shagufta-final review
TRANSCRIPT
Performance and Reliability Evaluation of
Solar PV Power Plant
Presented by,Shagufta Shahnaz
#13MEE0033
Internal Guide:Prof. M. NatarajanVIT University, Vellore,TN
External Guide:Dr. Sagar AgravatScientist-C, GERMI, Gujarat
Content Introduction Literature review Methodology Work Done Results & Discussion Verification Conclusion References
IntroductionScope:Impact on energy generation due to degradation of solar PV modules installed at Solar PV power plant since the date of installation till the present date and develop a reliability model for future solar PV plant installations.
Objective» Degradation Study of PV modules installed at solar PV
power plant
» Comparison between performance of ground mounted
& canal top mounted modules
» Development of Loss Models
» Reliability Evaluation of Solar PV Power Plant based on
Loss Models developed
Findings from Literature Survey» On global survey of degradation rate, it was
analyzed that mono-crystalline technology has undergone minimum range of degradation while the rate of degradation for polycrystalline technology varied in a wide range
» Outdoor Testing along with Data Acquisition System were the most reliable analysis methodology
» Several models for evaluating degradation were reported.
» Faulty PV identification and dynamic thermal model to evaluate instantaneous thermal effect on performance were remarkable.
Study Site Location GTPS 1MW Solar PV
Power Plant» Technology: Multi-Tech» Located above closed
(filled) ash dyke of GSECL's Gandhinagar Thermal Power Station
» Latitude: 23°16' N» Longitude: 72°40' E» Operating since: Aug‘11
1 MW Narmada Canal Top Solar PV Power Plant
» Technology: Poly-crystalline
» Located above Narmada river canal at Sanand, Gujarat
» Latitude: 23°05' N» Longitude: 72°18' E» Operating since: Aug‘11
1 MW Narmada Canal Top Solar PV Power Plant
GTPS 1MW Solar PV Power Plant
Technical DetailsParameter GTPS
Module Technology
Poly-crystalline CIGS[Copper Indium
Gallium Selenide]
A-Si[Amorphous-Si]
Mono-crystalline CdTe[Cadmium Telluride]
Capacity of each PV module (Watt)
240 235 95 107 250 85
Total no. of each PV module
2088 432 1056 924 405 1170
Total DC Capacity (Watt)
500400 101520 100320 98868 101250 99450
Type of Inverter Central String
Capacity Of Inverter (kW)
500 7
Total no. of Inverter
1 75
Total Capacity of Inverter (kW)
1025
Parameter Narmada Canal Top Plant
Module Technology Poly-crystalline
Capacity of each PV module (Watt)
275 280 285
Total no. of each PV module
1056 2480 80
Total DC Capacity (Watt)
290400 694400 22800
Type of Inverter Central
Capacity Of Inverter (kW)
220
Total no. of Inverter 4
Total Capacity of Inverter (kW)
880
Block Diagram of GTPS
PV ModulesPolycrystalline-2088, 240Wp
DC Junction Box
Central Inverter
Transformer
HT Bus-bar
HT PanelHT Panel Transformer
PV ModulesI. Poly-crystalline-432, 235Wp
II. Mono-crystalline-405, 250Wp
III. Thin Filma. A-Si-924, 107Wp
b. CdTe-1170, 85Wp
c. CIGS-1056, 95Wp
String Inverter
Power Distribution Box
Low Voltage Distribution Box
Transmission Tower11KV AC
Block Diagram of Narmada Canal Top Plant
Methodology
1. Degradation of ModulesOutdoor Testing using sun simulator along with Data Acquisition System
1 set of reading takes place at: i. 15 minute durationii. Equal radiationiii. Equal wind speediv. Equal cloud castingv. Equal ambient temperature
4 modules were tested for each set of readings
Canal Top (CT) reference & Ground Mounted (GM) reference modules were tested at every set periodic assessment of performance
Readings for GM Test & CT Test modules were taken from different modules mounted respectively
