Marmara University: Institute For Graduate Studies in Pure and Applied Sciences

MARMARA UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE FOR GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PURE AND APPLIED SCIENCES
EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
OF SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PLANTS WHICH WERE BUILT
UNDER DIFFERENT CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND
FEED-IN TARIFF ZONES
DENİZ CURA
MASTER THESIS
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Thesis Supervisor
Assistant Professor Mustafa YILMAZ
ISTANBUL, 2015
MARMARA UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE FOR GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PURE AND APPLIED SCIENCES
EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
OF SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PLANTS WHICH WERE BUILT
UNDER DIFFERENT CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND
FEED-IN TARIFF ZONES
DENİZ CURA
(524612021)
MASTER THESIS
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Thesis Supervisor
Assistant Professor Mustafa YILMAZ
ISTANBUL, 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my supervisor Assistant Professor Mustafa YILMAZ for his
valuable guidance, encouragement and support.
I also wish to express my love and gratitude to my beloved family; for their
understanding, support and endless love, through the duration my studies.
April, 2015 Deniz Cura
i
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................i
CONTENTS..........................................................................................................................ii
ÖZET .................................................................................................................................. vi
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ vii
SYMBOLS......................................................................................................................... viii
ABBREVATIONS .................................................................................................................. x
FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ xi
TABLES ............................................................................................................................ xvi
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 World Energy Consumption .................................................................................... 3
1.2 Energy Consumption in Turkey ............................................................................... 5
1.3 Energy Consumption in Greece ............................................................................ 10
1.4 Renewable Energy ................................................................................................ 12
1.5 Renewable Energy Sources ................................................................................... 13
1.5.1 Biomass .......................................................................................................... 14
1.5.2 Wind ............................................................................................................... 14
1.5.3 Hydropower ................................................................................................... 15
1.5.4 Geothermal .................................................................................................... 15
1.5.5 Solar energy ................................................................................................... 16
1.6 World Solar Energy Review................................................................................... 18
1.6.1 World solar power capacity ........................................................................... 19
1.6.2 Investments in solar energy ........................................................................... 20
1.6.3 New additions in solar PV .............................................................................. 21
1.6.4 Electricity generation by solar energy ........................................................... 23
1.6.5 Support mechanism on solar and FIT in the world ........................................ 24
1.7 Solar Energy Review in Turkey .............................................................................. 27
1.7.1 Solar electricity in Turkey ............................................................................... 29
1.7.2 Support mechanism on solar and FIT in Turkey ............................................. 30
1.8 Solar Electricity ..................................................................................................... 32
ii
1.8.1 Concentrating solar power............................................................................. 33
1.8.2 Photovoltaic ................................................................................................... 33
1.8.3 Production of solar Cell .................................................................................. 34
1.8.4 Structure of solar module .............................................................................. 35
1.9 Types of Solar Cells ............................................................................................... 36
1.9.1 First generation solar cells ............................................................................. 37
1.9.1.1 Monocrystalline....................................................................................... 37
1.9.1.2 Polycrystalline ......................................................................................... 37
1.9.2 Second generation solar cells ........................................................................ 38
1.9.2.1 Amorphous silicon ................................................................................... 38
1.9.2.2 Cadmium telluride ................................................................................... 39
1.9.2.3 Copper indium gallium selenide .............................................................. 40
1.9.3 Third generation solar cells ............................................................................ 40
1.9.3.1 Concentrating PV (CPV) ........................................................................... 40
1.9.3.2 Dye-Sensitized solar cells ........................................................................ 41
1.9.3.3 Organic solar cells.................................................................................... 42
1.10 Market Share of PV types ................................................................................... 44
1.11 PV Systems .......................................................................................................... 45
1.11.1 Stand-alone PV system................................................................................. 45
1.11.2 Grid connected PV system ........................................................................... 45
1.11.3 Hybrid PV system ......................................................................................... 46
1.11.4 PV system equipment .................................................................................. 47
1.12 Factors Affecting PV Performance ...................................................................... 48
1.12.1 PV technology .............................................................................................. 48
1.12.2 Environmental conditions ............................................................................ 49
1.12.2.1 Cell temperature ................................................................................... 49
1.12.2.2 Incident Irradiance ................................................................................ 51
1.12.2.3 Module orientation ............................................................................... 52
1.12.2.4 Latitude.................................................................................................. 53
1.12.2.5 Wind ...................................................................................................... 54
1.12.2.6 Shading .................................................................................................. 54
iii
1.12.2.7 Soiling .................................................................................................... 55
1.12.2.8 Albedo ................................................................................................... 56
2. MATERIAL AND METHOD .......................................................................................... 57
2.1 Solar Radiation Models ......................................................................................... 58
2.1.1 Liu and Jordan model ..................................................................................... 59
2.1.2 Hay and Davies model .................................................................................... 59
2.1.3 Perez model ................................................................................................... 60
2.2 Calculation of Solar Energy on PV modules .......................................................... 63
2.2.1 Calculation of monthly average daily total radiation on sloped surface ....... 65
2.2.2 Calculation of monthly average hourly total radiation on sloped surface .... 68
2.2.3 Calculation of total electricity production ..................................................... 72
2.2.4 Performance parameters of PV system ......................................................... 76
2.3 Test methods of accuracy of models .................................................................... 77
2.3.1 Mean bias error .............................................................................................. 77
2.3.2 Root mean square error ................................................................................. 78
2.3.3 Percentage error ............................................................................................ 78
2.4 Economic analysis methods .................................................................................. 78
2.4.1 Net Present Value .......................................................................................... 78
2.4.2 Internal rate of return .................................................................................... 79
2.4.3 Payback period ............................................................................................... 79
2.5 Calculation Tool for Energy Calculations .............................................................. 80
2. 6.Technical Information about PV Plants ............................................................... 93
2.6.1. Greece Plant .................................................................................................. 93
2.6.2. Turkey Plant .................................................................................................. 96
2.7. Case Studies of Energy Calculations .................................................................. 100
2.7.1. Case 1 .......................................................................................................... 100
2.7.2. Case 2 .......................................................................................................... 100
2.7.3. Case 3 .......................................................................................................... 101
2.7.4. Case 4 .......................................................................................................... 101
2.8. Case Studies of Economic Analysis .................................................................... 102
2.8.1 Case A ........................................................................................................... 102
iv
2.8.2 Case B ........................................................................................................... 103
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 104
3.1 Energy Calculations for Selected Plants.............................................................. 104
3.2. Case 1 Results .................................................................................................... 104
3.2.1 Case 1- Kastoria ............................................................................................ 104
3.2.2 Case 1- Kocaeli ............................................................................................. 111
3.2.3 Comparison of plants for case 1 .................................................................. 119
3.3. Case 2 Results .................................................................................................... 120
3.3.1 Case 2- Kastoria ............................................................................................ 120
3.3.2. Case 2 - Kocaeli............................................................................................ 121
3.4. Case 3 Results .................................................................................................... 123
3.4.1 Case 3 – Kastoria .......................................................................................... 123
3.4.2 Case 3 - Kocaeli............................................................................................. 124
3.5 Case 4 Results ..................................................................................................... 126
3.5.1 Case 4 - Kastoria ........................................................................................... 126
3.5.2 Case 4 – Kocaeli ............................................................................................ 128
3.6 Economic Analysis ............................................................................................... 132
3.6.1 Case A ........................................................................................................... 132
3.6.2 Case B ........................................................................................................... 134
4. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 136
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 138
v
ÖZET
FARKLI İKLİM ŞARTLARI VE TARİFE BÖLGELERİNDE KURULMUŞ

