Solar Cells, 25 ( 1 9 8 8 ) 127 - 1 4 2

127

A NOVEL METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE OPTIMUM SIZE OF STAND-ALONE PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS
C. S O R A S and V. M A K I O S Laboratory of Electromagnetics, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Patras, Patras (Greece) (Received July 8, 1988; accepted August 8, 1988)

Summary A method is presented to select the optimum tilt angle, photovoltaic array area and battery storage capacity of stand-alone photovoltaic systems. This method uses monthly average meteorological data and easily acquirable system parameters in order to determine possible photovoltaic system sizes, capable of supplying any given monthly average hourly load profile. The optimum system selected is that with the minimum life-cycle cost while ensuring a desired reliability level. In the life-cycle cost computations a battery-life model has been used to determine the number of battery bank replacements. The reliability criterion used is the loss-of-energy probability. The method can be implemented on a personal computer and is applied to an illustrative example, where the optimum system size proposed by this methodology is compared with that of a newly installed system on a Greek island.

1. Introduction The existence of analytical methods for selecting the optimum size of stand-alone photovoltaic (SAPV) systems, is the basic requirement for their proliferation. Depending on the approach used to estimate the system performance, which is the prerequisite in any system sizing process, two solutions related to the system sizing problem can be identified, namely detailed simulations and simplified design methods. The models which perform detailed photovoltaic system simulation, e.g. ref. 1, calculate deterministically the energy flow into the system for each hour during the whole period of the analysis, using historical data of solar radiation and ambient temperature. Although these models provide an adequate solution to the system sizing problem, they feature some significant disadvantages, i.e. large computing time, not easily acquirable system parameter values and the need of long-term hourly meteorological data, which are not available for most locations worldwide.
0379-6787/88/$3.50 Elsevier S e q u o i a / P r i n t e d in T h e N e t h e r l a n d s

128 The difficulties of the above models have led to the development of simplified methods that, without giving the variety of information of the detailed models, are able to select the optimum system size, though with differing degree of success (Section 2). In this paper a new methodology is described (Section 4) which overcomes the limitations of the existing methods. The proposed method is used in an illustrative example in Section 5 where the system size proposed is compared with a newly installed system on a Greek island.

2. Review of the existing system sizing methodologies

Most of the simplified methods which have been developed so far for stand-alone systems [ 2 - 6 ] are based on the comparison between the m o n t h l y average daily photovoltaic system o u t p u t for an array of a given size and tilt angle and the average daily load. The year round energy deficits dictate the long-term storage capacity which added to the short-term storage determines the effective capacity of the battery and consequently its rated value. By varying the tilt angle and size of the array and computing the corresponding storage capacity, a number of candidate photovoltaic system sizes are created, among which the most economical is selected as the optimum. The simplicity and applicability to a wide range of configurations are the main advantages of these methods. However, t h e y ignore the effect of supply reliability on system size and hourly variation of both solar radiation and load demand on the calculation of system performance. An extremely simple method for the selection of system size based on a predetermined probability of system outage due to weather variations, has been proposed by Evans e t al. [7]. This method, however, proposes only one system size which naturally is not the most economical. Barra e t al. [8] have proposed another analytical method for the determination of the optimal size of SAPV systems, which is based on a predetermined uncovered energy load fraction. Uncovered load fraction, however, is not a measure of reliability but only an indication, stating that smaller uncovered fractions result in higher reliability. Further drawbacks of this m e t h o d are: the assumption that all the energy produced by the photovoltaic array passes through the battery, and the use of initial investment as the economic criterion, which does not take into account the effect of the number of battery replacements. A method which takes into account the effect of reliability on system size has also been developed [9, 10]. The method is limited to one value of loss-of-energy probability (LOEP) and two array tilts. Furthermore this m e t h o d assumes that all the energy from the photovoltaic array passes through the battery, it is based on daily (not hourly) values of solar radiation and load, and does not consider the effect of system performance on battery lifetime.

