the panels in between October and April might be the best option. Snow can be hard to remove from panels and would require added effort and cost when designing the solar park.
4.3.3 Wind
According to WeatherSpark.com, the wind in Vaasa, Finland blows from the South for almost 11 months out of the year, with the wind coming from the North for the last month of the year (Average Weather…). This means that the wind will most likely come at the panel park and hit it straight on possibly creating a large wind sail that could affect the placement of the solar panel park. Since the panel park is going to rotate from side to side, this might not be as large of a problem as once thought. More research will need to be done to rule this out as a possible issue.
During the windier part of the year, September 15th to March 28th, the average wind speeds are more than 12.7 km/h (Average Weather…). This type of wind does not pose a threat to the panels themselves, but when the panels are put into a large formation could cause a wind sail effect and want to move more due to the wind. This time, however, is when the temperature starts to get cold and there would be a high likelihood that while the wind might be blowing faster, this park will soon be frozen in the ice where it doesn’t matter anymore. Again, more research will need to be done to determine when the lakes will freeze over and what that will mean in terms of wind resistance.
The wind can also be directed and used for cooling, if designed correctly. More about this will be talked about later.
4.3.4 Sun
With Vaasa being so far in the north, the day lengths range dramatically throughout the year. In Figure 14, one can see that the longest days are in the summer and the shortest days correlate with winter. This figure also accounts for daylight savings time.
Figure 12. Daylight Hours over the Course of a Year in Vaasa
The portion of the graph with the yellow shading represents the times where the solar panels would be most active and could collect the most sunlight. This equates to about 20 hours, 23 minutes of sun on the longest day of the year, June 21st (Average Weather…). This also means that only about 4 hours, 40 minutes of sun are available on and near the shortest day of the year, December 22nd (Average Weather...).
With all of this in mind, WeatherSpark.com also detailed the best times in the year for daily incident shortwave solar energy. They took into account seasonal variations in length of day, elevation of the sun, and absorptions by clouds when calculating these values. The following figure shows the average daily shortwave solar energy reaching the ground for all parts of the year.
Figure 13. Average Daily Shortwave Solar Energy to Reach the Ground in Vaasa As one can see, the brightest period of the year lasts about 3 months, from May 8th to August 7th (Average Weather…). It will be imperative that the solar panels are functioning properly in this time period as the most amount of solar energy can be gained then. Additionally, it seems that adequate amounts of solar energy reach the ground in between March 1st and October 10th. This means that making sure the panels are active during this time is also important when trying to get as much energy out of them as one can.
With all this information about the weather, it can be concluded that putting in the extra effort to clean the panels in the winter would be useless. The sun does not shine enough in the winter to warrant the extra task of cleaning off the snow. The best time to get energy from the sun is from March until October and that is when the conditions are the clearest as well as has the least amount of snow. This means that during the winter, if the panels are covered in snow, that is okay. However, in the summer months, it will be imperative that they are working to their best ability.
4.3.5 Additional Locations
For this project, Vaasa, Finland is going to be the main focus for research and design purposes.
Solar panel park technology, however, it viable in many locations across Europe and the across the world. Vaasa, Finland was originally chosen for this kind of technology because it doesn’t have a lot of other renewable energy sources available to it. Other countries nearby have started wind farms and have gotten renewable energy from the wind, but this is less viable in Vaasa and takes up a lot of land. According to the figure below, near Vaasa, Finland, the solar electricity is estimated to be about 850 kWh/kWp. This is a little bit on the lower scale and that is
why making sure that the final design is as efficient and as well-equipped to collect solar radiation as possible, is a must before integrating this into Finnish bodies of water.
Figure 14. Yearly Solar Irradiation and Energy Output for Europe (Photovoltaic Solar Electricity Potential in European Countries)
Vaasa, Finland does not have the highest potential for solar energy, but does provide a
sufficient amount of energy if given the right circumstances. With that being said, other locations in northern Europe are also viable options for a solar panel park. Locations in Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, etc. would all have similar potential to Finland and would be good locations for a solar park such as this one.
4.4 Types of panels
4.4.1 Monocrystalline Solar Panels (Mono-SI)
This type of solar panels (made of monocrystalline silicon) is the purest one. They can be easily recognised from the uniform dark look and the rounded edges. The silicon’s high purity causes this type of solar panel has one of the highest efficiency rates, with the newest ones reaching above 20% (Askari Mohammad Bagher).
