232

IEEE Transactionson Energy Conversion,Vol. 5,No. 2, June 1990

REVIEW OF PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER

PLANT PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMICS

J. C . Schaefer Electric Power Research Institute P.O. Box 10412 Palo Alto, CA 94303
Abstract - Photovoltaic generation is a candidate for bulk power over the next decade, because of its simplicity and absence of emissions. Previous reports cover the performance of individual plants in the U . S . , and this paper reviews the performance, availability, and maintenance for ten photovoltaic plants since 1983. Problems are examined and achievable capacity factors are presented. The cost of photovoltaic electricity is developed as a function of investment cost, maintenance costs, and capacity factor--which in turn depends upon the site, the plant's availability, and the tracking employed. Keywords: photovoltaics, performance, economics, solar power, maintenance. INTRODUCTION Photovoltaic (PV) power systems are widely used in remote power applications because of their high reliability and low operating costs. For example, PV is in wide use by at least one utility for corrosion protection, data acquisition, radio repeaters, and similar low power applications 111. Because of their high initial cost, however, these systems have not been widely utilized as grid-connected sources; 219 systems now operating are known to have been installed in the U.S. since 1978 121. Nevertheless, utilities in both the U.S. and Europe have recognized that if environmental or political restrictions constrain the use of conventional sources, PV is one option for future power generation. Totalling over 11 MW nameplate capacity, the 219 systems noted have demonstrated the technical feasibility of PV for bulk power generation. and more recent installations have proven quite reliable. This leaves cost as the major barrier to more widespread application. Development programs under way have as their major focus the continued efficiency increases and production cost reductions necessary to overcome the cost barrier 131. Empirical data from ten plants of the largest size or most advanced module designs are presented. Each of these designs might be adopted for larger, utility scale plants in the future. Two measures calculated in this paper for existing PV plants are fundamental to the calculation of cost per kWh: annual capacity factor and maintenance costs. BACKGROUND Photovoltaic modules, whether single crystal, amorphous silicon, or concentrators, are built up electrically from individual cells. Cells are small, ranging up to several cm across, and produce typical outputs of 0.6 volts and one or two amperes. They are wired in series to provide greater voltage and in parallel to provide greater current. An entire plant might contain millions of cells. PV cells, modules, and plants are typically rated at an i olation (incident solar radiation) level of 1000 W/m??, about what occurs at noon on a clear day. Electrical output is a linear function of insolation. PV cell power output depends upon cell temperature also, declining for crystalline modules by about 0.5 per cent per degree Celsius. Therefore, ratings for cells, modules and plants must be based on a specified temperature. Researchers have usually used cell temperatures of 25C; for modules it is more logical to use module temperatures, which will be slightly below cell temperatures. For arrays or plants it is more logical to use ambient air temperatures. Capacity factors presented below will be based on capacity ratings measured at 1000 W/m2 and 20C ambient temperature. Because PV systems produce direct current, an inverter is required to generate grid compatible alternating current. Inverter control, peak power tracking to assure that the PV array operates at its maximum efficiency, and system protection are incorporated with the inverter into a power conditioning unit or PCU. PCU efficiency and reliability are therefore important to the overall performance of the entire system. PLANTS EXAMINED Table I describes the PV plants whose performances are reported below. They range from the 1982 concentrator installation at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport, to the 1988 installation in Orlando of a system with amorphous silicon modules. These plants were chosen because each one represents a state-ofthe-art PV plant that could be installed in the future. Their performance therefore reflects what might be expected in future plants. Most plants are served by a single PCU. The exception is the Arc0 Solar plant at Carrisa Plains, California, (east of San Luis Obispo) with ten PCUs. OBSERVED PERFORMANCE
212-1 ' . ' C A ?2per recomTendzd ancl a:proved 1:nerg-T D e v s l o o n s i t an2 Powor G e n e r a t i o n r Sn=ineeriny Society f o r C o m i i t t e e of t h e I p r e s m t a i i o n It t i ES 1990 -.,'inter . eetin:-.* Ltlmta, CIcorgi-:, February 4 - 3 , 199C. A n u s c r i p t s u h i t t e d Au[;ust 29, 1989; i:iade a v a i l a b l e f o r p r i n t i n g December 27, 1989.

