Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Nexus
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nexus

Comparison of ground-based and floating solar photovoltaic systems

performance based on monofacial and bifacial modules in Ghana
Rahimat O. Yakubu a, David A. Quansah a, b, Lena D. Mensah a, b, Wisdom Ahiataku-Togobo c,
Peter Acheampong c, Muyiwa S. Adaramola d, *
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
b
The Brew-Hammond Energy Centre, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana
c
Bui Power Authority, Accra, Ghana
d
Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences Ås, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research aims to compare the energy output potential of land-based and floating bifacial photovoltaic (PV)
Land-based PV system systems of 50 MW and 400 kW with an existing land-based and floating monofacial PV system of the same di­
floating PV system mensions and design in Bui, Ghana. The study uses ground weather files and PV system configurations to
Monofacial PV module
compare the energy yield from simulations of the different PV systems based on capacity factor, performance
bifacial PV module
Capacity factor
ratio, and monthly, final/annual energy yield. The results show that the bifacial gain of land-based and floating
performance ratio bifacial PV systems is 2.51% and 4.57%, respectively, and the capacity factor and performance ratio of the
bifacial PV system are higher than the monofacial PV system. However, the additional energy generated by the
bifacial PV system is not significant enough to justify the installation of a new system. Therefore, the study
recommends optimizing system parameters such as albedo, tilt angle, and ground cover ratio to 0.5, 15◦ , and 0.3
respectively to enhance the performance and increase the bifacial gain of the PV system. Overall, this study
provides valuable insights into the potential of bifacial PV systems in Bui, Ghana, and highlights the importance
of optimizing system parameters for maximum energy output.

1. Introduction when integrated into an existing hydroelectric power plant (HEPP) [7,
8]. They are typically made up of a racking assembly positioned on top
As global solar PV installed capacity reaches 946 GW due to the rapid of floating structures (FS) like rafts or pontoons [9]. The schematic di­
price fall in the cost of solar PV systems components [1], one of the agram is depicted in Fig. 1.
challenges it creates is a high demand for land, especially in regions with The FPVs can function as a hybrid system to provide reliable and
limited land areas suitable for solar farm installation. Alternative dispatchable power while lowering transmission and interconnection
methods of installing solar PV systems such as rooftop [2], carport, costs [11]. Because most electrical infrastructures (transformers, trans­
building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) [3,4], and floating solar mission lines) are already in place, a combined operation can provide
photovoltaic systems (FPVs) are now being investigated [5]. Floating more steady power generation than a stand-alone solar photovoltaic
photovoltaic (PV) systems are becoming increasingly fascinating, as system, thus, hybridization with hydropower reservoirs is particularly
they involve installing PV modules over preexisting bodies of water, promising [12].
such as reservoirs or lakes. FPVs not only allow for the repurposing of The global potential for floating solar power is vast, with a genera­
land for other activities, such as urban development, agriculture, and tion capacity of 9,434 TWh per year across 114,555 reservoirs world­
conservation [5,6], but also provide several additional benefits such as wide, assuming that 30% of their surface area is covered with solar
improving the operating efficiency of the PV module by utilizing the panels. The United States is in the lead with a potential of 1,911 TWh per
cooling effect of water, the elimination of module shading from its year, followed by China with 1,107 TWh per year, and Brazil with 865
surroundings, decreased water body evaporation, dust reduction on the TWh per year [13]. In Turkey, the integration of a floating PV system on
modules, decreased algae growth, and increased hydropower generation existing hydroelectric power plant dams can meet 39.67% of the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.S. Adaramola).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2023.100245
Received 17 June 2023; Received in revised form 7 September 2023; Accepted 18 September 2023
Available online 19 September 2023
2772-4271/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

and water savings of 743 million m3 /year [8,23].

Active research on the hybridization of hydropower and PV plants,
which can be either land-based (LPV) or floating (FPV), is being con­
ducted in various locations with different perspectives. Kougias et al.,
(2016) [24] developed a methodology for optimizing the azimuth and
tilt angles to boost the energy output from a small hydropower plant and
a solar PV system in order to smooth out intermittent energy production
and ensure the energy systems’ sustainability. In response to various
characteristics of energy demands and reservoir operation, [25] devel­
oped an optimization model to determine the complementary operation
between the hydro-PV (land-based) hybrid system. To maximize overall
energy production while satisfying specific load characteristics, [26]
developed an optimization model in consideration of the uncertainties
of the PV power plant generation. The model is found to increase the
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of floating solar photovoltaic [10]. hybrid system’s energy output by 1.9% while reducing the total amount
of time the hydro units are online by 9.7%. To improve operations and
nation’s total installed power capacity, and 7.3% of the water saved lessen the dependency on thermoelectric power plants, [27] proposed
from evaporation can be used for irrigation [14]. An energy gain of 76% the integration of floating photovoltaics (PV) with hydroelectric power
with an increased capacity factor of 17.3% on average can be achieved plant reservoirs in Brazil. M.Perez et al., [28] revealed that when FPV is
by integrating an FPV system into hydroelectric plants in the São deployed in the 128 largest US reservoirs, it could meet 100% of US
Francisco River basin [15]. In addition, an FPV power system can be electricity demand. With an installed capacity of 1 MW floating solar PV
complemented by a particular type of hydropower known as a Pumped on the Bui hydro dam and 50 MW ground-mounted solar PV within the
Storage Power System (PSPS) to achieve energy storage and resolve the premises of the Bui hydropower plant, Ghana is a country making
intermittent nature of solar energy. The integrated floating PV pump progress in the development of hybrid hydro-solar PV system [29,30].
storage hydroelectric (PSH) system can reduce daily operating costs and The performance of FPV systems has been compared to other PV
the probability of load loss [16]. Lui et al., (2019) [17] reported that on a installations such as rooftop [31], ground-mounted [32], and Agro­
typical sunshiny day, a 2 GW Floating Photovoltaic system and 1 GW photovoltaic [33]. Aside from the fact that FPV installations operate in a
Pumped Storage Power System could produce 9112.74 MWh of elec­ different environment than conventional solar PV installations, FPV has
tricity and reduce energy imbalance by 23.06 MW in one day. The been discovered to have the potential of generating a higher energy
system could also save 20.16 km2 of land and 19.06 million m3 of water yield [34]. The characteristics and performance prediction of the type of
per year by reducing evaporation loss. According to Rosa-Clot et al., module deployed have also been compared: monofacial versus bifacial
(2017) [18], a 75 kWp floating PV system installation in Australia can PV modules. Monofacial PV modules absorb incident solar irradiance
generate up to 2000 kWh/kWp per year due to the cooling effect of the only on the front side of the module, whereas bifacial PV modules can
basin surface’s cover, which also lowers evaporation and conserves 1 absorb incident solar irradiance on both the frontside and backside of
million cubic meters of water. the module, thereby increasing power density per unit area when
Since the first FPV installations in 2007 [10], progress has been compared to the same size of the monofacial PV system installed under
steady, despite the fact that floating PV (FPV) still has a small market the same conditions and configuration [35,36]. The adoption of bifacial
share in terms of total PV installed capacity. The deployment, on the PV modules for floating installations has been found to have the po­
other hand, is rapidly expanding. The current cumulative installed tential to boost energy yield [37]. According to Ahmed et al. [38], in a
global installed capacity of floating solar is approximately 2.6 GW [19], north/south orientation at a 30-degree tilt angle, the bifacial PV could
which is about 0.27% of the total installed capacity of solar PV systems. receive up to 55% more solar radiation than a monofacial module in the
Floating solar energy has been identified as a potential application to same setup, and an east/west facing module could receive up to 31%
help fragile grids found in Sub-Saharan Africa and some developing more solar radiation than a monofacial module. The authors also re­
Asian countries [8]. As shown in Table 1, the Asia-Pacific region (China, ported a maximum energy efficiency gain of 11.9%. Ref. [39] reported a
Japan, South Korea, and India) holds the largest market share of 85% of 13.5% bifacial gain when compared to a monofacial PV system, and a
global installed FPV capacity [19,20]. The table below displays the floating gain of 3.4 - 5.8% and 4.5 - 7.3% was observed at different
current trend of the overall installed capacity of FPV systems between latitudes (high latitude: 50∘ 11′ & intermediate latitude: 37∘ 50′). Bhang
countries. et al. [40] investigated the performance of floating bifacial PV modules
Installing floating photovoltaic (FPV) panels on hydroelectric power with south and east-west orientations. The FPV system was revealed to
reservoirs could help stabilize hydropower generation during dry sea­ have the ability to reduce peak power load demand while increasing
sons, decrease evaporation losses, improve energy efficiency, and sup­ power generation. The author reported a bifacial gain of 17.87 - 36.08%
port Africa’s rapidly expanding population’s increasing energy demands for an optimized system. Furthermore, a 6.75% bifacial gain on the
[23]. With 1% of Africa’s total surface area of water bodies, FPV has the energy injected into the grid by a bifacial FPV system in a tropical region
potential to generate 101 GWp of power, a 46.04 TWh annual addition, was reported by [41]. Additionally, some researchers have compared
the cooling effect of temperature on bifacial floating PV installations for
two different climatic zones [42], while the performance of bifacial FPV
Table 1 at different latitudes has also been investigated by others [39].
Current trend of installed FPV systems. One of the key scientific knowledge gaps missing in the literature
Countries Installed Capacity (MW)
review is the lack of comprehensive performance data for land-based
and floating PV solar systems (monofacial and bifacial) specifically
China [21] 1300
designed and tested in West Africa’s low latitude regions. Due to the
Taiwan [21,25] 300
Japan [21] 260 increasing scarcity (in term availability and cost) of land resources as
India [22] 170 well as known conflicts of using productive lands for energy production
South Korea [24] 138 instead of food production the utilization of water bodies for floating
Netherland [21] 110 solar installations is becoming more popular. Analyzing the energy
Ghana [23] 1