129 3. Definition of the problem SAPV systems exhibit the following contradiction: although they are the first systems put into use and have the highest arithmetic percentage of applications of all photovoltaic systems, they are the most difficult to determine their o p t i m u m size, due to the use of batteries as the sole back-up source which influences immensely the reliability of the whole photovoltaic system. The o p t i m u m size, therefore, cannot be determined independently of the load supply reliability which it ensures. The sizing problem could be finally summarized as follows. Which is the combination of the size A of the photovoltaic array, its tilt angle s and the rated battery capacity B, that satisfies a predetermined reliability goal and is the most economical? In this paper an analytical method is described for the selection of the o p t i m u m combination, which uses the LOEP concept for the reliability calculation and the life-cycle costing methodology (LCC) for the economic calculations. In Fig. 1 a typical SAPV system configuration is shown, which will be used in our analysis.

SOLAR PV ARRAY RADIATION/ VOLTAGE REGULATOR CABLES OR CONVERTER OR INVERTER

ED

EB

"BATTERY i Ec Fig.1. Typicalconfiguration of a stand-alone photovoltaic system.

4. Description of the methodology The analytical method developed is presented in the flow chart (Fig. 2), while the necessary input data are given in Table 1. For each value of the array tilt the following calculations are executed step-by-step. Initially the monthly average hourly radiation on the tilted surface calculated according to well known formulae [11 ]. The monthly average daily insolation on the tilted surface/TT is then calculated as

i Tis

130

INPUT DATA

FOR s=q~-lO TO s=(p+20'

FOR MONTH=I TO 12 FOR HOUR= I TO 24 CALCULATION OF l'r

STEP 5

CALCULATION OF H'r' ll'I' ' n ESTIMATION OF A . AND A

m&x

mln

FOR U=O TO 0.1 STEP AU

FOR A=Amin TO Amax STEP ~A FOR MONTH= I TO 12 FOR HOUR=I TO 24 CALCULATION OF EA,i ,$ ,E~3,i , ED,I
CALCULATION OF
c~

YES

ESTIMATION OF Be, m SELECTION OF Be, Br CALCULATION OF LOEP, LEC

I
(1)

I
SELECTION OF THE OPTIMUM SYSTEM

Fig. 2. Flow chart of the sizing methodology.

24

/qW=~/T
1

For the calculation of the standard deviation of the daily insolation, O~HT, the method presented in Section 11 of the Monegon handbook [9] has been used. The calculation of the monthly average daffy array efficiency ~/e is executed via the simplified method of Evans [12] (see Appendix A).

131 TABLE 1 The input data required for the sizing methodology Input data
Location data

Latitude , ground reflectance p, monthly average daily isolation on a horizontal surface H, monthly average ambient temperature Ta Monthly average hourly load Li, uncovered energy load fraction U

Load data

PV-array data

Efficiency at reference conditions of insolation and temperature ~TR,temperature coefficient for cell efficiency ~, nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT), degradation factor 77d, incremental array step AA Average energy efficiency 77B, maximum allowed depth of discharge DODs, battery-type coefficient Bc, average battery life N A PV-array wiring efficiency ~w, maximum power point tracking efficiency ~TT, voltage regulator efficiency WVR, cabling efficiency r/c Component costs, structure and foundation cost, economic evaluation period Y, general inflation rate g, discount rate d, escalation rate for O & M e 0

Battery data

Power conditioning unit data Economic data

A m i n i m u m a r r a y area Amin, b a s e d o n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p h o t o v o l t a i c a r r a y m u s t b e c a p a b l e o f covering t h e load plus t h e p o w e r c o n d i t i o n i n g u n i t losses o n a y e a r l y basis, can b e r o u g h l y e s t i m a t e d f r o m t h e f o r m u l a

Ami n = I N T E G E R [ -I

-~
~'~T~end 1

[AA J

(2)

where Ld is the montly average daytime load, L is the monthly average daily load (L = Z24 ~- A A is the incremental step in the array area, which de~=l~J, pends on the array configuration for each application (e.g. it can be the area of an additional module or subarray) and the other factors are explained in Table 1. At the other extreme a m a x i m u m array area Am~x can be estimated as a multiple (say 3 times) of the array area required to cover the load plus losses for the worst case month:
Amax =

3[ m a x { (f'a+(L--~d)/~B)/(~W~T~V~C)}]
I'IT~eT~d

(3)