50 ;,:i

Table I presents two capacity ratings for each plant: nameplate, as specified by the module manufacturer; and measured values, determined fro1 statistical analysis of actual outputs at 1000 W/m and 20C ambient air temperature. For Phoenix Skj Harbor only, test conditions are based on 850 W/m direct normal irradiance--the radiation directly from the sun's disk that can be focused in a concentrator system. All nameplate ratings exceed the measured values, suggesting that actual outputs were lower than the

0885-8%9/90/0600-0232$01.00 0 1990 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: AALTO UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 15,2010 at 09:45:56 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

233

module manufacturers' specifications. This difference is due to different conditions under which ratings are specified, to dirt that accumulates on the modules, to higher than expected cell temperatures, to wiring and mismatch losses between the modules, and to module outputs below manufacturers' ratings--a common problem [41, [si. Nameplate plant ratings are typically based on cell or module measurements made at 25C cell temperature, whereas the measured values are based on ambient temperatures of 20C. Illuminated cells run hotter than module surfaces and module surfaces normally run at 20C hotter than ambient, so the difference between the two columns in Table I is not surprising. Table I PV Plant Characteristics Rating (kWdc) Namepl. Meas. Module Phoenix-Sky Harbor Hesperia-Lug0 1 Hesperia-Lug0 2 SMUD PV1 Carrisa Plains Phoenix-John Long SMUD PV2 Austin PV300 Detroit Orlando Solar Progress Notes: conc. crys. amor.
= = =

Generally, the PV portions of the plants examined have been quite reliable, so that the availability o f the plant is usually the availability of the PCU. Examination of Table I1 reveals that capacity factors vary from year to year as well as from one plant to another. Specifically, the following observations can be made: Hesperia-Lug0 was the during 1986 and 1987. best performer, except

Phoenix-Sky Harbor showed improvement from 1982 until 1987, when it was taken out of service. Carrisa Plains has generally deteriorated from 1984 to 1989. Detroit's capacity factor is lower than all other systems'. Solar Progress' 1988 capacity factor, with a similar technology and a better solar regime, is better than Detroit ' s. Austin and the two SMUD plants, all three of similar design, show comparable capacity factors during periods of high availability. The newest designs at Austin, Orlando, and Detroit show excellent availabilities. LESSONS FROM PLANT PERFORMANCE While insolation varies somewhat from year to year, the large variations in year-to-year capacity factors were due mostly to component outages. Examination of those outages reveals that all are preventable with adequate designs, and that with achievable availabilities the capacity factors for these locations are predictable. Phoenix-Sky Harbor The Phoenix-Sky Harbor Airport system demonstrates a generally rising capacity factor over its five-year life, as the site operator--Arizona Public Service Company (APS)--made the engineering changes necessary to improve its reliability. In terms of insolation available, Phoenix is of course an excellent site, and it is for that reason that a concentrator system is appropriate for Phoenix. In other, cloudier sites, much less direct normal insolation is available. The first major difficulty was the early model PCU, which was replaced completely in 1984; the replacement PCU then operated with an availability over 99 per cent 171 for nearly two years. Other difficulties surfaced, however. Ground faults within the modules were attributed to water entry and the deterioration of Kapton insulation between the bypass diodes at high voltage and the grounded heat sinks. This problem was solved by drilling holes so water could run out, improved sealing around mounting screws, and stowing the modules at night so that water could no longer form puddles around the mounting screws. One ground fault led to a module fire, and the realization in the PV community that protection against double contingency failures is sometimes appropriate. Strings of PV modules are normally wired with blocking diodes at the bus connections, to prevent backfeed in the event of ground faults within the string. The fire occurred because the blocking diode had failed as a short circuit on a string that experienced a ground fault. The current backfeed into that string was several times what the modules could

Track- Year ing on-line

2 axis 2 axis 2 axis 1 axis 2 axis fixed 1 axis 1 axis fixed fixed

225 500 500 1000 6500 200 1000 326 4 15

see text 362 367 932 5120* 166 875 258 4 15

conc crys. crys crys crys. crys. crys. crys amor. amor.