2
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

output potential of floating photovoltaic (PV) systems that are in close 2.2. Technical design
proximity to land-based PV systems can aid in efficient resource man­
agement by utilizing both land and water resources for producing The project at Bui is a grid-connected PV installation with a total
renewable energy. Furthermore, assessing the energy output potential of installation of 50.768 MWp land-based and 1 MWp floating monofacial
nearby floating bifacial PV and land-based bifacial PV systems can assist PV systems. For the land-based PV system, the grid-connected voltage is
in determining the economic feasibility of combining these systems, by 34.5 kV with a total of 250 inverters, 34093 of 380 Wp, 6480 of 385 Wp,
examining their cost-effectiveness. Real-world performance data is and 79016 of 440 Wp PV modules. A single inverter capacity is 185 kW
crucial for understanding the efficiency, reliability, and economic and has 16/17/18 strings of 28/29/30 PV modules 380/385/440 Wp
viability of these systems in the specific climatic conditions of the re­ connected. For the floating PV system, the grid-connected voltage is 34.5
gion. This study aims to address this research gap. Therefore, the pur­ kV with a total of 4 inverters, 400 Wp of 2688 PV modules. A single
pose of this research is to compare the potential of a land-based/floating inverter is 250 KVA and has 24 strings of 28 PV modules. Tables 2 & 3
bifacial PV system to an existing land-based/floating monofacial PV provides a summary of the design and technologies used in the various
system integrated into a hydroelectric power plant using two ap­ existing solar PV systems at Bui. The energy produced by both systems
proaches while accounting for ambient temperature, soil, and water will be compared to the simulated potential energy yield of bifacial PV
albedo: systems installed in the same location (floating and land-based).

i. Using real-life production data, determine the performance of 2.3. Modelling of the Bifacial PV System
two monofacial solar PV systems installed on land and water.
ii. Analytical solutions for land-based and floating installation using A 15-minute step daily measured weather data for the year 2022 is
monofacial module and compare results with actual production obtained from Bui Power Authority consisting of global horizontal
data. irradiance (GHI) on a horizontal surface, ambient temperature, and
iii. Analytical solutions for ground-mounted and floating installation wind speed. This data was scaled to an hourly average. An energy model
using bifacial modules and compare with results with the above. tool for a photovoltaic system known as the System Advisor Model
(SAM) is used to evaluate the performance of a bifacial PV system on
The research contribution and originalities of this study are sum­ water and land. The software is suitable for the analysis of floating
marized below as follows: systems and land-based systems as it provides the option to evaluate the
heat transfer coefficient based on the module structure and the
i. The technical design and performance of the land-based and mounting type [39,46].
floating PV systems of various deployment under the West Africa To simulate the bifacial PV systems on SAM, the NSRDB’s (National
climate are explored. Solar Radiation Database) weather file is modified by replacing the solar
ii. Performance indices, such as performance ratio, capacity factor, resource data with the measured data. The direct normal irradiance
and specific energy yield for each system, are determined and (DNI) is estimated using the decomposition model and the relationship
compared. between the GHI and the clearness index kt [47].
iii. To improve the performance and energy generated, optimization
GHI = DNIcosZ + DHI (1)
of the system is recommended.
GHI
2. Methodology kt = (2)
Go cosZ

2.1. Site and Photovoltaic Systems in Bui, Ghana DHI

kd = (3)
GHI
The Bui dam is situated on the Black Volta River in the North-West
The extraterrestrial irradiance on a plane normal to the sun is rep­
Ghanaian districts of Savannah and Bono Region. The hydroelectric
resented as Go , and Z is the solar zenith angle. With the diffuse fraction
power plant has a capacity of 404 MW and four generating units, which
kd , diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI) is estimated. In this work, the
include three 133.33 MW Francis turbine units and a 4 MW Turbinette
Orgill and Hollands model is adopted for the relationship between kt and
[43,44]. This hydropower accounts for 7.4% of the actual electricity
kd [47,48].
delivered to the national grid in 2020 [45]. To supplement the energy
generated while preserving the Bui reservoir, a 50 MW land-based and 1
MW floating PV system was developed, as shown in Fig. 2. Both systems
are characterized as monofacial as they absorb radiation only on the
front side of the PV module and they are connected to the grid.
Table 2
Land-based monofacial PV system components.
o
Location’s geographical coordinates 8.26 N, -2.25o W

Tilt angle 5 − 8
∘ ∘

Ground clearance height 0.8 − 1 m

Maximum DC capacity 50.768 MW
PV module capacity 380/385/440 Wp
Number of PV module 34093/6480/79016
Max DC input voltage 34.5 kV
Inverter capacity 185 kW
Number of inverters 250
Maximum AC capacity 50 MW
Number of PV module per string 28/29/30
Number of strings per inverter 16/17/18 strings
Number of Transformer 8
DC/AC ratio 1.10
Transformer capacity 6.3 MVA
Fig. 2. Pictures of (a) floating and (b) land-based monofacial PV systems at
Orientation South
Bui Ghana.