OLAN FOTOVOLTAİK GÜNEŞ SANTRALLERİNİN TEKNİK VE
EKONOMİK OLARAK İNCELENMESİ
Fotovoltaik güneş santrallerinin kurulu güç kapasitesi, pahalı donanım maliyetlerinin

azalması, artan devlet destek politikaları ve fosil yakıtların neden olduğu çevresel
sorunlara karşı artan bilinç sayesinde dünya genelinde günden güne artmaktadır. Diğer
yandan, fotovoltaik güneş santrallerinin gerçek hava koşulları altındaki enerji üretiminin
hesaplanması araştırmacılar için olduğu kadar yatırımcılar için de önem arz etmektedir.
Bu bağlamda; Biri Yunanistan’ın Kastoria ilinde bulunan 500 kW gücünde, saha
kurulum tipine sahip, bir diğeri ise Türkiye’nin Kocaeli ilinde bulunan, 110 kW
gücünde, çatı kurulum tipine sahip, çoklu kristal teknolojisine dayalı iki fotovoltaik
güneş santralinin teknik ve ekonomik incelemesi yapılmıştır. Fotovoltaik kurulumların
gerçek üretim değerleri, üç farklı güneş ışıma modeli (Liu & Jordan, Hay & Davies,
Perez), ve iki farklı meteorolojik veri tabanı (PVGIS-CMSAF, NASA-SSE) kullanılarak
PVSYST programından elde edilen sonuçlar ile bazı istatiksel test yöntemleri (ortalama
karekök hatası, ortalama sapma hatası, yüzde hata) kullanılarak karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu
konuların yanı sıra, fotovoltaik santrallerin PVSYST ile modellenmesi, eğimli
yüzeylerdeki toplam güneş ışıması hesabı, enerji üretim hesapları ve fotovoltaik çalışma
performansını etkileyen faktörlere de değinilmiştir. Enerji hesaplamalarının yanı sıra
kısa bir ekonomik analize de yer verilmiştir.
vi
ABSTRACT
EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF

SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PLANTS WHICH WERE BUILT UNDER
DIFFERENT CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND FEED-IN TARIFF ZONES
Installed capacity of solar photovoltaic plants has increased globally day by day due to
decreasing costs of expensive equipment, increasing support mechanisms of
governments and increasing awareness of environmental problems caused by fossil
fuels. On the other hand calculation of energy production of solar photovoltaic plants
under real weather conditions is not only important for researchers but also for
investors. So in this context, this study presents a technical and economic evaluation of
multi-crystalline based two solar photovoltaic plants as; 500kW ground-mounted
installation in Kastoria, Greece and 110kW roof-mounted installation in Kocaeli,
Turkey. Actual energy production values are compared with results of estimations from
PVSYST software by using three solar radiation models (Liu & Jordan, Hay & Davies
and Perez) and two meteorological databases (NASA-SSE and PVGIS-CMSAF) in
terms of some statistical test results (Root mean square error, mean bias error and
percentage error). Beyond these topics, modeling of a photovoltaic plant by PVSYST
software, estimation of total solar irradiation on tilted surfaces, total energy output
methods and the factors that affect photovoltaic performance are also mentioned. As
well as energy calculations, a brief economic analysis is also given.
vii
SYMBOLS
: Latitude
: Declination Angle
: Slope
: Surface Azimuth Angle
: Hour Angle
: Sunset hour angle
: Angle of Incidence
: Zenith Angle
: Solar Altitude Angle
: Solar Azimuth Angle
: Reflectance coefficient
m : Air mass
n : Day of the year
: Anisotropy index
F1 : Circumsolar coefficient
F2 : Horizontal brightness coefficient
̅̅̅̅ : Monthly average daily total radiation on tilted surface
̅̅̅ : Monthly average daily total radiation on a horizontal surface
̅̅̅̅ : Monthly average daily diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface
̅̅̅̅ : Monthly mean daily extraterrestrial radiation on a horizontal
surface
H : Daily total radiation
̅̅̅̅ : The ratio of the average daily beam radiation on the tilted surface to that
on a horizontal surface for the month
: The ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on horizontal
surface
: Hourly total radiation on tilted surface
: Hourly beam radiation on horizontal
: Hourly diffuse radiation on horizontal
: Hourly total radiation on horizontal
: Hourly extraterrestrial irradiance,
viii
̅ : Monthly average hourly radiation on tilted surface
: Ratio of total radiation in an hour to total in a day
: Ratio of hourly diffuse radiation to daily diffuse radiation
: Solar Constant
̅̅̅̅ : Monthly average clearness index, the ratio of monthly average
daily radiation on a horizontal surface to the monthly average daily
extraterrestrial radiation
: Module area
̅̅̅ : The monthly average array electrical energy output
: Inverter efficiency
: Monthly average array efficiency
: PV energy absorption rate
: Maximum power point efficiency, measured at reference
conditions
: The efficiency of any power conditioning equipment
: Temperature coefficient of maximum power point efficiency of the array
: Ambient temperature
: Cell temperature
: Cell temperature under STC
: Nominal operating cell temperature
: Maximum power point efficiency of module
: Maximum current at maximum power point
: Maximum voltage at maximum power point
: Incident solar radiation at nominal operating temperature

conditions
: Solar radiation under NOCT
: Transmittance of any cover that may be over the cells
: Fraction of the radiation incident on the surface of the cells that is

absorbed
: Collector overall heat loss coefficient
ix
ABBREVATIONS
BTU : British Thermal Unit