Monocrystalline panels have a high power output, occupy less space, and last the longest. Of course, that also means they are more expensive. Another advantage to consider is that they tend
to be slightly less affected by high temperatures compared to polycrystalline panels.
They have been used in the solar industry for many years, which means that the manufacturing process is very optimized and the prices are very competitive.
4.4.2 Polycrystalline Solar Panels (Poly-SI)
These panels can be quickly distinguished because this type of solar panels has squares, its angles are not cut, and it has a blue, speckled look. They are made by melting raw silicon, which is a faster and cheaper process than that used for monocrystalline panels.
This leads to a lower final price but also lower efficiency (around 15%), lower space efficiency, and a shorter lifespan since they are affected by hot temperatures to a greater degree. However, the differences between mono- and
polycrystalline types of solar panels are not so significant and the choice will strongly depend on your specific situation. The first option offers a slightly higher space efficiency at a slightly higher price but power outputs are basically the same.
4.4.3 Thin-Film Solar Cells (TFSC)
Thin-film solar panels are manufactured by placing one or more films of photovoltaic material (such as silicon, cadmium or copper) onto a substrate. These types of solar panels are the easiest to produce and economies of scale make them cheaper than the alternatives due to less material being needed for its production.
They are also flexible—which opens a lot of opportunities for alternative applications—and is less affected by high temperatures. The main issue is that they take up a lot of space, generally making them unsuitable for residential installations. Moreover, they carry the shortest warranties because their lifespan is shorter than the mono- and polycrystalline types of solar panels.
However, they can be a good option to choose among the different types of solar panels where a lot of space is available.
This type of cells are mainly used for photovoltaic power stations, integrated in buildings or smaller solar power systems.
There are some different types of thin-film panels:
● Amorphous Silicon Solar Cell (A-Si) are the most used of this type because they are the cheapest, although the efficiency is very low, around 7%
● Gallium arsenide cells have good resistance against temperature and can reach an efficiency around 32%. They are quite expensive because the materials are rare.
● Cadmium telluride cells are cheap to manufacture but the efficiency is low, around 11%. Moreover the materials needed are rare.
● CIS cells (Copper and indium selenide alloy) have efficiencies around 12% and the output is quite constant.
4.4.4 Bifacial panels
Bifacial modules produce solar power from both sides of the panel. Whereas traditional opaque-backsheeted panels are monofacial, bifacial modules expose both the front and backside of the solar cells. When bifacial modules are installed on a highly reflective surface some bifacial module manufacturers claim up to a 30% increase in production just from the extra power generated from the rear.
Bifacial modules come in many designs.
Some are framed while others are frameless. Some are dual-glass, and others use clear
backsheets. Most use monocrystalline cells, but there are polycrystalline designs. The one thing that is constant is that power is produced from both sides. There are frameless, dual-glass modules that expose the backside of cells but are not bifacial. True bifacial modules have contacts/busbars on both the front and back sides of their cells.
4.4.5 Conclusion
As the purpose is to design a big solar park, it should be more appropriate to use crystalline silicon panels because the prices are more competitive when comparing euros/Wp. There is not a big difference between monocrystalline and polycrystalline, monocrystalline are slightly more expensive but require less space.
However the other types of panels can be useful for special conditions. For example, thin film cells are better for concentration systems because they are less affected by temperature and bifacial panels could be appropriate if the light reflecting on the water.
4.5 Placement of panels
The objective of this analysis is studying how different distributions of panels work and try to find the best of them; this means the one that produces more energy output.
4.5.1 Panel model
It is difficult to find which the best panel in the market is so this is not a totally close decision. It is necessary to choose one model to do the simulations and compare different situations so the chosen panel is the model BMO-290 made by BISOL with 290 Wp of power.
Figure 15. Electrical specifications of the panel
Figure 16. Current-Voltage curves for different temperatures and radiation levels 4.5.2 Fixed or rotating panels
To do a first approach to this topic an online tool provided by PVgis has been used in order to simulate the energy output of a solar park placed in Vaasa during a year. To compare the different options we will use the specific production, which is the relation between the energy produced and the power installed in the park. It is measured in KWh/KWp and is useful to compare panels and parks with different assigned power.
4.5.2.1 Totally fixed
The results are shown in Figure 19 below.
Figure 17. Total fixed panels’ energy production for every month according to simulation