3
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Table 3 land-based is operational while 400 kWp from the 1 MWp floating PV
Floating monofacial PV system components. system is operational. The energy generated by the 50 MW land-based
Location’s geographical coordinates 8.26 o N, -2.25o W monofacial PV system between January 2022 to December 2022 and
the energy generated by the 400 kWp monofacial system between
Tilt Angle 5∘
Ground clearance height 0m September 2022 and February 2023 were obtained from the Bui power
Maximum DC Capacity 1.0752 MW authority. The six-month data is the available field data for the floating
PV module capacity 400 Wp monofacial PV system at Bui.
Number of PV module 2688 PCS To determine the potential yield and compare performance, the
Max DC Input Voltage 1500 V
Inverter Capacity 250 KVA
bifacial PV system for both land-based and floating systems are designed
Number of Inverter 4 PCS to reflect the size and configuration of the existing monofacial systems at
Maximum AC Capacity 1 MW the site. The albedo is insignificant in monofacial solar farms. For bifa­
Number per String 28 PCS cial PV systems, the albedo is an important factor because the back of the
Total number of strings 96 Strings
modules also captures solar radiation. Water has a very low albedo,
DC/AC ratio 1.08
Orientation South typically around 0.1, and soil has a reported albedo of around 0.2 [51,
52]. Tables 4-6 show the system characteristics, electrical specifications,
⎧ and inverter specifications for the simulated land-based and floating
⎨ 1.0 − 0.249kt : (kt ≤ 0.35) bifacial PV systems.
kd = 1.557 − 1.84kt : (0.35 ≤kt ≤ 0.75) (4) If the variables tilt, ground cover ratio and albedo are varied, the
⎩
0.177 : (kt > 0.75) energy performances of both land-based and floating bifacial PV systems
can be optimized. Table 7 shows the conditions of the variables’ chosen.
Optical model
To estimate the irradiance on a plane of array for a bifacial solar
farm, the total incident irradiance collected from all components of 2.6. Parameters for performance analysis
irradiance must be determined [7,49].
A grid-connected PV system’s performance is typically assessed using
GFarm
PV = GFarm Farm Farm
PV:DNI + GPV:DHI + GPV:ALB (5) a set of performance indices based on several generated parameters
related to energy yield. The performance indices considered in this work
Where GFarm
PV is the total incident irradiance on the panel, GFarm
PV:DNI ,
are the final energy output, the solar PV system performance yield such
GFarm
PV:DHI , and G PV:ALB are the expression for the net direct normal irradi­
Farm
as the performance ratio, and the capacity factor of the system [53–55].
ance, diffuse horizontal irradiance, and the albedo irradiance collected
on the panel.
2.6.1. Final energy output
Thermal model
The final energy output of a solar PV system is the total amount of
The cell and module temperature of SAM can be calculated using the
alternating current (AC) energy generated by the solar PV system over a
[46]:
given period [56]. Yearly final energy output can be expressed as:
GFarm ∑365
Tc = Tm + PV
ΔT (5) Ea,AC = Ed,AC n (9)
1000 n=1

Tm = GFarm
PV e
a+bVw
+ Ta (6) 2.6.2. Reference yield
Where Tc is the cell temperature ( C), Tm is the module temperature
∘ The ratio of the total daily in-plane irradiation (kWh /m2 ) to array
(∘ C), Ta is the ambient temperature (∘ C), Vw is the wind speed, and ΔT, a, reference irradiance typically taken as 1kW/m2 is referred to as refer­
and b are the temperature coefficients. ence yield. The equation is shown in Equation (10).

Gfarm 2
PV (kWh/m )
2.4. Annual Electrical Energy Generation YR = 2
(10)
1(kW/m )
For an annual energy production, the daily energy generated is in­ Where Gfarm
PV is the daily solar in-plane solar radiation.
tegrated over a period of one year. The expression for the annual energy
generated Ea is given as [7,49,50]: 2.6.3. Array yield
∑
365 The array yield YA is the amount of energy produced by the PV array
Ea = Ed (n) (7)
n=1
Table 4
Where Ed is the daily energy generated and n is the number of days in Systems characteristics.
a year. Land-based Bifacial PV Floating Bifacial PV
The annual bifacial gain is given as: system system
( ) Module capacity 400.27 Wp 400.27 Wp
Eabi − Eamo
Bifacial gain(BG) = ∗ 100 (8) Quantity 125,992 1003
Eamo Inverter Capacity 150 kW 20kW
Quantity 303 20
Where Eabi and the Eamo are the yearly energy yield for a bifacial PV Array strings 4464 59
system and a monofacial PV system. Modules per string 28 17
Orientation South South
2.5. System design for simulation Tilt angle 5∘ 5∘
DC to AC ratio 1.10 1.09
Albedo 0.2 0.1
Even though the hybrid hydro solar PV system is planned to consist Array length 3.8 m 3.8 m
of 250 MW ground mounted and 5 MW FSPV. The project is expected to Ground cover ratio 0.6 0.7
be completed in phase of 50 MW for the land based and 1 MW for the Ground clearance 1m 0m
FSPV. This paper is considering the first phase which consist of a 50 MW height
System size 50.03 MW 400 kW
ground-mounted and a 1 MW floating PV system, the full capacity of the

4
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Table 5 ( )
PV module characteristics for land-based and floating bifacial PV system.
Total annual energy output, EAC
CF = 100% (14)
PPV,rated ∗ 8760
Bifacial at STC

Maximum Power 400.272 3. Results and Discussion

Maximum Power Voltage (Vmpp) 37.2
Maximum Power Current (Impp) 10.8
Open-circuit Voltage (Voc) 45.2 This section compares the performance of the simulated land-based/
Short-circuit Current (Isc) 11.2 floating bifacial PV system to an existing land-based/floating mono­
Module Efficiency STC (%) 21.07 facial PV system integrated with a hydroelectric power plant. The en­
Bifaciality factor 0.7
ergy yield from the simulated bifacial PV systems is compared to the
Dimension (LxBxW) 1888mm x 1042mm x 40mm
Cell material Monocrystalline energy yield from the Bui Power Authority’s land-based and floating
monofacial PV systems.