GW : Gigawatt
MTOE : Million Tons of Oil Equivalent
NOCT : Nominal Operating Cell Temperature
STC : Standard Test Conditions
RMSE : Root Mean Square Error
MBE : Mean Bias Error
PV : Photovoltaic
CSP : Concentrating Solar Power
CIGS : Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide
CIS : Copper-Indium-Selenide
OPV : Organic Photovoltaic
IAM : Array incidence loss
DC : Direct Current
AC : Alternative Current
EU : European Union
US : United States
OECD : Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
EIA : Energy Information Administration
IEA : International Energy Agency
REN21 : the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century
BP : British Petroleum
GEA : Geothermal Energy Association
NASA : National Aeronautics and Space Administration
BC : Before Christ
IRENA : International Renewable Energy Agency
VAT : Value added tax
AWEA : American Wind Energy Association
EVA : Ethylene vinyl Acetate
LNG : Liquefied Natural Gas
x
FIGURES
Figure 1.1 World Energy Consumption in 2013…………………………………..……3
Figure 1.2 World Energy Consumption by Sector in 2012……………………………..4
Figure 1.3 World Energy Consumption Projections ………………………………..….4
Figure 1.4 World Electricity Production by Source in 2012………………………..…..5
Figure 1.5 Primary Energy Consumption of Turkey in the period of 1990-2013……...6
Figure 1.6 Energy Consumption of Turkey by source in 2013…………………….......7
Figure 1.7 Electricity Consumption and Production in Turkey (2003-2013)………......8
Figure 1.8 Electricity Production by Source in the period of 2003 – 2013……….........9
Figure 1.9 Electricity Energy Review of Turkey in 2013………………………...…….9
Figure 1.10 Installed Power Capacity of Turkey in 2013……………………………...10
Figure 1.11 Primary Energy Consumption of Greece in the period of 1990-2013……11
Figure 1.12 Energy Consumption of Greece by source in 2013……………………....11
Figure 1.13 Electricity Production of Greece by source in 2010 ……………………..12
Figure 1.14 World Consumption of Renewable Energy Projection through 2040……13
Figure 1.15 The Global Annual Mean Earth’s Energy Budget for March 2000 to May
2004……………………………………………………………………………….…....17
Figure 1.16 World Map of Global Horizontal Irradiation…………………………….18
Figure 1.17 Total New Investment in Solar Power…………………………………...21
Figure 1.18 Solar PV Total Global Capacity (2000-2013)……………………………22
Figure 1.19 Renewable Energy Share of Global Electricity Production in 2012……..24
Figure 1.20 Solar Radiation Map of Turkey…………………………………………..27
xi
Figure 1.21 Regions of Turkey according to incentive plan…………………………..30
Figure 1.22 CSP working scheme (Parabolic Trough) ………………………………..33
Figure 1.23 Solar Cell……………………………………………………………….....33
Figure 1.24 Solar Cell Working Principal …………………………………………….34
Figure 1.25 Solar Cell Production Process…………………………………………….35
Figure 1.26 General Structure of a PV Module………………………………………..36
Figure 1.27 Monocrystalline Solar Cell ……………………………………………….37
Figure 1.28 Polycrystalline Solar Cell………………………………………………....38
Figure 1.29 Amorphous Silicon Cell. …………………………………………………39
Figure 1.30 Cd-Te Thin Film…………………………………………………………..39
Figure 1.31 CIGS Cell ………………………………………………………………..40
Figure 1.32 CPV System………………………………………………………………41
Figure 1.33 Working Principle of Dye-sensitized Solar Cell………………………….42
Figure 1.34 Organic Solar Cells……………………………………………………….43
Figure 1.35 Development of Laboratory Solar Cell Efficiencies……………………..43
Figure 1.36 PV Market Share by Technology in 2013………………………………..44
Figure 1.37 Main Equipment of Stand-alone PV system……………………………..45
Figure 1.38 Main Equipment of Grid Connected PV System………………………..46
Figure 1.39 Main Equipment of Stand Alone Hybrid PV System…………………...46
Figure 1.40 Temperature Dependency of a Solar Cell………………………………..49
Figure 1.41 Incident Solar Cell Dependency of a Solar Cell…………………………51
Figure 1.42 Tilted PV array…………………………………………………………...53
xii
Figure 1.43 Monthly Values of Available Insolation of Different Latitudes………...53
Figure 1.44 Shade of tree on PV array………………………………...……………...55
Figure 1.45 Dust layer accumulation on PV modules………………………………...55
Figure 2.1 Beam, isotropic diffuse, circumsolar diffuse, horizon brightening, and
ground reflected radiation on a tilted surface………………………………………….58
Figure 2.2 Solar Angles……………………………………………………………….63
Figure 2.3 PVsyst main page…………………………………………………..……...81
Figure 2.4 New Project Screen …………………………………………………….....81
Figure 2.5 Project and Simulation Version Definitions Screen………….……….…..82
Figure 2.6 Meteorological Data Screen …………………………………….………..83
Figure 2.7 Geographical Site Parameters: Monthly Meteo Screen …………….……83
Figure 2.8 Geographical Site Parameters: Geographical Coordinates Screen……….84
Figure 2.9 Tools Screen……………………………………………………………....84
Figure 2.10 Definition of a PV module Screen……………………………….……...85
Figure 2.11 Grid Inverter Definitions Screens…………………………………….…85
Figure 2.12 Albedo Values Screen………………………………….………….……86
Figure 2.13 PV Module Orientation Screen……………………….…………...……86
Figure 2.14 Horizon for Far Shading Screen………………………………………...87
Figure 2.15 System Definition Screen…………………………………………….…88
Figure 2.16 Detailed Losses Screen…………………………………………….……88
Figure 2.17 Near Shadings Screen…………………………………………………...89
Figure 2.18 A sample of 3D model…………………………………………………..89
xiii
Figure 2.19 Simulation Screen……………………………………………………….90
Figure 2.20 Main Results Screen…………………………………………………….91
Figure 2.21 Simulation Results Monthly Tables Screen…………………...….…….92
Figure 2.22 Simulation Results Graphs Screen……………………………………...92
Figure 2.23 Economic Evaluation Screen…………………………………………...92
Figure 2.24 Monthly Average Global Irradiations of Kastoria……………………...94
Figure 2.25 Monthly Average Ambient Temperature Values of Kastoria…………..94
Figure 2.26 Monthly Average Global Irradiations of Kocaeli……………………....97
Figure 2.27 Monthly Average Temperature Values of Kocaeli………………...…...98
Figure 3.1 Performance Ratio Values of Kastoria plant by months (Hay model)…106
Figure 3.2 Normalized Productions of Kastoria Plant (Hay model)……………...107
Figure 3.3 Loss Diagram over the Whole Year of Kastoria Plant (Hay model)…108
Figure 3.4.Whole Year Loss Diagram Comparison of Hay-Davies and Perez models of
Kastoria……………………………………………………………………………..109
Figure 3.5 Actual vs Estimated Energy Production of Kastoria Plant for Case1….110
Figure 3.6 Performance Ratio Values of Kocaeli by months (Hay Model)……….113
Figure 3.7 Normalized Productions of Kocaeli Plant (Hay model) ……………....114
Figure 3.8 Loss Diagram over the Whole Year of Kocaeli Plant (Hay Model)…...115
Figure 3.9 Whole year Loss Diagram Comparison of Hay-Davies and Perez models of
Kocaeli……………………………………………………………………………...116
Figure 3.10 Actual vs Estimated Energy Production of Kocaeli Plant for Case1…117
xiv
Figure 3.11 Comparison of Monthly Energy Production of Kastoria with different
meteorological databases……………………………………………………………..127
Figure 3.12 Comparison of Monthly Energy Production of Kocaeli with different