Readings from CT Test & GM Test modules intimidated the overall performance trend of plant
2. Comparison of ground mounted & canal top mounted modules:
Loss ModelsCalculation of In-plane Radiation
Incident Angle Modifier (IAM) Factor
Effect in Module Temperature
% Variation in Efficiency due to change in Temperature
Power Calculation for 1 module
% of Power loss due to DC & Cable Loss
% of Power Loss due Conversion Losses
Results &
Discussion…
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 730.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
f(x) = 0.050000000000002 x² + 0.589999999999982 x + 47.2600000000001R² = 0.73280992384392
f(x) = 0.0660714285714309 x² − 0.279642857142878 x + 41.4100000000001R² = 0.0760799031477024
Temperature Difference between Canal Top & Ground Mounted Reference Modules
CT refPolynomial (CT ref)GM refPolynomial (GM ref)
Set Number
Tem
pera
ture
(°C)
Average difference is 10°C
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 730.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
55.0
f(x) = 0.264285714285715 x² − 1.47285714285715 x + 50.38R² = 0.575688468158348
f(x) = 0.139285714285716 x² − 0.932142857142872 x + 41.3R² = 0.187466808284656
Temperature Difference between Canal Top & Ground Mounted Temp
CT testPolynomial (CT test)GM testPolynomial (GM test)
Set Number
Tem
pera
ture
(°C)
Average difference is 10°C
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1435.00
36.00
37.00
38.00
39.00
40.00
41.00
42.00
43.00
44.00
45.00
f(x) = − 0.0298351648351651 x + 44.2326923076923R² = 0.173618700596382
f(x) = − 0.155879120879121 x + 40.8896153846154R² = 0.513314427248437
Canal Top & Ground Mounted Open Circuit Voltage DifferenceGM Voc
Linear (GM Voc)
CT Voc
Linear (CT Voc)
Set Number
OC
Volta
ge (V
) Average difference is 4V
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 732.8
33
33.2
33.4
33.6
33.8
34
34.2
34.4
34.6
34.8
f(x) = 0.0330357142857147 x² − 0.152107142857146 x + 33.973R² = 0.340263805895764
f(x) = 0.0785714285714294 x² − 0.604571428571435 x + 35.086R² = 0.839340343830221
CT Vmpp
Polynomial (CT Vmpp)
GM Vmpp
Polynomial (GM Vmpp)
Set Number
Volta
ge a
t Max
imum
Pow
er (V
mpp
)Maximum Voltage difference between Canal Top & Ground Mounted Reference Modules
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1413
13.5
14
14.5
15
15.5
16
16.5
f(x) = 0.0266272088650586 x² − 0.44467930665062 x + 16.2117350331651R² = 0.839239887125344
f(x) = 0.0146812663541104 x² − 0.276184043899337 x + 15.383962726224R² = 0.360027870867962
Canal Top & Ground Mounted Efficiency DifferenceGM EfficiencyPolynomial (GM Ef -ficiency)CT EfficiencyPolynomial (CT Ef -ficiency)
Set Number
Effici
ency
(%)
set 1 set 2 set 3 set 4 set 5 set 610.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
40.0
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
50.0
52.0
Effect on Efficiency due to Temperature (Test) EfficiencyTemper-ature
Set Number
Effici
ency
(%)
Tem
pera
ture
(°C)
set 1 set 2 set 3 set 4 set 5 set 610.00
15.00
20.00
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Canal Top: Effect of Temperature (Test) on Efficiency Efficiency
Temperature
Set Number
Effici
ency
(%)
Tem
pera
ture
(°C)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
180.00
200.00
220.00
240.00
260.00
280.00
300.00
Canal Top Power vs Radiation CT Ra-diationCT Power
Set Number
Radi
ation
(Wm
-2)
Pow
er (W
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13850
860
870
880
890
900
910
920
930
255.00
260.00
265.00
270.00
275.00
280.00
285.00
Ground Mounted Power vs Radiation GM Ra-diationGM Power
Set Number
Radi
ation
(Wm
-2)
Pow
er (W
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7230.00