3.1. Performance of monofacial land-based and floating bifacial PV

Table 6
Inverter characteristics.
installations

Land-based PV Floating PV
3.1.1. Land-based solar PV installations
Maximum DC power (kW) 152.4 20.4 Fig. 3 displays the amount of energy (EAC t) produced each month by
Maximum AC power (kW) 150 20 the land-based simulated monofacial, bifacial, and field monofacial PV
Nominal AC voltage (V) 600 480
Maximum DC current (A) 138.598 27.8
systems. To make a comparison, the actual energy generated by the 50
MPPT voltage range (V) 860 - 1250 560 – 850 MW monofacial PV system at Bui was analysed from January 2022 to
European standard efficiency (%) 98.45 98.03 December 2022 and then compared with the potential energy output of
the simulated land-based 50 MW monofacial and bifacial PV systems.
To demonstrate that the land-based simulated monofacial PV system
Table 7 with a capacity of 50 MW is suitable for further analysis in comparison
Variables condition. with the simulated bifacial PV system, the energy output of the field
monofacial PV system is compared to the simulated monofacial PV
Variables Min Max
system first. The two monofacial PV systems (real and simulated data)
Tilt angle 5 20
inject a total of 76.70 GWh and 77.22 GWh of energy into the grid
Ground cover ratio 0.1 0.9
Albedo 0.1 0.9 annually. The analysis of the systems reveals a mean absolute percent­
age error (MAPE) of 4.74% and a root mean squared error (RMSE) of
0.38. The differences in performance observed between the simulated
per kW of installed PV capacity over a given period of time [53]. The and field monofacial photovoltaic (PV) systems could result from
array yield can be expressed as: maintenance and repair activities in the installed system, power cuts in
EDC the region, dusting on the module surfaces, and inaccuracies or flaws in
YA = (11) the model used to predict the PV energy output [57].
PPV,rated
For the simulated monofacial and bifacial PV systems, the energy
Where EDC is the direct current (DC) energy output from the array injected into the grid annually is 77.22 GWh and 78.62 GWh respec­
(kWh) and PPV,rated is the solar PV installed capacity (kW). tively. The higher energy generated by the bifacial PV system is due to
the bifacial PV module’s capability to absorb radiation and generate
2.6.4. Final yield electricity from both the front and rear surfaces, resulting in an
The amount of alternating current AC energy output from the PV increased total energy output compared to the monofacial PV module
plant through the inverter in relation to the installed PV capacity over a [58,59].
specific period of time is known as the final yield.
EAC 3.1.2. Floating solar PV installations
YF = (12) The data available for energy generation comparison of the 400 kWp
PPV,
operational floating monofacial PV system at Bui covers a six-month
rated

Where EAC is the AC energy output (kWh). period from September 2022 to February 2023. The graph in Fig. 4 il­
lustrates the combined energy output of three types of PV systems: a
2.6.5. Performance ratio floating field monofacial, a simulated monofacial, and a bifacial PV
The performance ratio refers to the total impact of losses on a PV system. The field and simulated monofacial photovoltaic (PV) systems
array’s typical power output. A photovoltaic (PV) module’s performance contribute 303.08 MWh and 306.20 MWh of energy to the grid by the
ratio (PR) is a measurement of the module’s actual energy output in middle of the year. Upon analyzing the systems, it was found that the
comparison to its expected energy output based on its rated power and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) is 4.38% and the root mean
the quantity of solar radiation it receives. The ratio of the final yield to squared error between the two systems is (RMSE) 2.47. The variation in
the reference yield can also be used to describe it. output between the simulated monofacial PV system and the field
YF monofacial PV system may be due to the variable nature of the weather
PR = (13) conditions and imperfections in the PV energy model [60].
YR
For the first six months, the total energy injected into the grid by the
2.6.6. Capacity factor simulated monofacial, and bifacial PV systems is 306.20 MWh, and
The capacity factor (CF) is a measure of the ratio of usable annual 316.92 MWh, respectively. The annual energy generated by the simu­
energy output to the amount of annual energy generated by the PV lated monofacial and bifacial PV systems is presented in Fig. 5. The total
system if it was run at full-rated power 24 hours a day for a year [53]. annual energy injected into the grid by the simulated monofacial, and
Where PPV, rated is the rated installed capacity of a solar PV plant. bifacial PV systems are 588.80 MWh and 613.44 MWh, respectively.

5
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Fig. 3. Monthly energy output of the land-based solar photovoltaic installations.

Fig. 4. Monthly energy output of the floating solar photovoltaic installations.

Fig. 5. Simulated floating solar photovoltaic systems - monofacial and bifacial modules.

3.2. Final system energy yield kWp, respectively. This indicates that the bifacial gain, or the additional
energy generated by the simulated bifacial solar PV module compared to
Figs. 6 and 7 illustrates the normalized final energy output (specific the simulated monofacial solar PV module, is approximately 2.0%.
yield) by both land-based and floating PV systems. In particular, Fig. 6 while the bifacial gain between the simulated bifacial and experimental
shows the land-based PV systems’ specific yield (kWh/kWp) per year by monofacial PV is 2.51%. The specific yield of a PV system is dependent
field monofacial PV systems, simulated monofacial, and bifacial PV on the amount of solar radiation incident on the panel, the system
systems. The yearly specific yield for the 50 MW land-based field and configuration, and the efficiency of the panel [61].
simulated monofacial PV system is 1533.96 kWh/kWp and 1544.40 In Fig. 7, the specific yield for the floating field monofacial PV sys­
kWh/kWp. tem, a simulated monofacial, and bifacial PV system, over a period of six
For the 50 MW land-based simulated monofacial and bifacial PV months is presented. The normalized semi-yearly energy output (specific
plant, the yearly specific yield is 1544.4 kWh/kWp and 1572.42 kWh/ yield) for the field and simulated monofacial PV system was 757.69

6
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Fig. 6. Final energy yield for land-based PV system.

Fig. 7. Final energy yield for floating PV systems.

kWh/kWp and 765.49 kWh/kWp. However, based on one-year simu­ bifacial PV system with a lower albedo and a larger ground cover ratio
lated results, the annual specific yield for the monofacial and bifacial usually has a lower available bifacial gain.
installations are 1472 kWh/kWp and 1533.6 kWh/kWp, respectively.
For the simulated monofacial and bifacial PV system, the specific
3.3. Capacity factor
yield for semi-yearly is 765.49 kWh/kWp and 792.29 kWh/kWp,
respectively. The floating simulated bifacial PV system has a bifacial
Fig. 8 shows that the capacity factors of a land-based field monofacial
gain of 3.50% when compared to the simulated monofacial PV system
PV system, a simulated monofacial PV system, and a simulated bifacial
and 4.57% in comparison to the field monofacial system. The amount of
PV system are 17.51%, 17.60%, and 18.0%, respectively. The capacity
bifacial gain achieved can be influenced by various factors like tilt angle,
factor of the bifacial PV system is slightly higher than that of the mon­
albedo, ground clearance height, and row-to-row distance, as noted by
ofacial PV system. A 50 MW PV plant has a similar capacity factor as
[62]. However, both bifacial PV systems have a low bifacial gain due to
reported by [55].
their high ground cover ratio and low albedo. As reported by [63], a
The capacity factors of the floating PV systems shown in Fig. 9 are

Fig. 8. Capacity Factor of land-based monofacial and bifacial PV system.