meteorological databases………………………………………………………….….130
Figure 3.13 Payback Period of Kocaeli for Case A………………………………….132
Figure 3.14 Payback Period of Kastoria for Case A…………………………...…….133
Figure 3.15 Payback Period of Kocaeli for Case B………………………………….134
xv
TABLES
Table 1.1 Electricity Production by Source in the Period of 2012-2014……….………8
Table 1.2 World Total Solar Energy Share by Solar Technology…..............................19
Table 1.3 Top Five Countries of New Investments in Solar Energy……………….....23
Table 1.4 Solar PV Global Capacity and Additions……………………….………….28
Table 1.5 World Electricity Production by Solar……………………………………...24
Table 1.6 Solar PV Feed-in Tariff Levels of EU countries in 2009…………………...25
Table 1.7 Monthly Average Solar Potential of Turkey………………………………..27
Table 1.8 Regional Distribution of Solar Energy in Turkey…………………………..28
Table 1.9 Support Measures for Regional and Large Scale Investments in Turkey…..31
Table 1.10 Feed in Tariff and Local Bonus for Solar…………………………………32
Table 1.11 Approximate Temperature Coefficients of Different Types of Solar Cells.50
Table 1.12 Typical Albedo Values of Different Surface………..…………………….56
Table 2.1 Brightness Coefficients of Perez Anisotropic Model………………………61
Table 2.2 Recommended Average Days of Months…………………………………..67
Table 2.3 Geographical Data of Kastoria……………………………………………..93
Table 2.4 Technical Properties of Kastoria Plant…………………………………......95
Table 2.5 PV Module Specifications of Kastoria Plant……………………………….95
Table 2.6 Inverter Specifications of Kastoria Plant ...………………………………...96
Table 2.7 Geographical Data of Kocaeli……………………………………………...96
Table 2.8 Technical Properties of Kocaeli Plant……………………………………...98
Table 2.9 PV Module Specifications of Kocaeli Plant ……………………………….99
Table 2.10 Inverter Specifications of Kocaeli Plant ………………………………….99
xvi
Table 2.11 Assumptions of Economic Analysis………………………………….....102
Table 3.1 Main Results of Kastoria (Hay Model)…………………………………..104
Table 3.2 Balances and Main Results of Kastoria (Hay Model)………………..…105
Table 3.3 Comparison of Energy Production of Kastoria for Case 1………………110
Table 3.4 Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 1…………………………...111
Table 3.5 Main Results of Kocaeli (Hay Model)………………………………..…...111
Table 3.6 Balances and Main Results of Kocaeli (Hay Model)………..………..….112
Table 3.7 Comparison of Energy Production of Kocaeli for Case 1…………….....118
Table 3.8 Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 1…….………………….…..118
Table 3.9 Main Simulation Results of Kastoria and Kocaeli plants………………..119
Table 3.10 Losses Table of Kastoria and Kocaeli plants…………………………...119
Table 3.11 Comparison of Energy Production of Kastoria for Case 2…………..…120
Table 3.12 Short Term Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 2…………….120
Table 3.13 Long Term Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 2…………........121
Table 3.14 Comparison of Energy Production of Kocaeli for Case 2……………...121
Table 3.15 Short Term Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 2………….......122
Table 3.16 Long Term Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 2………….…..122
Table 3.17 Comparison of Energy Production of Kastoria for Case 3…………......123
Table 3.18 Short Term Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 3……..………123
Table 3.19 Long Term Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 3…………..…124
Table 3.20 Comparison of Energy Production of Kocaeli for Case 3…………..…..124
Table 3.21 Short Term Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 3……………....125
xvii
Table 3.22 Long Term Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 3……………....125
Table 3.23 Comparison of Different Databases of Kastoria………………………...126
Table 3.24 Comparison of Energy Production of Kastoria for Case 4……………....127
Table 3.25 Short Term Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 4……………...128
Table 3.26 Long Term Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 4…………...…128
Table 3.27 Comparison of Different Databases of Kocaeli, Turkey…………...…....129
Table 3.28 Comparison of Energy Production of Kocaeli for Case 4………..….…..129
Table 3.29 Short Term Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 4………………131
Table 3.30 Long Term Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 4………………131
Table 3.31 Comparison of two plants for Case A……………………….…………...133
Table 3.32 Comparison of Case A and Case B for Kocaeli………………………....134
Table 3.33 Comparison of two plants for Case B...…………………………………135
xviii
1. INTRODUCTION
Global energy consumption of the world has been increasing day by day due to
the rapid industrialization and developments. At today’s world these increasing energy
consumption is mostly met from conventional energy sources such as coal, gas, oil
which are unsustainable sources as well. However, it is well known fact large scale of
consumption of fossil fuels, come out depleting of their reserves in the future and
damages the environment. Accordingly causes global warming and climate change.
(BP, 2014a)
The Kyoto protocol is the only one international environment protocol that aims
to reduce green gas emissions in terms of global warming and climate change with
participating lots of leading countries. So reducing consumption of fossil fuels is seen
one of the solutions. (Kyoto Protocol, 2014) In addition energy crisis triggered countries
to search alternative energy forms and realize the importance of energy efficiencies. In
this context, renewables which are both sustainable and environment friendly energy
sources can play an important role to remove all these obstacles for a better world to
live.
Among the renewables, solar energy is one of the leading, sustainable energy
sources nowadays. Rapid evolution of the solar technology provides not only increase
efficiencies but also decrease the costs that make the access of solar energy more
available. With parallel to these, governments develop support mechanisms and energy
targets to take the attention of investors and consumers on solar energy more. In
addition the concerns over the energy security and pollution are also the reasons of the
shift to solar. Due to the reasons mentioned above, using of solar energy across the
globe has been rapidly increasing. (REN21, 2014)
However Turkey has an advantageous geographical position in regard to solar

energy. In reference to data released by General Directorate of Renewable Energy; in
Turkey the annual total insolation duration is 2640 hours (7.2 hours/day) and the
average annual solar irradiation is 1311 kWh/m2-year. (General Directorate of
Renewable Energy, 2014)
1
So this non-negligible potential of solar energy, leads the scientists to work on
obtaining the best performance on producing electricity by photovoltaic (PV). Although
solar energy costs have been decreasing and support mechanisms have increasing, solar
energy is still expensive to invest easily. So in this context accuracy of PV power output
prediction under real weather conditions has also become an important subject not only
for designers but also for investors.
Solar energy calculations need solar irradiation and temperature data which are
often obtained from solar measurements stations. But sometimes this data loses its
accuracy due to the distances from the measurement station and photovoltaic
installation project site. (Lee, Yoo, & Levermore, 2012) If measured values at project
site don’t exist to obtain better results, several measurement databases might be used.
Thus evaluating of the accuracy of these databases for certain locations is one of the
aims of this study.
On the other hand these measurements are mostly performed on horizontal plane
while most of the solar PV systems are tilted. So these data obviously isn’t adequate for
estimations on tilted planes. In this context, several researchers derived models to
estimate the total solar irradiation on inclined planes by using the data from
measurements on horizontal (Notton, Poggi, & Cristofari, 2005) In this study three of
these models are evaluated in terms of their accuracy for chosen locations and under the
given assumptions. As well as solar radiation models and meteorological databases, the
factors that affect PV performance and comparison of actual electricity productions
from real solar PV plants and the results from estimations are conducted in this study.
Alongside energy calculations, a brief economic analysis is also presented.
2
1.1 World Energy Consumption
Global primary energy consumption rate of growth was 2.3% in 2013 and this
increase was 1.8 % during the 2012. However it is seen that the global growth in 2013
still remains below the 10-year average of 2.5 %. All fuels except oil, nuclear power and
renewables in power generation grew below the average rates. Although oil continued
to lose its market share, as shown in Figure 1.1, it still remains the heading fuel of the
world by the rate of 33.0 % of global energy consumption. It was noted that emerging
economies contributes by 80% of increasing on global consumption, though their
growth was below average 3.1%. Consumption of OECD countries rose by an above-
average 1.2%. Growth of US (+2.9 %) caused the increasing of consumption of OECD
countries and also decreasing of EU by 0.3% and Japan by 0.6%. In addition the largest
volumetric decline in energy consumption by 5% was recorded in Spain. (BP, 2014a)
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is a well-known fact that the
energy need of humankind is continuously increasing. Actually one can say that it is
inevitable that as a country wants to be more industrialized, its energy demands must
increase proportionally. When we analyze the total energy consumption of the world by
sector in Figure 1.2, it is seen that the impact of industrial activities by %51.7 of total
energy consumption. Transportation, residence and commercial consumption rates are
26.6 %, 13.9 %, and 7.8 % respectively. (IEA, 2012)
4 % Nuclear 9%
Renewables
33 % Oil
30 % Coal
24 % Natural
Gas
Figure 1.1 World Energy Consumption in 2013

Source: (BP, 2014a)
3
7,8%
Industrial 51.7%
13,9% Transportation
26.6%
51,7% Residence 13.9%

26,6%
Commercial 7.8 %
Figure 1.2 World Energy Consumption by Sector in 2012

Source: (EIA, 2013)
International Energy Outlook 2013, projects that world energy consumption will
grow by 56% between 2010 and 2040. Total world energy consumption rises from 524
quadrillion British thermal unit (Btu) in 2010 to 630 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 820
quadrillion Btu in 2040 as given in Figure 1.3. (EIA, 2013)
900
800
700
600
Quadrillion BTU
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Years
Figure 1.3 World Energy Consumption Projections
Source: (EIA, 2013)
4
In reference to IEA Key World Energy Statics 2014, world total electricity
production was 22.668 TWh in 2012. As seen in Figure 1.4, coal accounts for 40% of
total world electricity production and then natural gas, hydro, nuclear, oil and others
(geothermal, solar, wind, heat etc.) follow the coal by 24%, 16%, 11%, 5%, 5%
respectively. (IEA, 2014)
Other
Nuclear 5%
11%
Coal
40%
Hydro
16%
natural
Gas
24%
Oil
5%
Figure 1.4 World Electricity Production by Source in 2012