. . . .

1982 1982 1982 1984 1984 1985 1986 1986 1987 1988

concentrator; single crystal silicon; amorphous silicon.

* Calculated

from observed ac outputs and inverter efficiencies.

Reflecting an increased awareness of the difference between manufacturer's nameplate and measured ratings, payments for more recent installations have been based on measured outputs. Power output at 20C ambient is used in the case of Orlando, Austin and PVUSA, and measured annual kWh output is used in case of John Long Homes. PVUSA is a cooperative program among government agencies, utilities, and EPRI for PV system testing [61. Based on measured capacities, annual capacity fac ors are calculated in Table 11. Most values are calculated in the standard way as CF = (energy produced in a year) -(rated output) x (number of hours per year)

In several cases, six-month data are used because ful years of data were not available. Capacity factor depends principally upon three the plant's location and therefore the fac ors: amount of insolation available, the type of array tracking at the plant, and the reliability as measured by the plant's annual (on-sun) availability. Availability serves as a measure of equipment performance and is calculated as
=

number of hours the lant o erated (number of hours insoyation : a s high enough that the plant could operate)

Authorized licensed use limited to: AALTO UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 15,2010 at 09:45:56 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

234

carry. As a result, higher diode ratings and fuses rated slightly above the maximum string currents are now common practice. A number of other difficulties plagued the Phoenix-Sky Harbor system: tracker control boxes, cable failures, and gearbox slippage in one axis because of lubricant leakage. The system's best performance was achieved during the six-month period prior to its decommissioning in 1987. Because of the difficulties noted, this system was cannibilized over the years to provide properly functioning components; as a result the kW rating declined commensurately. Ratings in kW from 1982 to 1987 were 173, 167, 151, 151, 131, and 114, respectively. While this history has not demonstrated an efficient, reliable concentrator design, it does suggest that if one were available it could operate with roughly a 29 per cent capacity factor in an insolation regime like that at Phoenix. Hesperi a-Lugo Located near Hesperia, California, and Southern California Edison's Lug0 Substation, the Hesperia-Lug0 plant combines a sunny site in the Mojave Desert with Z-axis tracking to capture as much insolation as possible. Wind loads turned out to be much greater than anticipated, however, and the gearboxes began to fail in 1985. They were all replaced during 1986 and

1987, so that some trackers were out of service during portions of that year. The remaining trackers continued to generate power, however, demonstrating for modular systems how output is available even if some portion of the PV field is out of service 181. Based on the data available and the assumption of no further tracker failures, a plant like HesperiaLug0 can be expected to operate with about a 35 per cent annual capacity factor. SMUD's PV1 The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) constructed two 1 MW plants near its Rancho Sec0 nuclear plant in southeast Sacramento County. The first of these began operation in late 1984. Using a motor-driven single axis tracking system and located in an area with less insolation than Hesperia-Lug0 or Phoenix, the capacity factor in its best year was considerably below the best achieved by the Hesperia or Phoenix-Sky Harbor plants. This plant suffered from some early module ground faults like the Phoenix-Sky Harbor plant, and from some minor PCU difficulties. In early 1987, the plant suffered a major line-to-line cable fault and fire, which destroyed the PCU. The fault tripped the ac side of the system promptly, but the dc from the PV field failed to disconnect; hence, the fire evolved from the fault. New protection schemes have been implemented as a result [91.

Table I 1 Capacity Factors and Availabilities (Per Cent) P1 ant PhoenixSky Harbor HesperiaLugo 1 Hesperi aLugo 2 SMUD PV1 Carri sa Plains PhoenixJohn Long SMUD PV2 Austin
PV300

Measure CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1. CF Avai 1.