7
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Fig. 9. Capacity Factor of Floating monofacial and Bifacial PV Systems.

17.44%, 17.62%, and 18.24% for the field monofacial PV system, repress the effect of self-shading while also increasing the amount of
simulated monofacial PV system, and simulated bifacial PV system, reflected irradiance to be absorbed in the rear side of the module [66].
respectively. The capacity factor is influenced by various factors,
including weather conditions and system design such as tracking system 3.4.2. Ground cover ratio (GCR)
and inverter loading ratio, as reported by [64,65]. By optimizing the A photovoltaic (PV) system’s ground cover ratio (GCR) is the ratio of
system design, the capacity factor can be enhanced. the area covered by the solar panels to the total surface area of the
ground that the PV system is installed on. In other words, GCR is the
ratio of the length of an array to the row-to-row distance [67]. A high
3.4. Optimization of the bifacial PV systems (land-based and floating) GCR of 0.6 for a land-based bifacial PV system and 0.7 for a floating
bifacial PV system yielded a low bifacial gain of 2.0% and 3.50%,
The design of a bifacial PV system requires careful consideration of respectively. High GCR is undesirable for bifacial PV systems because
various factors to enhance its performance and energy output. The they inhibit a significant portion of the backside irradiance gain [68].
effectiveness of bifacial PV modules relies on how irradiance hits the The greater the spacing between PV modules during installation, the
back surface of the module, and this can be affected by different site- more the rear-side irradiance can be captured from the ground. Fig. 11
specific conditions like tilt angle, albedo, ground cover ratio, and show that at low GCR 0.1, which corresponds to a large row-to-row
ground clearance height [66]. Through modelling, simulations, and field distance, the plane of array (POA) rear-side irradiance gain and
data, the individual impact of optimizing these factors on the annual annual energy yield are maximized with a POA rear-side gain of 6% and
energy yield of the bifacial land-based and floating PV systems is an annual energy yield of 79.01 GWh for land-based bifacial PV system
observed. and a POA rear-side gain of 5.17% and annual energy yield of 613.73
MWh for the floating bifacial PV system. As the GCR value increases, not
3.4.1. Tilt angle only does the POA rear-side irradiance gain decrease but so does the
The annual energy yield can be maximized by increasing the tilt annual energy yield due to the decrease in power generation. A delicate
angle of both PV systems, as shown in Fig. 10. However, there is a balance must be achieved between maximizing electricity production to
saturation point beyond which increasing the tilt angle reduces the en­ avoid shading and making the system simple to maintain and operate.
ergy yield of both systems. The optimum tilt angle for this location and
under this specific different configuration for both systems is 15∘ . 3.4.3. Albedo
Increasing the tilt angle, particularly for systems with lower module One site-specific property that has a significant effect on the
elevation, such as the bifacial floating PV system in this case, can help to

Fig. 10. Tilt angle effect on land-based PV system and floating PV system

8
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Fig. 11. GCR effect on Land-based bifacial PV system and Floating bifacial PV system.

performance of a bifacial PV system is albedo or ground reflectivity [68]. [54]. The annual performance ratio of the land-based field production
The annual energy yield and bifacial gain of both bifacial PV systems monofacial, simulated monofacial, and bifacial PV systems are 82%,
increase linearly with albedo, as shown in Figs. 12 When the albedo is 84%, and 85% respectively while that of the floating field production
0.5, that is when the surface can reflect 50% of the radiation incident on monofacial, simulated monofacial, and bifacial PV systems are 81%,
it, the land-based bifacial PV system can achieve an annual energy 82%, and 83%, as shown in Fig. 13. Fuster-Palop et al., (2022) [72]
production of 82.82GWh resulting in a bifacial gain of 7.98% and the reported a performance ratio of 79.24% for a ground-mounted 50 MW
floating bifacial PV system can achieve annual energy production of PV system while Mehadi et al., (2021) [55] observed a performance
671.55 MWh resulting in a bifacial gain of 14.08%. Increasing the al­ ratio of 75.2% for a 50 MW floating PV system. A performance ratio of
bedo to 0.9 can result in a bifacial gain of 15.24% and 24.84% for land 78.1% was also reported for a ground-mounted 400 kW PV system [73].
and floating bifacial PV systems, respectively. Hence, increasing the The performance ratio of the land-based PV systems is slightly higher
ground albedo (reflectivity) on which land-based and floating bifacial than the floating PV systems. Based on the design configuration, the
PV systems are installed can improve their performance. According to floating system has a lower albedo (lower ground reflectivity) and a
Seo et al., (2019) [69], improving the ground’s albedo of a land-based higher ground cover ratio than the land-based PV system. These two
bifacial PV system from gravel to a white surface resulted in an in­ parameters can affect the solar cell energy generation and efficiency.
crease in bifacial gain from 5.25% to 14.5%. Ziar et al., (2020) [70]
reported that a high-quality reflector is necessary for floating bifacial PV 3.6. Research limitations, challenges, and future prospects
systems to exceed the performance of land-based PV systems.
According to Asgharzadeh et al., (2018) and Chudinzow et al., This study examines the performance of land-based/floating mono­
(2019) [62,71] practically feasible combinations of system parameters, facial PV systems in the field. A bifacial PV system was simulated based
including albedo, optimum tilt angle, pitch, considerable elevation, and on this field PV system configuration to evaluate its performance in
tracking system, are required to enhance the energy yield through comparison to the monofacial PV system. The land-based PV systems
optimization of bifacial simulations. were evaluated using one year of data, whereas the floating PV systems
were evaluated using six months of data. This short-term study may not
3.5. Performance ratio of the land-based and the floating bifacial PV capture the entire range of performance variations and system behavior,
systems particularly for emerging technologies such as bifacial PV, which may
exhibit different degradation patterns over time. As a result, long-term
The performance ratio is a key metric for assessing PV systems. It comprehensive data for real-world PV system performance is required
compares the actual energy yield to the ideal projected energy yield for future robust conclusions. While the study focuses on performance,

Fig. 12. Albedo effect on land-based bifacial PV system and floating bifacial PV system.