Source: (IEA, 2014)
1.2 Energy Consumption in Turkey
The economy of Turkey was one the fastest growing economies of the world
between 2010 and 2011 by 8% for per year. Due to this economic growth, its energy
demands increased and it is expected this growth will continue in the future. More
importantly being a transit energy hub and a growing consumer explains the reason why
Turkey has an importance in the world energy market. In reference to Energy
Information Administration (EIA), energy consumption of Turkey will continue
growing annually by 4.5% from 2015 to 2030. This kind of growth needs significant
investments in energy sector however most of the investments will come from private
sector. Turkey has limited domestic reserves so imports nearly all of its oil and natural
gas. Turkey is not only a big market for energy suppliers but also important transit point
for oil and natural gas suppliers movement from Russia, Caspian region and the Middle
5
East to Europe. Although Turkey meets most of its electricity from fossil fuels,
government plans to replace some of this generation with nuclear and renewable energy.
(EIA, 2014)
In reference to BP Statistical review of world energy workbook (BP, 2014b), as

given in Figure 1.5, primary energy consumption of Turkey increases almost every year.
Primary energy consumption values are 46.2, 73.6, 110.4, 122.7 and 122.8 mtoe for
1990, 2000, 2010, 2012 and 2013 respectively
.
140
120
100
80
Mtoe
60
40
20
0
1993
2004
1990
1991
1992
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 1.5 Primary Energy Consumption of Turkey in the period of 1990-2013

Source : (BP, 2014b)
6
Hydro Renewables
Electricty 1,79%
10,91%
Natural Gas
33,47%
Coal
26,87%
Oil
26,95%
Figure 1.6 Energy Consumption of Turkey by source in 2013

Source: (BP, 2014a)
Energy consumption of Turkey by sources in 2013 as given in Figure 1.6,

natural gas is the leading fuel by 41.1 mtoe. Then oil, coal, hydro-electricity and
renewables come by 33.1, 33.0, 13.4 and 2.2 mtoe respectively. (BP, 2014a)
Electricity production and consumption of Turkey in 2014 were 250.381 GWh

and 255.490 GWh respectively. Due to economic development, electricity consumption
of Turkey increased from 141.151 GWh in 2003 to 255.490 GWh in 2014.
Consumption and production values in the period of 2003-2014 are given in Figure 1.7.
(Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, 2015)
7
250
225
200
175
150
125 Consumption (GWh)
100
Production (GWh)
75
50
25
0
Figure 1.7 Electricity Consumption and Production in Turkey (2003-2013)
Source: (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, 2015)
According to data of Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources report, total

electricity production at end of 2014 was 250.381 GWh and this electricity production
met by thermal power plant, hydroelectric power plant and renewable energy sources
(Wind + Geothermal) by 79.6%, 16.1%, 4.2% respectively as seen on Table 1.1. In
addition in Figure 1.8, electricity production of 2014 is given in detail. (Ministry of
Energy and Natural Resources, 2015)
Table 1.1 Electricity Production by Source in the Period of 2012-2014

Year Thermal Hydroelectric Renewables Total

GWh GWh GWh GWh
2012 174.872 57.865 6.760 239.497
2013 171.256 59.246 8.792 239.293
2014 199.361 40.402 10.619 250.381
Rate (2014) 79.6 % 16.1% 4.2%* 100%
*
3.34 % for wind and 0.9% for geothermal
8
Wind
3%
Hydro
Geothermal 16%
1%
Natural gas +
other LNG
1% 48%
Coal
30% Fuel-oil
1%
Figure 1.8 Electricity Production Structure of Turkey in 2014
As given in the last report of Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources it is seen
that the installed power of electricity meets by private sector and government sector by
66.6% and 33.4% respectively in 2013. On the other hand at the end of the 2014,
imported and exported electricity of Turkey reached 7805 and 2696 GWh respectively
as given in Figure 1.9. (Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, 2015)
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
GWh
4000 Import
3000 Export
2000
1000
0
Figure 1.9 Electricity Energy Review in Turkey
9
As given in Figure 1.10, installed power capacity of Turkey is 69.981 MW at the end of
February 2015 and it is dominated by fossil fuels. (TEIAS, 2015)
Geothermal Others
0,6 % (thermal) 8,2 %
Solar 0,1%
Wind 5,3%
Natural Gas +
LNG 30,7%
Hydro 34,1 %
Coal 21%
Figure 1.10 Installed Power Capacity of Turkey in 2015
Source: (TEIAS, 2015)
1.3 Energy Consumption in Greece
Final energy consumption of Greece has increased from 1990 to 2013, and then
it started to decrease especially on industrial, residential and territory sectors which can
be first affected by the economic recession in Greece. As shown in Figure 1.11, energy
consumption is maximized in 2006 and 2007 with 35.2 and 35.1 Mtoe respectively.
However primary energy consumption was 24.4 and 27.2 mtoe in 1990 and in 2013
respectively. (BP, 2014b)
10
40
35
30
25
Mtoe
20
15
10
5
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Figure 1.11 Primary Energy Consumption of Greece in the period of 1990-2013

Source: (BP, 2014b)
Renewables
Hydro
5,15%
Electricty
% 5,51
Natural Gas
%11,77
Oil %51,47
Coal
%26,10
Figure 1.12 Energy Consumption of Greece by source in 2013

Source: (BP, 2014a)
Total energy consumption of Greece in 2013, as given in Figure 1.12; Oil is

leading fuel by 51.47% of energy consumption mix of Greece in 2013. Then coal,
natural gas, hydro-electricity and renewables come by 26.10%, 11.77%, 5.51%, and
5.15% respectively. (BP, 2014a)
11
With regard to electricity production in Greece by sources, in Figure 1.13 it is
seen that the electricity production is mostly met by solid fuels by %53.7 in 2010, as the
total production was 57.39 TWh.
Other
Oil 0,2%
10,6%
Natural Gas
17,1%
Solid Fuels
53,7%
Renewables
18,4%
Figure 1.13 Electricity Production of Greece by source in 2010