1983 1984 1985 ~ 16 58 25 n.a. 25 n.a.

1986 1988 1989* - 1987 22 87 23 96 24 98 25 91 29 n.a. 21 n.a. 23* 91 29* 92 28 97 30 97 7 24 25 n.a. 22 n.a. 23 89 22* 97 14* 95 out of service 33 98 33 98
0 0

1 0 53
32 92 34 94 n.a. n.a. 29 n.a.

22 n.a. 35 96 35 96 23 n.a. 30 n.a.

35 n.a. 34 n.a. n.a. n.a. 22 n.a. 24 n.a. n.a. n.a. 22 n.a. 14 97

24 n.a. 23 n.a. 19 83 25
100

Detroit Or1 ando-Sol ar Progress Notes:

15 95

20** 21 100 93

* **

n.a.

Not available. Six months of data. 134 days of data.

Authorized licensed use limited to: AALTO UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 15,2010 at 09:45:56 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

235

Carrisa Plains The world's largest PV plant is located some 5 0 miles east of San Luis Obispo, California. It consists of ten separate segments, each with its own PCU. The first nine segments each operate with 84 trackers like the ones in Figure 1, which include mirror enhancement mounted beside the modules. This is effectively a 2x concentrator design. Each segment i s connected through a 700 kW PCU to a 12 kV collection system. Segment ten has larger trackers with no mirror enhancement, and a 750 kW PCU. For the most part, operation of the Carrisa Plains plant has been relatively uneventful. In segments one through nine, ground faults along the edges of the 8-module panels occur occasionally, and tracker control boxes sometimes fail and need repair. The data acquisition system has been less than fully reliable, so that data are not available on a segment-by-segment basis. As a result the data presented here are for the entire ten-segment plant rather than segment by segment.

Phoenix-John Long From a performance and failures perspective the John Long Homes system is relatively uninteresting; it has operated quite reliably since installation. The only extended outage occurred in July of 1989, because of a PCU problem. The John Long system is unique from a contractual perspective because the supplier guaranteed a minimum level of energy production. To meet the guarantee, additional modules were installed in 1987. A full year capacity factor of 23 per cent is reasonable to expect, based on historical performance. SMUD PV2 SMUD's second 1000 kW system benefited from the first one's experience and has not suffered the kind of electrical problems apparent at PV1. The most significant problem was low PCU availability, which pulled the capacity factor down substantially in 1988. The expected long term capacity factor for PV2 is approximately the same as for PV1; when,either is running with high availability it can be expected to operate at that site with a 25 per cent capacity factor. Austin PV300 The City of Austin's 300 kW power plant reflects much that has been learned over the previous eight years, and has been quite trouble-free. There have been no major electrical problems, and only a few with the inverter. One major improvement with PV300 is its use of passive, gas-operated, single-axis trackers. The demonstrated full year capacity factor of 25 per cent is probably a fair estimate of the value that can be expected in the future, and it is interesting to note that all three of the single-axis plants, located in marginal insolation areas, operate with 22 to 25 per cent capacity factors. Computer modeling suggests that 2 axis tracking would increase the capacity factors from 25 per cent to 28 per cent at Sacramento and from 25 per cent to 28 per cent at Austin [lll. Detroit

F i g . 1.

Carrisa Plains Trackers Utilize Mirror Enhancement.

The biggest problem at Carrisa Plains has been a deterioration in output which is evident in the capacity factor data in Table 11. It is due to socalled "brown-cell ," an apparent change in cell color from dark blue to brown. Actually it i s not the cells, but the polymer encapsulant between the cells and the front cover glass that has oxidized at the high temperatures (sometimes over 90C) to which the modules in segments one through nine are subjected [lo]. One lesson is clear: modules with mirror enhancement are a poor design choice unless special measures are taken to accommodate higher temperatures. An improved data acquisition system now in place will enable a better comparison between segment 1 0 and the other nine segments, but as of now the predominant mirror-enhanced technology at that site cannot be expected to exceed about 22 per cent in capacity factor.