240.00
250.00
260.00
270.00
280.00
290.00
f(x) = 250.16569362323 x^0.0596081085157272R² = 0.677894338941042f(x) = 279.238654505279 x^-0.0142486370090853R² = 0.432506047171995
Canal Top & Ground Mounted Power CT refPower (CT ref)GM ref
Set Number
Power
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00230.00
235.00
240.00
245.00
250.00
255.00
260.00
265.00
270.00
275.00
280.00
f(x) = − 1.09464285714286 x² + 13.2139285714286 x + 237.67R² = 0.735986639011795
Dust Accumulation
Output PowerPolynomial (Output Power)
Set Number
Pow
er (W
)
Results of work done» Mono-crystalline modules: 2.16-2.95% per year » CdTe modules:0.48-2.92% per year» A-Si modules: 9.85-11.16% per year » Poly-crystalline modules: GTPS: 1.73-3.89 % per year Narmada Canal Top Plant: 0.17-1.95 % per year Canal top mounted modules had an all time lower
temperature than ground mounted modules thereby had higher open circuit voltage and efficiency
Soiling reduces power output by: 24-25.6 Wefficiency by :1.08-1.61%
Results From Models Calculation of In-plane Radiation: 523.527 Wm-2
Error: 0.05461-0.13181% Incident Angle Modifier (IAM) Factor: 0.942 to 0.411 % Drop in Module Temperature due to Wind: 9.821% Variation in Efficiency due to change in Temperature: 0.54% Power Calculation for 1 module:Poly-crystalline: 96.97 W, Mono-crystalline: 108.48 W, A-Si: 42.4 W, CdTe: 38.46 W, CIGS: 41.81 W Total power output: Poly-crystalline: 244364.4 W, mono-crystalline: 43934.4 W, A-Si: 39177.6 W, CdTe: 40786.2 W, CIGS: 44151.36 W Ohmic loss: 0.5576%-1.8958%. The ohmic losses were observed to be
more at higher values of irradiance. Conversion loss: 0.17%-4.50%. At times of inverter failure, conversion
losses were as high as 19.36%. Inverter efficiency: At an average, the efficiency of inverter was in the
range of 96.97-98.43%
The loss parameters obtained closely match with that of simulated results with an average deviation of 2% for IAM Factor 3.78% for power loss due to temperature 0.22% for ohmic loss 0.07% for inverter efficiency
VERIFICATION:
january february march april may june july august september october november december0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
Simulated and Real Time Generation
2013 simu-lated2013 real time2014 simu-lated2014 real time
Month
Ene
rgy
(kW
h)
Conclusion Average rate of degradation: nearly 1%
GTPS: 2.81%NCT: 1.06% Expected plant performance: GTPS Ash-dyke Plant: up to 2037Narmada Canal Top Plant: up to 2048 Regular cleaning is required to avoid power and
efficiency loss by nearly 25W and 1.61 % respectively for each module
The model developed and results obtained for losses nearly matches with theoretical simulation
References 1. Mukadam K, Chenlo F, Rebollo L, Matas A, Zarauza L, Valera P, Garcia P. Three years of operation
and experience of the 1 MW photovoltaic plant. Proceedings of the 14th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 1997; 705–708.
2. Alonso-Abella M, Chenlo F, Vela N, Chamberlain J, Arroyo R, Alonso Martínez FJ. Toledo PV plant 1MWp—10 years of operation.Proceedings of the 20th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Barcelona, Spain, 2005; 2454–2457.
3. Marion B, del Cueto J, McNutt P, Rose D. Performance summary for the first solar CdTe 1-kW system, NREL/CP-520-30942, Lakewood, CO, USA, October 2001.
4. Multi-pronged analysis of degradation rates of photovoltaic modules and arrays deployed in Florida; K. O. Davis1*, S. R. Kurtz2, D. C. Jordan2, J. H. Wohlgemuth2 and N. Sorloaica-Hickman1
5. Realini A. Mean time before failure of photovoltaic modules, Federal Office for Education and Science, Final report BBW 99.0579, June 2003.