(Eurostat, 2011)
1.4 Renewable Energy
In basic term, renewable energy means; the energy that comes from natural sources
which are regenerative or practically inexhaustible while other energy forms are
exhaustible. These sources can be converted to heat, power or electricity. Solar, wind,
geothermal, biomass, hydropower, tidal, and wave are one of these renewable resources.
It is vital to figure out the benefits of renewable energy sources. As we take into
environmental concerns into consideration, renewable energy facilities to reduce and
remove gradually these; air pollution, acid precipitation, ozone depletion, global
warming, forest destruction, CO2 emissions and radioactive substances. But fossil fuels
such as; coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy have already been causing these
environmental problems as it’s mentioned above.
In terms of economy, although it is difficult to say in today’s world, renewable

energy has a tremendous impact on world economy; it is obvious that we will be seeing
its effects in near future. In this regard, renewable energy provides; energy stability,
reducing the global risks of climate changes, new markets thus new job opportunities
and most importantly lessening the dependence on imported energy sources such as oil,
12
natural gas, coal (fossil fuels). On the other hand it makes cheaper and easier to access
electricity on urban areas.
According to the data of U.S Energy Information Administration, renewable

energy consumption of the world in 2010 was 56.2 quadrillion btu and it is expected in
the year of 2040, renewable energy consumption will reach 119.1 quadrillion btu. So
there will be 11.2% increase between 2010 and 2040. (EIA, 2013)
140
120
100
Quadrillion BTU
80
60
40
20
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Years
Figure 1.14 World Consumption of Renewable Energy Projection Through 2040
Source: (EIA, 2013)
1.5 Renewable Energy Sources
Renewable energy sources can be divided into 5 main groups as; biomass, wind,
solar, hydropower and geothermal. These inexhaustible energy forms can be used by
converting to heat, power or electricity. Using of renewables is quietly important to
prevent our world from the negative effects of fossil fuels. In the scope this thesis, solar
energy will be explained in more detail than other renewable energy sources.
13
1.5.1 Biomass
The term of biomass is used for all organic materials from plants as trees, crops,
algae and wastes such as municipal and industrial ones. Biomass energy can be used by
two main methods. Either directly combustion of the material or indirectly by
converting to different kind of biofuels such as charcoal (higher energy density solid
fuel), ethanol, methanol (liquid fuel),or producer-gas (from gasification of biomass).
(Herzog, Lipman, & Kammen, 2001)
Although the origin of the fossil fuels is biomass, we can’t consider them as
biomass because of two common reasons. While the photosynthesis phase the carbon
dioxide is already used for production. So in regard to carbon cycle, the environment
would be preserved. On the other hand fossil fuels comprise from plants that staying
underground for very long time due to the effects of temperature and pressure they have
some changings and as a result of this, they release noxious substances to the
atmosphere. In addition if biomass sources aren’t managed carefully, they might be
unsustainable, cause desertification, air pollution, and water shortage and greenhouse
emissions. (General Directorate of Renewable Energy, 2012)
1.5.2 Wind
Wind as a clean, renewable and sustainable energy source has been using by the
humankind for different purposes such as water pumping and grain grinding for
hundreds of years. In regard to electricity production by wind, in today’s world, wind
energy is equal to modern wind turbines. (Herzog, Lipman, & Kammen, 2001)
Wind turbines may seem the evolved version of traditional windmills. Wind
turbines produce electricity by converting the kinetic energy of wind to electricity as
well as the wind blows at suitable speeds. Modern wind turbines can be separated into
two groups; vertical axis and horizontal axis whereas most of the modern windmills
have vertical-axis design. Wind turbine system consists of these 14 components; rotor,
pitch drive, nacelle, brake, low-speed shaft, gear box, high speed shaft, generator, heat
exchanger, controller, anemometer, wind vane, yaw drive and the tower . In summary
wind is a renewable, sustainable energy source and most importantly it doesn’t produce
greenhouse gas emissions. (AWEA, 2013)
14
1.5.3 Hydropower
Hydropower is based on converting the energy of falling water to produce

electricity thanks to turbine and generators. The first water turbines were used for
lightening purposes whereas in today’s world hydroelectric is one of the most used
renewable energy source for electricity producing methods. In addition, due to
producing electricity, hydropower is also called as hydroelectric. Although the
hydropower is renewable and clean energy source due to not causing pollution and not
producing greenhouse gas emissions, it has some minor environmental impacts. (IHA,
2011)
There are three common types of hydroelectric power stations as;

- Storage; the water is stored in a reservoir thanks to a dam, then released water flows
through the turbine that drives generator to produce electricity.
- Pumped storage; this type of hydroelectric power station is related to demand of
electricity. Accordingly when the demand of electricity is low, water is pumped from
lower reservoir to the higher reservoir by driven turbine and the demand of electricity is
high the process is repeated on opposite way; higher reservoir to lower reservoir.
- Run of river; This type is based on the natural flow of river or steam that drives the
turbine to produce electricity. (TEEIC, 1998)
1.5.4 Geothermal
Geothermal defined as the heat energy which is stored in the earth. It is a clean,
renewable resource that provides energy for all around the world in a variety of
applications and resources. Firstly humankind use geothermal energy just for bathing
and space heating applications in ancient times whereas now it is also be used for
electricity production but as the American Geological Institute reports its part on total
electricity production of the world is quietly small. (AGI, 2000)
In general the geothermal energy is used for two main purpose; heating and
electricity producing. Heating uses; heat is used directly without a power plant or a heat
pump, for a variety of applications such as heating, cooling, industrial, hot spring
15
bathing, aquaculture and industrial processes. Electricity production is done by power
plant. Process can be shortly explained; the water vapor from underground is captured
in geothermal reservoir then vapor goes through the pipes to the steam turbines where
the electricity is produced. (GEA, 2014)
1.5.5 Solar energy
The sun, as an energy source of the entire universe, is 149.60 million kilometers
away from our planet. Sun has a sphere shape and has a diameter about 1.392.684 km.
Furthermore it is approximately 332.900 times more massive than the earth and contains
%99.86 of the entire solar system mass. The sun consists of mostly ionized gases
(hydrogen and helium) and has six regions; (from inner to outer) the core, radiative
zone, convection zone, photosphere, chromosphere and corona. (NASA, 2014)
Sun supports the life on the earth by providing photosynthesis for the plants
accordingly oxygen to survive for all living creatures, foods, water cycle, fossil fuels
and much more. In addition, thanks to the earth’s orbit around the sun, seasons, ocean
currents, weather, and climate exist. The energy of the sun travels to the earth as
radiation by sun-rays at the speed of light (3 x 108 m/sec). The intensity of this radiation
as perpendicular to the top of the atmosphere is assumed 1368 W/m2 .This value is also
called solar constant or total solar irradiance. (IEA, 2011)
The average total irradiance over the year on surface of the earth is 341 W/m2.
But 79 W/m2 of the average total irradiance are reflected back to space by clouds,
aerosols and the atmosphere, 78 W/m2 are absorbed by the atmosphere .Then 30 W/m2
is reflected by the surface so 161 W/m2 is absorbed by the earth’s surface. In figure
1.15, this cycle is given more detailed. (Trenberth et.al, 2008)
16
Figure 1.15 The Global Annual Mean Earth’s Energy Budget for
March 2000 to May 2004
Source: (Trenberth, Fasullo, & Kiehl, 2008)
In basic term solar energy is an energy form that totally based on the sun rays. It
is generally used for two main purposes as; heating and electricity production.
Humankind first started getting benefit from the sun by using magnifying glass to
concentrate sun’s rays to make fire and to burn ants in 7th century B.C. Civilizations
such as Greeks, Romans, use the solar for religious purposes. In 1767, first solar
collector is built by scientist Horace de Saussure then it is used for cooking. In 1839
photovoltaic effect is discovered by French scientist Edmond Becquerel. In 1921 Albert
Einstein wins the Nobel Prize with his theories on explaining photovoltaic effects. In
1954 as the photovoltaic technology is born, the first silicon based photovoltaic cell is
developed by Daryl Chapin, Calvin Fuller, and Gerald Pearson in USA. In 1963 as the
largest array of the world, 242-watt photovoltaic array is installed by Japan. In 1999
total worldwide installed photovoltaic capacity reaches 1000 megawatts. Then the solar
technology reaches today by getting developed every year (U.S Department of Energy,
2002)
17
As we think fossil fuels are expected to deplete in near future, we will be using
solar energy as long as the sun exists. Besides it doesn’t cause pollution like fossil fuels.
In addition to this, it’s suitable for remote areas that are not connected to electric grids
as well as it create new job areas.
Its uses and applications are based on heating and electricity generation. As an
alternative energy source, using of solar energy is getting more common day by day
thanks to the decreasing the prices related to solar technologies, support mechanisms by
governments and being aware the destruction of the fossil fuels on environment hence
the human health. With regard to produce electricity, photovoltaic technology
abbreviated as PV has the majority. On the other hand concentrating solar power;
abbreviated as CSP is another way to produce electricity which is less common. (U.S
Department of Energy, 2002)
1.6 World Solar Energy Review
Rapid evolution of the solar technology provides not only increasing efficiencies but
also decreasing the costs that makes the access of solar energy more available.
Figure 1.16 World Map of Global Horizontal Irradiation