132

For a given value of array area A, between Ami n and Amax, it is possible to compute the energy flow in the photovoltaic system. The monthly average hourly energy output from the photovoltaic array ]~A,i, is
EA,i = A/w~eT~W7~d (4 )

The monthly average hourly energy /Ts, i which is available to charge the battery is then
EB, i = /~A, iT~T?TVRfl)
(5)

where (P is the hourly radiation utilizability function calculated via an analytical formula developed by Clark e t al. [13] (see Appendix B). The m o n t h l y average hourly energy ED, i which flows directly from the photovoltaic array to the load is then:
/~D,i = EA, iT~T~/VR(I -- CI~)~/C
(6)

The m o n t h l y average daffy energy flow in the photovoltaic system is then obtained by summing the hourly values:
24

EA = E gA, i
i=l

24

EB = ~ E~,i
i=l

(7)

24

ED = 2: ~D,i
i=l

and the daffy solar radiation utffizability c~ is taken from the equation:

24 IT~ = i= El tTT

(8)

The critical level of the monthly average daffy insolation /~c on the tilted array at which the energy supplied by the photovoltaic system is equal to the load/~ is
H c = Y,/A~?s

(9)

where ~, is the m o n t h l y average efficiency of the entire photovoltaic system and is given by the equation
~s = ~Ter/W~T?/VR~TCr/d( 1 -- ~ + ?/B c~) (I0)

The condition /~c ~>/~T implies an inadequate array. Otherwise it is possible to appoint suitable values to the rated battery capacity B~ in order to create candidate system sizes of the form (s,A, Br). This was done by varying the uncovered energy load fraction U, which is defined as

133
U = I -- f
(11)

where f is the energy load fraction covered by the photovoltaic system and which for stand-alone systems tends to unity. For given values of array tilt, c o m p o n e n t efficiencies and climatic data, f depends on the size of the array and the battery. In the extreme case where no dumping losses occur in the battery, all the energy produced by the photovoltaic array reduced only by c o m p o n e n t inefficiencies is transfered to the load and thus f is equal to its m a x i m u m value fm calculated as
fm ----(ED "{- J~B?~B~C)/j~

(12)

This occurs either for every small array areas or for very large storage capacities (infinite) relative to the load, provided an adequate array size. In all other cases owing to dumping losses, f is smaller than fro. Figure 3 shows the relationship of f with its m a x i m u m value fm for a given storage capacity along with the asymptotes for infinite capacity. This curve has the form of a hyperbola and can be formulated using the following equation proposed by Bartoli e t al. [14] :
(I -- f)(fm -- f) = ~/ (13)

where the parameter ~/ determines the adherence level of the curve to its asymptotes and is essentially a function of storage capacity. Thus, for given values of array size and tilt, fm is determined from eqn. (12) and for each f value the parameter ~/ from eqn. (13). Finally for a given set of the form (s, A, U) the effective storage capacity Be,~ for each month is calculated according to ref. 14 as

a D K T L
Be,m ~B(b+ D/~T)2 (14) where D is the daylight fraction of the day,/~T is the monthly average clearness index, a = 0.695 exp(--71.2"y) + 1 and b = 0.274To'la6.

1.0

0.5

2 fm

3
vs.

Fig. 3. Energy load fraction f covered by a SAPV system case of no dumping losses [14].

its maximum value fm for the

134

The month with the maximum storage requirements dictates the effective battery capacity which corresponds to the given values of s, U and A : Be = max(Be.m) The rated battery capacity is then:
B~ = B e / D O D s

(15)

(16)

where DODs is the maximum allowable depth of discharge of the battery during its seasonal operation. For each candidate photovoltaic system size of the form (s, A, B~) the supply reliability it ensures is calculated in terms of the yearly LOEP which b y definition [15] is the sum of the monthly values LOEPM:
12

LOEP = ~
M= I

LOEPM

(17)

The method used for the LOEPM calculation was thatdescribed in ref. 9. For each candidate size besides LOEP, its levelized energy cost, LEC, is also computed using the m e t h o d o l o g y of Appendix C, where a model of battery life is used for the estimation of the number of battery replacements through the system lifetime.