9
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Fig. 13. Performance ratio of land-based and floating solar PV systems.

additional research could be conducted to determine whether the PV systems, both land-based and floating, have higher capacity
additional cost and complexity associated with bifacial systems are factors. This highlights the advantages of bifacial technology in
justified by the modest increase in energy yield. improving energy production.
■ The performance ratio of the land-based PV system in simulated
4. Conclusion monofacial and bifacial PV system are 84% and 85% while the
floating simulated monofacial and bifacial PV systems are 82%
The objective of this research is to compare the energy output po­ and 83%. The performance ratios of bifacial PV systems are
tential of land-based and floating bifacial photovoltaic (PV) systems of consistently higher, indicating their improved efficiency in con­
50 MW and 400 kW respectively to an existing land-based and floating verting sunlight into usable energy.
monofacial PV system of the same dimensions and design in Bui, Ghana.
The monofacial PV systems, which are located on land and water, are It is recommended to optimize the system parameters such as albedo,
linked to a 404 MW hydroelectric power plant, creating the first hybrid tilt angle, and ground cover ratio to enhance the performance and in­
hydro-solar power plant in Sub-Saharan Africa. By utilizing the ground crease the bifacial gain of the PV system. Furthermore, it is imperative to
weather file and the configuration of the monofacial PV systems, the undertake additional studies regarding the economic analysis of these
energy yield from simulations of the land-based and floating bifacial PV systems because costs between monofacial and bifacial modules differ.
systems at 50 MW and 400 kW is compared to that of the existing
monofacial PV systems. To evaluate the performance of the PV systems, Declaration of Competing Interest
this study examines the capacity factor, performance ratio, and monthly,
final/annual energy yield. The outcome of the research are summarize The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
as follows: interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

■ The land-based field monofacial PV system has an annual energy Data availability
yield of 76.70 GWh. It serves as the real-world benchmark and
represents the actual energy generation achieved by the mono­ Data will be made available on request.
facial PV system under consideration. The annual energy yield of
the simulated monofacial PV system is 77.22 GWh while the
bifacial PV system demonstrates the highest annual energy yield Acknowledgement
of 78.62 GWh. This result is consistent with the inherent advan­
tage of bifacial panels in capturing reflected radiation, especially Rahimat O Yakubu acknowledges and appreciate the PhD scholar­
in well-illuminated environments. ship support by Kwame Nkrumah University of Science (KNUST) Kumasi
■ The semi-annual energy yield for the 400kW floating actual field Ghana through ‘KNUST Engineering Education Project (KEEP)’ an ACE
monofacial installation, simulated monofacial, and bifacial PV impact project, funded by the Government of Ghana as part of the World
systems is 303.08 MWh, 306.20 MWh, and 316.92 MWh, Bank Africa Centers of Excellence (ACE) for Development Impact Proj­
respectively. ect. Furthermore, the authors appreciate the support from the Faculty of
■ The bifacial gain of land-based and floating bifacial PV systems to Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources Management, Norwe­
the field monofacial PV system is 2.51% and 4.57%, respectively. gian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
When compared to its land-based counterpart, the floating bifa­
cial system has a higher bifacial gain. References
■ The capacity factors for land-based actual field monofacial
installation, simulated monofacial, and bifacial PV systems are [1] -PVPS IEA, Trends in PV2022, International Energy Agency, 2022.
[2] Y. Zhou, S. Zheng, Multi-level uncertainty optimisation on phase change materials
17.51%, 17.60%, and 18.0%, respectively, while the capacity
integrated renewable systems with hybrid ventilations and active cooling, Energy
factors for floating actual field monofacial installation, simulated 202 (2020), 117747, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117747.
monofacial, and bifacial PV systems are 17.44%, 17.62%, and [3] Z. Liu, Y. Zhou, J. Yan, and M. Tostado-v, “Frontier ocean thermal /power and solar
PV systems for transformation towards net-zero communities Coefficient of
18.24%, respectively. The bifacial PV system has a higher ca­
Performance,” vol. 284, no. May, 2023, doi:10.1016/j.energy.2023.128362.
pacity factor. When compared to monofacial PV systems, bifacial [4] Y. Zhou, S. Zheng, G. Zhang, Machine learning-based optimal design of a phase
change material integrated renewable system with on-site PV, radiative cooling