Source: (GeoModel SOLAR, 2013)
18
With parallel to these, governments develop the support mechanisms and energy
targets to take the attention of investors and consumers on solar energy more. In
addition the concerns over the energy security and pollution are also reasons of the shift
to solar. Due to the reasons mentioned above, using of solar energy across the globe
has been rapidly increasing. World map of global horizontal irradiation is also given in
Figure 1.16 (REN21, 2014)
1.6.1 World solar power capacity
Total share of solar energy reaches 468.4 GW at the end of the 2013 and it
involves; solar PV capacity as 139 GW, concentrating solar power as 3.4 GW and solar
hot water with the biggest share as 326 GW. On table 1.2 increase of using solar energy
is given in detail in the period of 2004-2013. Solar PV, CSP and hot water values are
given separately. (REN21, 2014)
Table 1.2 World Total Solar Energy Share by Solar Technology

Source: (REN21, 2014)
Unit 2004 2012 2013

Solar PV GW 2.6 100 139
CSP (Thermal) * GW 0.4 2.5 3.4
Solar Hot Water GW 98 282 326
TOTAL GW 101 384.5 468.4
*
CSP means concentrating solar power
19
1.6.2 Investments in solar energy
Worldwide, surprisingly, additions in renewable power capacities dominate the

fossil fuels and nuclear additions in 2013. China is leading country in regard to new
investment on solar PV, then Japan, United States, Germany, United Kingdom follow
China. In regard to new investments on CSP capacities; United States, Spain, United
Arab Emirates, India and China come respectively. On the other hand, new investments
in solar water heating capacity China is again the leader and followed by Turkey, India,
Brazil, Germany respectively. (REN21, 2014)
Table 1.3 Top Five Countries of New Investments in Solar Energy in 2013
Source : (REN21, 2014)
1 2 3 4 5
Solar PV Capacity China Japan U.S Germany U.K
CSP Capacity U.S Spain U.A.E India China
Solar Water China Turkey India Brazil Germany
Heating Capacity
Note: U.K: United Kingdom, U.A.E: United Arab Emirates, U.S: United States
In Figure 1.17, total new investment in solar PV is given. As we examine the

table, we see that total new investments in solar, increases from 2004 to 2011 and then
start to decrease. In 2013 solar PV investments decreased by 22% and solar PV capacity
additions increase by 32%. There are some reasons to support it. Firstly the costs related
with solar systems decreased, for instance A PV system constructed in 2013 is cheaper
than the one constructed in 2012 with the same capacity. (Frankfurt School-UNEP
Centre/BNEF, 2014)
Regulatory uncertainty, policy changes in some countries especially in Europe

cause it. For instance in Spain, the statement from government as a moratorium on
subsides for projects not yet approved. (Isola, 2013)
20
Investor concerns over policies to support renewable energy and economic crisis
also drive this decrease on investments. Some countries in Europe cut support for solar
PV as they implemented austerity measures due to economic slowdown. And as the
decrease of costs on solar PV, also affects the sell prices and margins. (Chestney, 2013)
Figure 1.17 Total New Investment in Solar Energy

1.6.3 New additions in solar PV
With parallel to new investments on solar energy, countries increased their solar
PV capacities to produce more electricity especially in a cleaner and environmentally
way. As given, at the end of the 2013 world total PV capacity reaches 139 GW, by
adding 39 GW. Worldwide, Germany is the leader of total PV capacity, by adding 3.3
GW more in 2013 and reaches 35.9 GW and followed by China, Italy and Japan with
19.9 GW, 17.6 GW, and 13.6 GW. In addition, China accounts for almost one-third of
global capacity added. (REN21, 2014)
In regard to total installed PV capacity, as given on Table 1.4, Europe is still the
leader region with 81.5 GW as of 2013. But Asian countries take the lead and started
developing in solar energy faster than Europe. (EPIA, 2012) However, in Figure 1.18,
solar PV global capacity in the period of 2000-2013 is given and it is seen that total PV
global capacity was 1.3 GW in 2000. (REN21, 2014)
21
Table 1.4 Solar PV Global Capacity and Additions
Country TOTAL END 2012 ADDED 2013 TOTAL END 2013
GW
Germany 32.6 3.3 35.9
China 7.0 12.9 19.9
Italy 16.4 1.5 17.6
Japan 6.6 6.9 13.6
United States 7.2 4.8 12.1
Spain 5.4 0.2 5.6
France 4.0 0.6 4.6
United Kingdom 1.8 1.5 3.3
Australia 2.4 0.8 3.3
Belgium 2.7 0.2 3.0
Rest of World 13.8 6.5 20.2
World Total 100 39 139
150 139
125
100
100
Gigawatt
70
75
50 40
16 23
25 9
7
1,3 1,6 2,1 2,6 3,7 5,1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Years
Figure 1.18 Solar PV Total Global Capacity (2000-2013)

Source: (EPIA, 2012)
22
1.6.4 Electricity generation by solar energy
Solar is going to become a mainstream electricity provider for around the world
but for now mostly in Europe. Electricity from solar photovoltaic and concentrating
solar power are competitive against oil-fuelled electricity in some sunny countries. On
the other hand solar electricity would be a good idea to lower the electricity bills and to
make profit in long-term for both individual and industrial electricity consumers.
Solar electricity will also help to eliminate the carbon emissions from consumption of
fossil fuels from the buildings, industry and transportation. Thanks to decrease on solar
energy costs and support mechanisms by governments such as Feed-in-Tariff (an
economic policy to promote active investment in production of renewable energy
sources), in the period of 2002-2012, the electricity generation from solar has increased
significantly. Solar PV accounts 96% of total electricity production of total solar energy
using in 2012 as given on Table 1.5.
Table 1.5 World Electricity Production by Solar

Source: (Observ'ER, 2013)
TWh 2002 2009 2010 2011 2012 2000/2012

PV 1.2 20.0 31.8 60.8 100.4 55.9%
CSP 0.6 0.9 1.7 2.3 4.1 22.3%
Total Solar 1.7 21.0 33.5 63.1 104.5 50.6%
When we analyze the share of renewables on global electricity generation

(Figure 1.19), Hydropower still dominates electricity generation from renewables,
however solar PV only has 3% of all the renewables but its potential and decreases on
the costs will change it on behalf of solar PV. As the end of 2013, Germany is the world
leader on electricity generation by solar PV. After Germany; China, Italy, Japan and
United States have the highest electricity generation respectively. (REN21, 2014)
23
Solar PV Geothermal
Bio-power 3% CSP and
8% Ocean
2%
Wind
13%
Hydropower
74%
Figure 1.19 Renewable Energy Share of Global Electricity Production in 2012