5. A sizing example Let us consider the case of a remote house for which we intend to cover the basic energy needs in terms of lighting, radio, television and refrigeration. The load characteristics assumed are presented in Table 2 and the resulting load profile in Fig. 4, The house is located on a Greek island, Antikythira, with = 36 , p = 0.2. The m o n t h l y average values of insolation /7 on a horizontal surface, ambient temperature T~ and load/~ are presented in Table 3.
TABLE 2 R e m o t e h o u s e l o a d characteristics

Appliance

Nominal power
(W)

Hours in operation Winter

18.00 - 24.00 0.00 - 24.00

Summer
20.00 - 24.00 0.00 - 24.00

2 fluorescent lamps Refrigerator ( 1 1 5 l) T V (17 in) Colour

2 20 30 ( W i n t e r ) 40 ( S u m m e r ) 37

18.00 - 24.00

18.00 - 24.00

135

Ci(w)
120 100 Wint 80 60 40 20 Summer--~F . . . . . !
I

12 HOUR OF THE DAY

18

24

Fig. 4. Average hourly load profile for the winter and summer months.

TABLE 3 Input data for the sizing example

Month

/~ (W h m -2 day -1) 2032 2679 3806 5100 5226 7233 7387 6774 5333 3677 2533 1935

Ta (C) 13.5 13.8 14.6 17.5 21.7 26.3 29.3 29.3 26.1 22.1 18.8 15.1

L (W h day -1) 1182 1182 1182 1342 1342 1342 1342 1342 1342 1182 1182 1182

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

T h e p h o t o v o l t a i c m o d u l e s t o b e used in this a p p l i c a t i o n have t h e f o l l o w i n g characteristics: ~?R = 11% at TR = 25 C a n d GT = 1 kW m -2, ~ = 0 . 0 0 4 C -1 , N O C T = 45 C a n d ~d = 0.90. Since t h e n o m i n a l o p e r a t i o n v o l t a g e o f t h e s y s t e m has b e e n d e t e r m i n e d t o b e 2 4 V d.c., t h e i n c r e m e n t a l a r r a y step results in AA = 0 . 7 8 2 m 2 (i.e. t h e area o f t w o a d d i t i o n a l series modules). T h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e flat-plate b a t t e r y w h i c h is a s s u m e d t o b e used are ~?B = 0.80, D O D s = 0 . 8 0 , Bc = 0 . 0 3 a n d NA = 8 0 0 cycles. T h e e n e r g y efficiencies o f t h e s y s t e m c o m p o n e n t s are ~?w = 0.97, 7~T 0 . 9 5 , ~VR = 0 . 9 9 , ~C = 0.98. T h e c o s t values o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s a n d t h e e c o n o m i c p a r a m e t e r s w h i c h are presented in Table 4 are typical for Greece t o d a y (U.S$1 = 140 drch).
=

136
TABLE 4

Cost and e c o n o m i c a s s u m p t i o n s
Array cost Cc~ = 15 $ Wp - l Cb=200$k W 1h 1
C s = 0 . 9 $ Wp Cr = 850 $ Ce = 700 $

Battery cost Structure and f o u n d a t i o n c o s t V o l t a g e regulator cost Electrical system cost E c o n o m i c evaluation period General inflation rate Escalation rate for O & M D i s c o u n t rate

Y = 20 yrs g = 0,15 e 0 = 0.12 d = 0.17

mo

15 14 13 12 11 10 9
8 7 6 5

s=45

01[~I i
O- 3

~
...................... ..............................................................................................
.......... .......................................................................................................

LOEP

.W ~<
L,J k'--

10

~I, I ~.:'2' ....

".,.. ....

..........................

" ......................................................................

.~

'-

3 26,10-2 2
1

..

. . 0,1

7-/4 860 946 1032 ' 1204 1376 1548 1720 PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAYSIZE (Wp)

1892 ' 2064

Fig. 5. E f f e c t i v e battery capacity B e ( k W h ) v e r s u s P V a r r a y size A (Wp) w i t h U and L O E P as parameters for s = 45 .