6. Realini A, Burá E, Cereghetti N, Chianese D, Rezzonico S, Sample T, Ossenbrink H. Study of a 20 year old PV plant (MTBF project).Proceedings of the 17th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Munich, Germany, 2001; 447–450.
7. Marion B, Adelstein J. Long-term performance of the SERF PV systems. Proceedings of the NCPV and Solar Programme Review Meeting, Denver, 24–26 March 2003; 199–201. NREL/CD-520-33586.
8. Carr AJ, Pryor TL. A comparison of the performance of different PV module types in temperate climates.SolarEnergy2004; 76:285–94.
9. McNutt P, Adelstein J, Sekulic W. Performance evaluation of a 1.5-kW a-Si PV array using the PVUSA power rating method at NREL's outdoor test facility, 2005 DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program Review Meeting, Denver, CO, USA, NREL/CP-520-38971, November 2005. 10. Adelstein J, Sekulic W. Small PV systems performance evaluation at NREL's outdoor test facility using the PVUSA power rating method, 2005 DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program Review Meeting, Denver, CO, USA, NREL/CP-520-39135, November2005.11. Akamoto S, Oshiro T. Dominant degradation of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules manufactures in 1990 20th EPSEC 2005.12. Dunlop ED, Halton D. The performance of crystalline silicon photovoltaic solar modules after 22 years of continuous outdoor exposure. Progress in Photovoltaics Research and Applications 2006; 14:53–64.13. Raghuraman B, Lakshman V, Kuitche J, ShislerW, Tamizh Mani G, Kapoor H. An overview of SMUD’s outdoor photovoltaic test program at Arizona State University. IEEE; 2006.14. Foster RE, Gómez Rocha LM, Gupta VP, Sánchez-Juárez A, Cruz JO, Rosas JC. Field testing of CdTe PV modules in Mexico.Proceedings of the 35th American Solar Energy Society Annual Solar Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 2006. 15. Hedström J, Palmblad L. Performance of old PV modules: measurement of 25 years old crystalline silicon modules, Elforsk Rapport 06:71, October 2006. 16. Guastella S. Assessment of PV plant performance in Italy. Proceedings of the 22nd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Milan, Italy, 2007; 2884–2888. 17. Rüther R, Knob P, Beyer HG, Dacoregio MM, Montenegro AA. High performance ratios of a double-junction a-Si BIPV grid-connected installation after five years of continuous operation in Brazil. Proceedings of the 3rd World Conference on PV Energy Conversion, Osaka, Japan, 2003; 2169–2172.
18. Rüther R, Dacoregio M, Salamoni I, Knob P, Bussemas U. Performance of the first grid-connected, BIPV installation in Brazil over eight years of continuous operation. Proceedings of the 21st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Dresden, Germany, 2006; 2761–2764.19. Apicella F, Giglio V, Pellegrino M, Ferlito S, Tanikawa F, Okamoto Y, Thin film modules: long term operational experience in Mediterranean climate. Proceedings of the 23rd European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Valencia, Spain, 2008;3422–3425. DOI: 10.4229/23rdEUPVSEC2008-5BV.2.21. 20. Case study of two different photovoltaic technologies; Kristopher Davis, H. Moaveni21. Quintana MA, King DL, Hosking FM, Kratochvil JA, Johnson RW, Hansen BR, Dhere NG, Pandit MB. Diagnostic analysis of silicon photovoltaic modules after 20-year field exposure. Proceedings of the 28th PV Specialists Conference, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2000; 1420–1423. DOI: 10.1109/PVSC.2000.916159 22. Reis AM, Coleman NT, Marshall MW, Lehman PA, Chamberlin, CE. Comparison of PV module performance before and after 11-years of field exposure. Proceedings of the 29th PV Specialists Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA, 2002; 1432–1435.23. Saleh IM, Abouhdima I, Gantrari MB. Performance of thirty years standalone photovoltaic system. Proceedings of the 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 2009; 3995–3998. DOI: 10.4229/24thEUPVSEC2009-5DO.7.6.24. Adelstein J, Sekulic B. Performance and reliability of a 1-kW amorphous silicon photovoltaic roofing system. Proceedings of the 31st PV Specialists Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 2005; 1627–1630. DOI: 10.1109/PVSC.2005.1488457.