Despite its small size, Detroit's system is included here because it is one of only a few utilizing amorphous silicon modules and because it has proven to be quite reliable. Its low capacity factor is therefore due entirely to the relatively poor insolation in Detroit, and to the fact that it is fixed in orientation. For purposes of evaluating PV's potential in the Midwest, Detroit's experience provides a basis for determining how a fixed system will perform. The amorphous silicon modules in this plant are of interest because this new technology has great potential for manufacturing cost reduction. However, amorphous si1icon has one known major shortcoming: its efficiency declines markedly (from 1 0 to 3 0 per cent) in the first few months of operation. The extent to which this Staebler-Wronski effect [ 1 2 ] continues and can be avoided is under investigation, but it is now known that some of this loss is recovered during warm weather when an annealing process occurs [ 1 3 ) . Orlando-Solar Progress Florida Power Corporation's plant near Oilando is the second amorphous silicon system covered,here. It is fixed in orientation like Detroit's. Also like Detroit's, this system has shown the Staebler-Wronski

Authorized licensed use limited to: AALTO UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 15,2010 at 09:45:56 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

236

degradation but otherwise has worked quite well. The major difference is more sunshine and therefore a higher capacity factor--even for 134 low insolation Based on data available, the annual days in 1988. value should be 20 or 21 percent. MAINTENANCE COSTS For most power plants, whether thermal or hydroelectric, there are some operations costs such as labor to bring the plant on line. No such costs are incurred for PV plants, as their operation is compl etely automatic. There are maintenance costs, however, and Table 111 summarizes the cost data that are available 1141. Table 111 Maintenance Costs for Selected Photovoltaic Power Plants Peri od Covered PhoenixSky Harbor HesperiaLug0 SMUD PV1 and PV2 Carrisa Plains Austin Sources: Apr 85 - May 87 Jul 85 - Sep 88 Jan 86 - Jun 88 Average Cost, cents/kWh
4.8

Based on this experience, it appears that maintenance costs for large, well designed plants will not exceed 0.5 cents per kWh. COST OF PHOTOVOLTAIC ELECTRICITY Because of the high investment costs for PV power plants, the largest component of total cost is amortization of the initial investment. Adding maintenance costs yields the following equation for average cost per kWh: total cost per kWh (initial cost (fixed charge (maintenance in $/kW) x rate) + cost per 8760 x (capacity factor) kWh)

1.1
0.6 0.8 0.8

Jul 86 - Sep 88
Jan 88 - Dec 88
[81, [141 and 1151.

Assuming a 12% fixed charge rate (corresponding 0 per cent discount rate, 20 year approximately to a 1 life, no tax or inflation effects and no additional costs incurred throughout the plant life) and 0.5 cents per kWh for maintenance, Figure 2 shows total cost per kWh as a function o f capacity factor and various investment costs per kW. Continuing a steady trend of declining costs, the lowest known bid in 1989 for a complete PV system is just under $5000 per kW [16]. Even at a 33 per cent capacity factor it is apparent that this cost of more than 20 cents could not compete with utilities' conventionally determined costs of fossil-fueled technologies. Another uncertainty is the extent to which PV costs will decline in the future, for example when PV manufacturing begins to occur at large scale. EPRI expects PV costs to decline to $2500 per kW when PV production reaches hundreds o f MU per year 1171. This 0 cents per kWh. brings PV down to roughly 1

COst (cents I kWh) . \ 25

20 15
. .