The results of the proposed m e t h o d o l o g y for the above described r e m o t e h o u s e are s h o w n in Fig. 5 and Table 5 for tilt angle s = 45 , w h i c h was f o u n d t o result in t h e m o s t e c o n o m i c a l system. The p h o t o v o l t a i c array size A (Wp) is simply: A (Wp) = A (m 2) 1 0 0 0 17R The installed poration. effective (18)

results o f our m e t h o d o l o g y are n o w being compared w i t h a system o n the same island, Antikythira, b y the Greek Public Power CorThis system has an array o f A = 6 9 0 Wp, tilted at s = 45 and has battery capacity, Be = 7.7 kW h. Calculating the supply reliability

137 TABLE 5 The optimum system for different LOEP values

LOEP

0.2 s (deg) A (Wp) Be (kW h) LEC ($ kW-1 h-1) 45 860 4.6 7.9

0.1 45 860 5.9 8.0

0.01 45 946 7.9 9.2

0.001 45 860 14.2 9.3

of this system size, using our method and under the same assumptions mentioned above, we found LOEPM values greater than one for December and January, i.e. the installed system is likely to fail for a period of two consecutive months, something undesirable. Repeating LOEP calculations for the installed system with the assumption that the o u t p u t of the photovoltaic array is not degraded with time, i.e. ~d = 1, we found a value of the yearly LOEP of 0.24, which is translated to an outage probability of 7 days per year equally distributed between December and January. This value of 7 days per year is acceptable for such systems (taking into account that t h e y are installed on a location w i t h o u t electricity to date), but this value will increase substantially as degradation effects rise with time, resulting in unacceptable values, as we mentioned above for a degradation of only 10% 0?d = 0.90). For this reason, we believe, that it would have been more suitable to install a larger array from the beginning although having a smaller battery capacity as can be seen from Table 5. The very high LEC values (Table 5) reflect the high initial cost of photovoltaic systems in Greece, because of high import d u t y , t o d a y up to 70%, and also the large values of inflation and discount rates.

6. Discussion For the estimation of performance of the photovoltaic system, two simplified methods of calculating the m o n t h l y average array efficiency Re and the hourly utilizability dp have been used in this paper as discussed in Section 4. The use of these methods, the accuracy of which has been compared with detailed simulation programs using long-term historical data, secures an increased accuracy in energy flow calculations, especially taking into account the uncertainty in solar radiation data. Further, the use of an empirical correlation for the estimation of the battery capacity Be (eqn. {14)) is not critical, since it gives only an indicative value to create a series of candidate systems. This could be done also by varying Be in the range of, say, 2 to 30 daffy loads, although a much larger computing time is required.

138 In conclusion, the novel m e t h o d d e v e l o p e d in this paper to select t h e o p t i m u m size o f SAPV systems has the advantages o f all simplified m e t h o d s , i.e. use o f m o n t h l y average m e t e o r o l o g i c a l data, easily acquirable system p a r a m e t e r values and small calculation t i m e in a PC system. Moreover, it possesses the following characteristic advantages w h i c h in previous m e t h o d s are n o t usually t a k e n into a c c o u n t . (a) It uses the L O E P criterion, a w i d e l y used reliability c o n c e p t in p o w e r systems, having the advantage o f taking into a c c o u n t the cost vs. reliability t r a d e - o f f in system sizing. LOEP also provides a c o m m o n base f o r c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r systems e.g. a diesel generator. (b) It is applicable f o r a n y m o n t h l y average h o u r l y load profile. (c) By using the utilizability c o n c e p t , it raises t h e a c c u r a c y o f calculat i o n o f s y s t e m p e r f o r m a n c e , because it does n o t use t h e w r o n g a s s u m p t i o n t h a t all e n e r g y passes t h r o u g h the b a t t e r y . (d) It uses a m o d e l f o r t h e b a t t e r y lifetime based o n its average daily d e p t h o f discharge and t h e specific characteristics o f t h e t y p e o f b a t t e r y . (e) It uses as the e c o n o m i c criterion the life cycle cost m e t h o d o l o g y , w h i c h is m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r solar e n e r g y systems. Acknowledgment T h e a u t h o r s w o u l d like to t h a n k Dr. J. Milias-Argitis f o r m a n y f r u i t f u l discussions and his valuable assistance for t h e graphical p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the results. References 1 E. Hoover, SOLCEL-II: An improved photovoltaic system analysis program, Sandia National Laboratories Rep. SAND 79-1785, 1980 (Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM). 2 Solar Power Corporation, Solar Electric Generator Systems; Principles of operation and design concepts, 1979. 3 C. Soras and V. Makios, Feasible stand-alone photovoltaic systems in Greece, Proc. 5th Eur. Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conf, Athens, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983, p. 485. 4 M. Buresch, Photovoltaic Energy Systems; Design and Installation, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983. 5 PRC Energy Analysis Company, Solar photovoltaic applications seminar: design, installation and operation of small stand-alone photovoltaic power systems, U.S. DOE/CS/32522-T1, 1980 (Department of Energy, Washington, DC). 6 Monegon Ltd., Designing small photovoltaic power systems, No. M l l l , 1981. 7 D. L. Evans and F. T. C. Barrels, Battery sizing criteria for stand-alone photovoltaic power systems, AS/ISES, Philadelphia, PA, 1981. 8 L. Barra, S, Catalanotti, F. Fontana and F. Lavorante, An analytical method to determine the optimal size of a photovoltaic plant, Sol. Energy, 33 (1984) 509. 9 H. L. Macomber, J. B. Ruzek, F. A. Costello and staff of Bird Engineering, Photovoltaic Stand-Alone Systems: Preliminary Engineering Design Handbook, NASA CR-165352, (NASA Lewis Research Center), 1981.