25. Pietruszko SM, Fetlinski B, Bialecki M. Analysis of the performance of grid connected photovoltaic system. Proceedings of the 34th IEEE PV Specialist Conference, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009; 48–51. DOI: 10.1109/PVSC.2009.5411757. 26. Vignola F, Krumsick J, Mavromatakis F, Walwyn R. Measuring degradation of photovoltaic module performance in the field.Proceedings of the 38th American Solar Energy Society Annual Solar Conference, Buffalo, NY, USA, 200927. Dhere NG, Pethe SA, Kaul A. Photovoltaic module reliability studies at the Florida Solar Energy Center. Reliability Physics Symposium (IRPS) 2010; 306–311. DOI: 10.1109/IRPS.2010.5488813. 28. Dhere NG, Pethe SA, Kaul A. PV module reliability and durability studies at the FSEC PV Materials Lab, NREL PV Module Reliability Workshop, Golden, CO, USA, February 2010,http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_module_reliability_workshop_2010.html29. Musikowski HD, Styczynski AZ. Analysis of the operational behavior and long-term performance of a CIS PV system. Proceedings of the 25th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Valencia, Spain, 2010; 3942–3946. DOI: 10.4229/25thEUPVSEC2010-4DO.11.4.30. Sastry O S, Sriparn S, Shil S K, Pant P C, Kumar R, Kumar A, et al. Performance analysis of the field exposed single crystalline silicon module. Solar Energy Material and Solar cells2010; 94:1463–8. 31. Sanchez-Friera P, Piliougine M, Pelaez J, Carretero J, Sidrach de Cardona M. Analysis of degradation mechanisms of crystalline silicon PV modules after 12 years of operation in Southern Europe. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Application 201132. Jordan DC, Kurtz SR. Thin-film reliability trends toward improved stability. Proceedings of the 37th PV Specialists Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 2011.33. George Makrides, Bastian Zinsser, Markus Schubert, George E. Georghiou; Performance loss rate of twelve photovoltaic technologies under field conditions using statistical techniques; Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Cyprus, Institute for Photovoltaic-University of Stuttgart, Germany.
34. Vikrant Sharma, O.S. Sastry , Arun Kumar, Birinchi Bora, S.S. Chandel; Degradation analysis of a-Si, (HIT) hetero-junction intrinsic thin layer silicon and m-C-Si solar photovoltaic technologies under outdoor conditions.35. M. Torres-Ramírez, G. Nofuentes, J.P. Silva, S. Silvestre, J.V. Munoz; Study on analytical modeling approaches to the performance of thin film PV modules in sunny inland climates.36. Yihua Hua, Bin Gao b, , Xueguan Song c, Gui Yun Tian b, Kongjing Li c, Xiangning He; Photovoltaic ⇑fault detection using a parameter based model.37. J.-P. Charles, F. Hannane, H. El-Mossaoui, A. Zegaoui, T.V. Nguyen, P. Petit, M. Aillerie; Faulty PV panel identification using the Design of Experiments (DoE) method.38. Tao Ma, Hongxing Yang, Lin Lu; Development of a model to simulate the performance characteristics of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules/strings/arrays.39. Diego Torres Lobera, Seppo Valkealahti; Dynamic thermal model of solar PV systems under varying climatic conditions.40. L.M. Ayompe, A. Duffy, S.J. McCormack, M. Conlon; Validated real-time energy models for small-scale grid-connected PV-systems.41. Thomas Huld, Gabi Friesen, Artur Skoczek, Robert P. Kenny, Tony Sample, Michael Field a, Ewan D. Dunlop; A power-rating model for crystalline silicon PV modules.42. Manuel Va´zquez and Ignacio Rey-Stolle; Photovoltaic Module Reliability Model Based on Field Degradation Studies.43. K.H. Lam, J. Close, W. Durisch; Modeling and degradation study on a copper indium diselenide module.
Thank You