10
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

and hybrid ventilations—study of modelling and application in five climatic [28] M. Perez, R. Perez, C.R. Ferguson, J. Schlemmer, Deploying effectively
regions, Energy 192 (2020), 116608, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. dispatchable PV on reservoirs: Comparing floating PV to other renewable
energy.2019.116608. technologies, Sol. Energy 174 (October) (2018) 837–847, https://doi.org/
[5] M.K. Hoffacker, M.F. Allen, R.R. Hernandez, Land-Sparing Opportunities for Solar 10.1016/j.solener.2018.08.088.
Energy Development in Agricultural Landscapes: A Case Study of the Great Central [29] DEBOUTTE GWÉNAËLLE, First unit of 250 MW floating PV project comes online in
Valley, CA, United States, Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (24) (2017) 14472–14482, Ghana – pv magazine International, PV Magazine (2020). https://www.pv-m
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05110. agazine.com/2020/12/15/first-unit-of-250-mw-floating-pv-project-comes-online-
[6] V. Ramasamy, R. Margolis, Floating Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2021 in-ghana/ (accessed Jan. 01, 2023).
Installations on Artificial Water Bodies, Natl. Renew. Energy Lab. 1 (10) (2021) [30] BPA, Hydro Solar Hybrid, Buipower (2021). https://buipower.com/hyrdo-solar-h
1–15. ybrid/ (accessed Jan. 01, 2023).
[7] M.R. Khan, M.T. Patel, R. Asadpour, H. Imran, N.Z. Butt, M.A. Alam, A review of [31] W. Luo, et al., Performance loss rates of floating photovoltaic installations in the
next generation bifacial solar farms: Predictive modeling of energy yield, tropics, Sol. Energy 219 (December 2020) (2021) 58–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/
economics, and reliability, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 54 (32) (2021), https://doi.org/ j.solener.2020.12.019.
10.1088/1361-6463/abfce5. [32] H.N. Siagian, F. Saputra, Ground-mounted vs floating photovoltaic (PV) power
[8] Thomas Reindl, et al., Where Sun Meets Water, Where Sun Meets Water (2019), plant: A trade-off using game theory in utility-scale PV power plant investment
https://doi.org/10.1596/32804. decision making, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 753 (1) (2021), https://doi.
[9] A.E. Cagle, et al., The land sparing, water surface use efficiency, and water surface org/10.1088/1755-1315/753/1/012018.
transformation of floating photovoltaic solar energy installations, Sustain 12 (19) [33] E. Mouhib, L. Micheli, F.M. Almonacid, E.F. Fernández, Overview of the
(2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198154. Fundamentals and Applications of Bifacial Photovoltaic Technology: Agrivoltaics
[10] K. Trapani, M. Redõn Santafé, A review of floating photovoltaic installations: 2007- and Aquavoltaics, Energies 15 (23) (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238777.
2013, Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 23 (4) (2015) 524–532, https://doi.org/ [34] H. Pouran, M. Padilha Campos Lopes, H. Ziar, D. Alves Castelo Branco, Y. Sheng,
10.1002/pip.2466. Evaluating floating photovoltaics (FPVs) potential in providing clean energy and
[11] N. Lee, et al., Hybrid floating solar photovoltaics-hydropower systems: Benefits and supporting agricultural growth in Vietnam, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 169
global assessment of technical potential, Renew. Energy 162 (2020) 1415–1427, (October) (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112925.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.080. [35] N. Riedel-lyngskær, et al., Validation of bifacial photovoltaic simulation software
[12] C. Rahmann, C. Mayol, J. Haas, Dynamic control strategy in partially-shaded against monitoring data from large-scale single-axis trackers and fixed tilt systems
photovoltaic power plants for improving the frequency of the electricity system, in Denmark, Appl. Sci. 10 (23) (2020) 1–29, https://doi.org/10.3390/
J. Clean. Prod. 202 (2018) 109–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. app10238487.
jclepro.2018.07.310. [36] R. Kopecek, et al., Bifaciality: One Small Step for Technology, One Giant Leap for
[13] B. Santos, “Global study highlights potential of floating solar – pv magazine kWh Cost Reduction, Photovoltaics Int (2015) 1–11 [Online]. Available: www.pv
International,” 2023. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/03/21/global-study-hi -tech.org.
ghlights-potential-of-floating-solar/(accessed Apr. 09, 2023). [37] Mark Hutchins, Investigating bifacial for floating PV – pv magazine International,
[14] A.M. Ateş, Unlocking the floating photovoltaic potential of Türkiye’s hydroelectric PV Magazine (Oct. 07, 2020). https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/10/07/investi
power plants, Renew. Energy 199 (September) (2022) 1495–1509, https://doi.org/ gating-bifacial-for-floating-pv/ (accessed Jan. 13, 2023).
10.1016/j.renene.2022.09.096. [38] A. Hasan, I. Dincer, A new performance assessment methodology of bifacial
[15] N.M. Silvério, R.M. Barros, G.L. Tiago Filho, M. Redón-Santafé, I.F.S. dos Santos, V. photovoltaic solar panels for offshore applications, Energy Convers. Manag. 220
E. de M. Valério, Use of floating PV plants for coordinated operation with (May) (2020), 112972, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112972.
hydropower plants: Case study of the hydroelectric plants of the São Francisco [39] G.M. Tina, F. Bontempo Scavo, L. Merlo, F. Bizzarri, Comparative analysis of
River basin, Energy Convers. Manag. 171 (May) (2018) 339–349, https://doi.org/ monofacial and bifacial photovoltaic modules for floating power plants, Appl.
10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.095. Energy 281 (October 2020) (2021), 116084, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[16] B. Shyam, P. Kanakasabapathy, Feasibility of floating solar PV integrated pumped apenergy.2020.116084.
storage system for a grid-connected microgrid under static time of day tariff [40] B.G. Bhang, J.H. Hyun, S.H. Ahn, J.H. Choi, G.G. Kim, H.K. Ahn, Optimal Design of
environment: A case study from India, Renew. Energy 192 (2022) 200–215, Bifacial Floating Photovoltaic System With Different Installation Azimuths, IEEE
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.031. Access 11 (January) (2023) 1456–1466, https://doi.org/10.1109/
[17] L. Liu, Q. Sun, H. Li, H. Yin, X. Ren, R. Wennersten, Evaluating the benefits of ACCESS.2022.3233100.
Integrating Floating Photovoltaic and Pumped Storage Power System, Energy [41] A. A. Widayat, S. Ma’arif, K. D. Syahindra, A. F. Fauzi, and E. Adhi Setiawan,
Convers. Manag. 194 (April) (2019) 173–185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. “Comparison and Optimization of Floating Bifacial and Monofacial Solar PV
enconman.2019.04.071. System in a Tropical Region,” 2020 9th Int. Conf. Power Sci. Eng. ICPSE 2020, pp.
[18] M. Rosa-Clot, G.M. Tina, S. Nizetic, Floating photovoltaic plants and wastewater 66–70, 2020, doi:10.1109/ICPSE51196.2020.9354374.
basins: An Australian project, Energy Procedia 134 (2017) 664–674, https://doi. [42] M. Dörenkämper, A. Wahed, A. Kumar, M. de Jong, J. Kroon, T. Reindl, The
org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.585. cooling effect of floating PV in two different climate zones: A comparison of field
[19] Molly Cox, ‘Asia’s dominance of floating solar is only just getting started’ | test data from the Netherlands and Singapore, Sol. Energy 219 (April) (2021)
Recharge, Recharge (2021). https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transiti 15–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2021.03.051.
on/asias-dominance-of-floating-solar-is-only-just-getting-started/2-1-1036029 [43] I. Odoom, Dam In, Cocoa Out; Pipes In, Oil Out: China’s Engagement in Ghana’s
(accessed Dec. 31, 2022). Energy Sector, J. Asian Afr. Stud. 52 (5) (2017) 598–620, https://doi.org/
[20] Ryan Kennedy, Floating PV could reach 4.8 GW globally by 2026 – pv magazine 10.1177/0021909615599419.
International, PV Magazine (Jan. 19, 2022). https://www.pv-magazine.com/ [44] BPA, “Bui Generating Station,” 2020. https://buipower.com/bui-hydro-pro
2022/01/19/floating-pv-could-reach-4-8-gw-globally-by-2026/ (accessed Dec. 30, ject/(accessed Jan. 21, 2023).
2022). [45] E. Commission, NATIONAL ENERGY STATISTICS (April 2021) (2021).
[21] S. Gadzanku, L. Beshilas, U. Grunwald, Enabling Floating Solar Photovoltaic (FPV) [46] P. Gilman, SAM Photovoltaic Model Technical Reference, Sol. Energy 63 (May)
Deployment. Review of Barriers to FPV Deployment in Southeast Asia, USAID_ (2015) 323–333 [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64102.
NREL (June) (2021) 1–36. pdf.
[22] Arjun Joshi, Floating Solar May Just be the Key to Unlock India’s Targeted [47] Tara Camacho Lopez, “PV Performance Modeling Collaborative | Piecewise
Installed Solar Capacity, Mercom Research Focus (Apr. 19, 2022). https://www. Decomposition Models,” Aug. 09, 2014. https://pvpmc.sandia.gov/modeling-ste
mercomindia.com/floating-solar-unlock-indias-targeted-solar-capacity (accessed ps/1-weather-design-inputs/irradiance-and-insolation-2/direct-normal-irradian
Apr. 09, 2023). ce/piecewise_decomp-models/(accessed Mar. 30, 2022).
[23] R.Gonzalez Sanchez, I. Kougias, M. Moner-Girona, F. Fahl, A. Jäger-Waldau, [48] S. Guo, T.M. Walsh, M. Peters, Vertically mounted bifacial photovoltaic modules: A
Assessment of floating solar photovoltaics potential in existing hydropower global analysis, Energy 61 (2013) 447–454, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
reservoirs in Africa, Renew. Energy 169 (2021) 687–699, https://doi.org/10.1016/ energy.2013.08.040.
j.renene.2021.01.041. [49] M.T. Patel, M.R. Khan, X. Sun, M.A. Alam, A worldwide cost-based design and
[24] I. Kougias, S. Szabó, F. Monforti-Ferrario, T. Huld, K. Bódis, A methodology for optimization of tilted bifacial solar farms, Appl. Energy 247 (March) (2019)
optimization of the complementarity between small-hydropower plants and solar 467–479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.150.
PV systems, Renew. Energy 87 (2016) 1023–1030, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [50] A. Murat Ates, H. Singh, Rooftop solar Photovoltaic (PV) plant – One year
renene.2015.09.073. measured performance and simulations, J. King Saud Univ. - Sci. 33 (3) (2021),
[25] Y. Zhang, C. Ma, J. Lian, X. Pang, Y. Qiao, E. Chaima, Optimal photovoltaic 101361, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101361.
capacity of large-scale hydro-photovoltaic complementary systems considering [51] G.M. Tina, F. Bontempo Scavo, Energy performance analysis of tracking floating
electricity delivery demand and reservoir characteristics, Energy Convers. Manag. photovoltaic systems, Heliyon 8 (8) (2022) e10088, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
195 (January) (2019) 597–608, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. heliyon.2022.e10088.
enconman.2019.05.036. [52] S.S. Patel, A.J. Rix, Water Surface Albedo Modelling for Floating Pv Plants,” 6th
[26] B. Ming, P. Liu, L. Cheng, Y. Zhou, X. Wang, Optimal daily generation scheduling of South, African Sol. Energy Conf. (November 2019) 2019.
large hydro–photovoltaic hybrid power plants, Energy Convers. Manag. 171 [53] K. Padmavathi, S.A. Daniel, Performance analysis of a 3MWp grid connected solar
(March) (2018) 528–540, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.001. photovoltaic power plant in India, Energy Sustain. Dev. 17 (6) (2013) 615–625,
[27] U. Stiubiener, T. Carneiro da Silva, F.B.M. Trigoso, R. da S. Benedito, J.C. Teixeira, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.09.002.
PV power generation on hydro dam’s reservoirs in Brazil: A way to improve [54] D.A. Quansah, M.S. Adaramola, G.K. Appiah, I.A. Edwin, Performance analysis of
operational flexibility, Renew. Energy 150 (2020) 765–776, https://doi.org/ different grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) system technologies with
10.1016/j.renene.2020.01.003. combined capacity of 20 kW located in humid tropical climate, Int. J. Hydrogen