10 P. Groumpos and G. Papageorgiou, An optimal sizing method for stand-alone photovoltaic power systems, Sol. Energy, 38 (1987) 341.

139 11 J. A. Duffie and W. A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, WileyInterscience, New York, 1980. 12 D. L. Evans, Simplified method for predicting photovoltaic array output, Sol. Energy, 27 (1981) 555. 13 D. R. Clark, S. A. Klein and W. A. Beckman, Algorithm for evaluating the hourly radiation utilizability function, J. Sol. Energy Eng., 105 (1983) 281. 14 B. Bartoli, U. Coscia, V. Cuomo, F. Fontana and V. Silvestrini, Statistical approach to long-term performances of photovoltaic systems, Rev. Phys. Appl., 18 (1983) 281. 15 R. Billinton, Power System Reliability Evaluation, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1970.

Appendix A: Calculation of ~ [A1] The calculation of the monthly average daily photovoltaic array efficiency ~e is executed using the formula
a +T~+3 ~, = ~Ta 1 - - /3(h(/~T)F UL where (C -1) 1 - - ~72/7~1 Tc~ - - Tel ~71,772 are t w o array efficiencies at t h e corresponding cell temperatures T c,, Tc: under the same i n d o l a t i o n value h(/~T) (kW m -z) = 0 . 2 1 9 + 0.832/~T F is a correction factor for n o n - o p t i m u m tilted arrays: F = 1 -- 1.17 10 -4 (Sopt - - s ) 2 (A4) (A3) (A2) - - TR)]

(A1)

The o p t i m u m array tilt Sopt, for each m o n t h as a f u n c t i o n o f latitude is given in Table A 1 . The ratio o f thermal loss coefficient U L (kW m -2 C-I)
TABLE A1 Monthly optimum tilt angles

Month
January February March April May June July August September October November December

Sopt (deg) ~b+ 29 ~b+ 18 ~b+ 3 ~ b - 10 ~ -- 22 ~b-- 25 ~ b - 24 ~ b - 10 - 2 + 10 ~b+ 23 + 30

140

to solar cell a b s o r b a n c e a can be e s t i m a t e d f r o m t h e installed n o m i n a l o p e r a t i n g cell t e m p e r a t u r e (INOCT) which is d e t e r m i n e d f r o m the N O C T test d a t a and the w a y t h e array is installed, f r o m the following e q u a t i o n :
UL
-

GT,NOCT
(A5)

( I N O C T -- T~,NOCT)

T h e values o f solar r a d i a t i o n GT, NOGT and a m b i e n t t e m p e r a t u r e Tc~,NOCw are k n o w n f r o m the N O C T test, while for r a c k - m o u n t e d arrays I N O C T = N O C T - - 2 [A2].
References for Appendix A

A1 D. L. Evans, Simplified method for predicting photovoltaic array output, Sol. Energy, 27 (1981) 555. A2 M. Fuentes, Thermal characterization of flat-plate photovoltaic arrays, Proc. 18th IEEE Specialists Conf., 203 (1985).