The Phoenix-Sky Harbor plant is by far the most costly of those covered here, for the reasons noted above: ongoing attention was necessary for major components of the plant. Data from Hesperia-Lug0 are available for the longest period of time, but omit the costs of replacing the tracker gear boxes. As these activities were deemed to be redesign rather than maintenance, they were not included. Similarly, the cost of replacing cables, conduit and the inverter at PV1 (about $250,000) is not included in this estimate. If it were, the cost per kWh would rise to about 12 cents for a single year. Finally, it should be noted that most of the 0.8 cents per kWh at Austin was due to daily inspections. Austin reports that a more representative value i s 0.4 cents per kWh 1151. Three conclusions can be drawn from the data in Table 111: The Phoenix-Sky Harbor costs are too high to be acceptable, but because of the early design of the plant are probably not representative of concentrator costs. Two-axis tracking systems are more expensive to maintain than single-axis, but both are acceptably low. Newer systems are considerably cheaper to maintain than older ones, so the industry is learning how to build plants with low maintenance costs.

10
5 01 0
I I

10 15 20 25 30 Capacity Factor (O/o)

35

Fig. 2. Average Cost of PV Electricity Depends on Capacity Factor and Investment Cost.

CONCLUSIONS The major points covered in this paper are the following: Nameplate plant ratings based on module peak power ratings do not accurately reflect what PV plant produce under standard conditions o f 1 0 0 0 W/m 3 and 20C ambient air temperatures.

Authorized licensed use limited to: AALTO UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 15,2010 at 09:45:56 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

231

Observed capacity factors for plants with high availability range up to 35 per cent, depending upon location and tracking employed. Table IV presents projected capacity factors. While failures have occurred in early systems, more recent plant designs show markedly better availabilities. Maintenance costs are declining with newer . 5 cents plants, and will probably not exceed 0 per kWh. Investment costs for PV plants are still too high to compete with utilities' internal costs of electricity from conventional technologies. Table IV Achieved Capacity Factors with High Availabilities (per cent)

Hester, PG&E Module Performance Assessment, Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986.
S.

L.

C. Jenninqs, "Outdoor Versus Rated Photovoltaic Module Pcrformance ,I' The Conference Record of the Nineteenth Photovoltaic Specialists Conference - 1987, New Orleans: IEEE, 1987, pp. 1257-1260. Smith, T. Townsend, C. Whitaker, and S. Hester, "Photovoltaics for Utility Scale Applications: Project Overview and Data Analysis," Ninth Annual DOE/SERI Advanced Research and Development Meeting, Golden, CO: Solar Energy Research Institute, May 24-26, 1989.
S.

P. Eckert, "Lessons Learned and Issues Raised at Sky Harbor--A Utility-Interactive Concentrator Photovoltaic Project," 1987 ASME Solar Energy Conference , Honolulu : March , 1987.

Plant
Phoenix-Sky Harbor Hesperia-Lug0 1 and 2 SMUD PV1 and PV2 Phoenix-John Long Carrisa Plains Austin PV300 Detroit Orlando-Solar Progress See text. cent.

V.
Capacity Factor 29 35
25

V. Risser, Photovoltaic Field Test Performance Assessment: 1988, Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, 1989, p. 3-4.

23
22*

E . Collier and T. S. Key, "Electrical Fault Protection for a Large Photovoltaic Power Plant Inverter," The Conference Record of the Twentieth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference - 1988, Volume 11, Las Vegas: IEEE, 1988, pp. 1035-1042.
D.

25
15

D. Sumner, C. M. Whitaker, and L . E. Schlueter, "Carrisa P1 ains Photovoltaic Power Plant 1984-1987 Performance," The Conference Record of the Twentieth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference - 1988, Volume 11, Las Vegas: IEEE, 1988, pp. 1289-1292. D.

21 D.F. Menicucci and J.P. Fernandez, Estimates of Available Solar Radiation and Photovoltaic Energy Production for Various Tilted and Tracking Surfaces Throughout the US Based on PVFORM, a Computerized Performance Model, Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, 1986, pp. 39, 46.
D.