11
R.O. Yakubu et al. Energy Nexus 12 (2023) 100245

Energy 42 (7) (2017) 4626–4635, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. IEEE 44th Photovolt. Spec. Conf. PVSC 2017, 2017, pp. 467–471, https://doi.org/
ijhydene.2016.10.119. 10.1109/PVSC.2017.8366752.
[55] A. Al Mehadi, M.R.K.Shagor Nahin-Al-Khurram, M.A.I. Sarder, Optimized seasonal [65] C.N. Fred Mayes, Southwestern states have better solar resources and higher solar
performance analysis and integrated operation of 50MW floating solar PV capacity factors, U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA (Jun. 19, 2019).
photovoltaic system with Kaptai hydroelectric power plant: a case study, Energy https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832 (accessed Feb. 13,
Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 00 (00) (2021) 1–25, https://doi.org/ 2023).
10.1080/15567036.2021.1962434. [66] U.A. Yusufoglu, T.M. Pletzer, L.J. Koduvelikulathu, C. Comparotto, R. Kopecek,
[56] L.C. de Lima, L. de Araújo Ferreira, F.H.B. de Lima Morais, Performance analysis of H. Kurz, Analysis of the annual performance of bifacial modules and optimization
a grid connected photovoltaic system in northeastern Brazil, Energy Sustain. Dev. methods, IEEE J. Photovoltaics 5 (1) (2015) 320–328, https://doi.org/10.1109/
37 (2017) 79–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2017.01.004. JPHOTOV.2014.2364406.
[57] M.A. Koondhar, I.A. Laghari, B.M. Asfaw, R.Reji Kumar, A.H. Lenin, Experimental [67] C. Deline, S. Macalpine, B. Marion, F. Toor, A. Asgharzadeh, and J. S. Stein,
and simulation-based comparative analysis of different parameters of PV module, “Assessment of Bifacial Photovoltaic Module Power Rating Methodologies—Inside
Sci. African 16 (2022) e01197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2022.e01197. and Out,” 2017 IEEE 44th Photovolt. Spec. Conf. PVSC 2017, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–6,
[58] J. Jang, K. Lee, Practical performance analysis of a bifacial PV module and system, 2017, doi:10.1109/PVSC.2017.8366887.
Energies 13 (17) (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/en13174389. [68] C. Hidalgo, Bifacial PV technology: technical considerations, DNV Power and
[59] H. Du, G. Hao, H. Li, Q. Xu, X. Ye, Analysis of annual bifacial gain in energy and Renewables (2021).
annual energy yield of bifacial modules at low latitudes, Int. J. Green Energy 00 [69] Y. Seo et al., “Effect of Front Irradiance and Albedo on Bifacial Gain in 1.8kW
(00) (2021) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1080/15435075.2021.1930000. Bifacial Silicon Photovoltaic System,” in Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic
[60] M. S. P. Caballero, G. Srinivasan, “How to calculate P90 (or other Pxx) PV energy Specialists Conference, 2019, pp. 1298–1301, doi:10.1109/PVSC40753.201
yield estimates | Solargis,” 2018. https://solargis.com/blog/best-practices/how-to- 9.8980585.
calculate-p90-or-other-pxx-pv-energy-yield-estimates (accessed Mar. 16, 2023). [70] H. Ziar et al., “Innovative floating bifacial photovoltaic solutions for inland water
[61] S. Gulkowski, Specific Yield Analysis of the Rooftop PV Systems Located in South- areas,” no. July, pp. 1–19, 2020, doi:10.1002/pip.3367.
Eastern Poland, Energies 15 (10) (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/en15103666. [71] D. Chudinzow, J. Haas, G. Díaz-Ferrán, S. Moreno-Leiva, L. Eltrop, Simulating the
[62] A. Asgharzadeh, B. Marion, C. Deline, C. Hansen, J.S. Stein, F. Toor, A sensitivity energy yield of a bifacial photovoltaic power plant, Sol. Energy 183 (March)
study of the impact of installation parameters and system configuration on the (2019) 812–822, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.03.071.
performance of bifacial PV arrays, IEEE J. Photovoltaics 8 (3) (2018) 798–805, [72] E. Fuster-Palop, C. Vargas-Salgado, J.C. Ferri-Revert, J. Payá, Performance analysis
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2018.2819676. and modelling of a 50 MW grid-connected photovoltaic plant in Spain after 12
[63] T.S. Liang, et al., A review of crystalline silicon bifacial photovoltaic performance years of operation, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 170 (September) (2022), https://
characterisation and simulation, Energy and Environmental Science 12 (1) (Jan. doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112968.
2019) 116–148, https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ee02184h. [73] A. Matiyali, K, & Ashok, “Performance Evaluation of Grid Connected Solar PV
[64] M. Bolinger, J. Seel, M. Wu, Maximizing MWh: A statistical analysis of the Power Plant Kanchan,” in In 2016 2nd International Conference on Advances in
performance of utility-scale photovoltaic projects in the United States, in: 2017 Computing, Communication, & Automation (ICACCA)(Fall), 2016, pp. 1–5, doi:10.11
09/ICACCAF.2016.7748989.

12