A p p e n d i x B: Calculation o f ~ [B1] T h e m o n t h l y average h o u r l y utilizability 4p is calculated f r o m the equation: if X c ~ X m or=

i
%

(1--XdXm) 2

ifXm = 2 otherwise

(B1)

( I ] ~ ] -- {~2 + (1 + 2 a ) ( 1 - - X e / X m ) 2 ) I / 2 [ where
o~ = ( X m - - 1)/(2 -- Xm)

(B2)

X m is a dimensionless variable d e f i n e d as X m = 1.85 + 0.169/~/k 2 -- 0 . 0 6 9 6 ( c o s

S)/k 2 --

0 . 9 8 1 k / ( c o s 5) 2

(B3)

/~ is the ratio o f t h e m o n t h l y average h o u r l y insolation o n t h e tilted array to t h a t o n a h o r i z o n t a l surface

R = Iw/I

(B4)

is t h e m o n t h l y average h o u r l y clearness i n d e x
k = I/I o

(B5)

5 is t h e d e c l i n a t i o n o f t h e sun and X c is t h e dimensionless critical h o u r l y r a d i a t i o n level

Xe = f c / i T

(B6)

w h e r e i c is t h e h o u r l y critical r a d i a t i o n level at w h i c h the h o u r l y e n e r g y p r o d u c t i o n is equal to t h e h o u r l y load

141

References for Appendix B

Bl D. R. Clark, S. A. Klein and W. A. Beckman, Algorithm for evaluating the hourly radiation utilizability function, J. Sol. Energy Eng., 105 (1983) 281.

Appendix

C: Calculation

of photovoltaic

system economics

The life cycle cost LCC of a photovoltaic system consists of three items: the initial capital investment Cr, the present value of operation and maintenance costs OM,.,. and the present value of battery replacement costs R p.v. [Cl1 LCC = Cr + OM,.,. + R,.,. is a function of the operation and maintenance 0%. first year of operation OM, and the economic environment: (Cl) cost during the

(3 0Mp.v. =
OM,Y where OM, is assumed to be [C2] : OM, = O.Ol(AC, + B,C,,) (C3) ifd=eO

R P.v. is mainly a function of the number of battery replacements II, over the system life and, assuming no salvage value of the replaced batteries, is given by R P.V. u 1 +g
=B& z j=l -

vilv+l I (C4)

i l+d

The battery life N, (cycles) in real operation is dominated by the daily depth of discharge DODd and depends on the specific battery characteristics, i.e. average life NA (cycles) at a specified DOD,, (usually in laboratory tests DOD,, = 0.8) and value of the battery coefficient B,, which for flat-plate batteries lies in the range 0.02 - 0.03 and for tubular batteries from 0.01 to 0.02 [C3]: N, = 0.5NA exp{-B,lOO(DODd where - DODo)} (C5)

142 T h e n , v is c o m p u t e d as
v = INT{Y/(NR/365))

(C7)

T h e levelized e n e r g y cost f r o m t h e p h o t o v o l t a i c s y s t e m is t h e n LCC C R F LEC 12 M=I (C8)

E Nd/

w h e r e Nd is t h e n u m b e r o f d a y s per m o n t h a n d C R F the capital r e c o v e r y f a c t o r given b y C R F = d / { 1 - - (1 + d) - y } (C9)

References for Appendix C c1 H. L. Macomber, J. B. Ruzek, F. A. Costello and staff of Bird Engineering, Photovoltaic Stand-Alone Systems: Preliminary Engineering Design Handbook, N A S A CR-165352, (NASA Lewis Research Center), 1981. C2 PRC Energy Analysis Company, Solar photovoltaic applications seminar: design, installation and operation of small stand-alone photovoltaic power systems, U.S. DOE/CS/32522-T1, 1980 (Department of Energy, Washington, DC). C3 L. Thione, R. Buccianti, L. Dellera and P. Ostano, A contribution to the assessment of specific problems of large photovoltaic generation plants in view of the improvement of their reliability, CESIoMilano, EEC Contr. No. ESC.P.052.I(S), 1984.