Segment 10 will probably maintain 30 per

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Scott Altenberger and Larry Schlueter (Arco Solar) , Gobind Atmaram (Florida Solar Energy Center), Dave Collier and Dave Hansen (SMUD), John Hoffner (City of Austin), Casey Kayes (John Long Homes), Robert Pratt (Detroit Edison), and Vern Risser and Andy Rosenthal (Southwest Technology Development Institute) for their help, without which the data presented here would be incomplete. USDOE and Sandia National Laboratories are acknowledged for their cooperative efforts in data collection and analysis. Other references include I181 through [24]. Helpful comments from four anonymous reviewers are also acknowledged. REFERENCES 111 C. Jennings, "PG&E's Cost-Effective Photovoltaic Installations," San Ramon, California: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, August 7, 1989. K. Smith, Survey of U.S. Line Connected Photovoltaic Systems, Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, 1989.

L . Staebler and C. R. Wronski, Applied . 292, 1977. Physics Letters, v. 31, p

R. 6 . Pratt and J. Bordick, "Performance of a 4

kW Amorphous-Silicon Alloy Photovoltaic Array at Oakland Comunitv Colleae. Auburn Hills. Michigan," The" Conference Record of the Twentieth IEEE Specialists Conference - 1988, Volume 11, Las Vegas: 1988, pp. 1272-1277.

R. Lynette and K. Conover, Photovoltaic Operation and Maintenance Evaluation, Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, 1989.
J. Hoffner, "Analysis of the 1988 Performance of Austin1s 300 Kilowatt Photovoltaic Plant ,'I Proceedings of the 1989 Conference of the American Solar Energy Society - Solar 89, Denver: ASES, June, 1989. "PVUSA Announces Two Sets of Winners; Best Price Drops Below $5/Wp Instal led," International Solar Energy Intelligence Report, Silver Spring, MO: June 16, 1989, p . 118.
S. Vejtasa (Project Manager) , Technical Assessment Guide, Volume I: Electricity Supply

[2]

I31

E. DeMeo, "Photovoltaic Power for Electric Utilities: Status and Outlook," 16th Energy Technology Conference, Washington, DC: February, 1989.

Authorized licensed use limited to: AALTO UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 15,2010 at 09:45:56 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

1986, Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986, p. 6-99.

[24]

v.

N. W. Patapoff Interconnection Central Station IEEE PES Winter York: February,

V. Riser, Photovoltaic Field Test Performance Assessment: 1987, Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, 1989. - -~

and 0. R. Mattijetz, "Utility Experience with an Operating MW-Sized Photovoltaic Plant," Meetina . .. , New . Paoer 85 WM 099-7.
~~

1985.

H. Mayorga and R. Hostetler, Photovoltaic Field Test Performance Assessment, Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, 1986.
V.

V. Risser, "Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUO) PV-1 and PV-2 Photovoltaic Systems: Testinq Performed May 19-22. 1986." Las Cruces, NM< New Mexico Solar Energy Institute, 1986, pp. 26-28.
V. Risser, Hesperia Photovoltaic Power Plant: 1985 Performance Assessment, Palo Alto: Electric Power Research Institute, 1987. V.

A. A. Salim, F. S. Huraib, N. N. Eugenio, and T. C. Lepley, "Performance Comparison of Two Similar Concentrating PV Systems Operating in the U.S. and Saudi Arabia," The Conference Record of the Nineteenth IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference - 1987, New Orleans: IEEE, May, 1987, pp. 1351-1357.
V.

John C. Schaefer was born in New York on October 26, 1937. He received an A.B. Trom Oberlin College in 1960, a B.S. from M.I.T. in 1960, an M.S. from San Jose State in 1968, and a Ph.0. from Stanford in 1974. He has worked in power systems engineering at Pacific Gas and Electric and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company. He has taught at the University of El Salvador, San Jose State, and Stanford. From 1975 until 1984 he consulted in power system planning and economics, and he has managed solar field test projects at EPRI since 1985. Or. Schaefer is a registered professional engineer in California and is a member of Eta Kappa
\

NU.

V. Risser, Photovoltaic Field 1986, Palo Performance Assessment: Electric Power Research Institute, 1988.

Test Alto:

Authorized licensed use limited to: AALTO UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on February 15,2010 at 09:45:56 EST from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.