1.6.5 Support mechanism on solar and FIT in the world
It is well known that governments create support mechanisms to both support

solar power growth and accelerate the investments across the world. Feed-in-tariff (FIT)
has become most popular support scheme that is frankly successful firstly in Europe,
especially, in Germany and Spain. However, six U.S. states (California, Hawaii, Maine,
Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) implement FIT or similar programs. (NREL, 2014)
Feed-in tariff briefly means guarantee payment contract for the electricity (in €
cent or $ cent for per kWh) that is generated from renewables by investors and is
implemented generally over long term periods such as 15-20 years. (NREL, 2014)
Feed-in-tariff payment structure is generally divided into two groups as briefly;

fixed and premium. While fixed-price is guarantee payment for guaranteed period of
time and market-independent, premium-price is payment on the top of electricity market
price. It can be said that premium is modified version of fixed-price approach.
However most of the countries choose fixed-price approach. (NREL, 2009)
Countries generally have different tariff levels for each renewable energy
sources and mostly choose fixed feed-in-tariffs. On table 1.6, solar photovoltaic (PV)
24
feed-in-tariff levels and periods of guaranteed support of EU countries are given
according to 2009 data. (Fraunhofer ISE, 2010)
Table 1.6 Solar PV Feed in Tariff Levels of EU countries in 2009

Source: (Fraunhofer ISE, 2010)
Country Tariff level in Duration

2009 (years)
(€ Cents/kWh)
Austria (fixed) 30.0-46.0 10-12
Bulgaria (fixed) 38.6-42.1 25
Cyprus (fixed) 20.5-38.3 15-20
Czech Republic (fixed) 47.2-47.5 20
(premium) 43.6-43.9 20
Denmark (fixed) 5.4-8.1 10-20
Estonia (fixed) 7.35 12
(premium) 5.37 12
France (fixed) 32.8-60.1 20
Germany (fixed) 31.94-43.01 20
Greece (fixed) 40.7-50.7 20
Hungary (fixed) 9.5 No limit
Italy (fixed) - -
(premium) 35.3-48.0 20
Latvia (fixed) 33.0 -
Lithuania (fixed) 43.7-47.2 10
Luxembourg (fixed) 35.9-40.7 15
Netherlands (fixed) 32.4-40.6 15
Portugal (fixed) 35.5-47 15
Slovakia (fixed) 40.0-45.0 12
Slovenia (fixed) 26.9-41.5 15
(premium) 20.4-35.8 15
Spain (fixed) 19.44-46.0 25
United Kingdom (fixed) 29.3-36.1 25
25
On the other hand, it must be noted that governments may reduce their feed-in
tariffs for new investments if the total renewables installations have reached their targets
or the existence of economic problems. In a similar way governments may increase the
feed-in-tariffs to promote new investments if the targets aren’t accomplished. So in this
context, 2009 feed-in-tariff data might be rather old for some countries that have already
reached their targets on renewables. In addition some of the countries have modified
their PV feed-in-tariffs frequently due to unexpectedly high grow rates. For instance in
Germany PV feed-in-tariffs of roof mounted up to 30kW was 43.01€ cent/kWh in 2009,
28.47€ cent/kWh in 2011 and 12.98€ cent/kWh for up to 40kW roof mounted on
January, 2014. (German Energy Blog, 2014)
Greece has 90 €/MWh (9 €cent/kWh) solar feed in tariff on August, 2014 for
above 100kW and 115 €/MWh (11.5 €cent/kWh) for up to 100kW. These feed-in-tariffs
quietly low compared to older values such as 2009. (YPKEA, 2013)
Turkey currently (2015) has 13.3 $cent/kWh (approximately 12.2 $cent/kWh)

solar feed-in-tariff with local content bonus over 10 years of period which is mentioned
in detail on chapter 1.7.2.
26
1.7 Solar Energy Review in Turkey
Turkey has an advantageous geographical position in terms of solar energy. In

reference to data released by General Directorate of Renewable Energy; in Turkey the
annual total insolation duration is 2640 hours (7.2 hours/day) and the average annual
solar irradiation is 1311 kWh/m2-year. On table 1.7, total solar potential and solar
duration values of Turkey are given monthly. (EIE, n.d)
Figure 1.20 Solar Radiation Map of Turkey

Source: (EIE, n.d)
Table 1.7 Monthly Average Solar Potential of Turkey

Source: (EIE, n.d)
Months Monthly Total Solar Energy Sunshine Duration

Kcal/cm2-month kWh/m2-month hours/month
January 4,45 51,75 103,0
February 5,44 63,27 115,0
March 8,31 96,65 165,0
April 10,51 122,3 197,0
May 13,23 153,86 273,0
June 14,51 168,75 325,0
27
Months Monthly Total Solar Energy Sunshine Duration
Kcal/cm2-month kWh/m2-month hours/month
July 15,08 175,38 365,0
August 13,62 158,40 343,0
September 10,60 123,28 280,0
October 7,73 89,90 214,0
November 5,23 60,82 157,0
December 4,03 46,87 103,0
TOTAL 112,74 1311 2640
Average 308 cal/cm2-day 3,6 kWh/m2-day 7,2 hours/day
As seen on Table 1.8 and in Figure 1.20, regional distribution of solar energy is
given. Southeastern Anatolia region has the highest solar potential then Mediterranean
region follows it. In addition, Black Sea has the lowest solar potential. (EIE, n.d)
Table 1.8 Regional Distribution of Solar Energy in Turkey

Source: (EIE, n.d)
REGION Total Solar Radiation Sunshine Duration

(kWh/m2-year) (hours/year)
Southeastern Anatolia 1460 2993
Mediterranean 1390 2956
East Anatolia 1365 2664
Central Anatolia 1314 2628
Aegean 1304 2738
Marmara 1168 2409
Black Sea 1120 1971
28
In terms of solar radiation; June, July and August are the most efficient months
while November, December and January are the least efficient. Turkey has potential to
produce an average of 1100kW/h per square meter. So In Europe; Turkey has the
highest solar energy potential after Spain due to its high solar radiation. (Cetinkaya,
2013)
1.7.1 Solar electricity in Turkey
Although Turkey has relatively high solar radiation compared to Europe

countries, this potential for electricity generation couldn’t be utilized until the
regulations and laws (Electricity Market Law No. 6446 and Utilization of Renewable
Energy Sources for the Purpose of Generating Electricity Energy Law No.5346) were
enacted. Unfortunately Turkey mostly used this potential on behalf of solar water
heating rather than generating electricity by solar energy. In addition, Turkey has the
second biggest solar water heating capacity after China in 2014. Fortunately Energy
Market Regulatory Board (EMRA) started accepting license application for the
electricity generation through solar energy between 10 and 14 June 2013. (Özeke, 2013)
Electricity generation from solar energy can be divided into 2 main groups;
licensed solar power projects and license-exempt solar projects. .Briefly; licensed solar
projects cover the power plants higher than 1MW lower than 50 MW and provide
supplying to the transmission and distribution grid. Applying for licensed solar power
project is a multi-stage process: application for pre-license, fulfilling obligations to
precede final licensing stage. First licenses for 13MW of 600 MW were given on May
2014 as; 8MW in Elazığ and 5MW in Erzurum. On the other hand the maximum
capacity of a single installation is limited to 50 MW. License-exempt solar projects are
briefly self-consumption projects that aren’t higher than 1 MW and generally this type
of solar project doesn’t include supplying to the transmission or distribution grid but
otherwise is also possible (PWC, 2012)
Installed (unlicensed) solar PV power capacity of Turkey was 40.2 MW in 2014

and reached 53.9 MW at the end of the February of 2015. (TEIAS, 2015)
29
1.7.2 Support mechanism on solar and FIT in Turkey
Turkey aims to meet at least 30 % of total electricity generation and 20% of total
energy consumption from renewables by 2023 that contributes its economy by
decreasing the dependency on imported fossil fuels. However Turkey has an objective
as having 5000 MW solar power (photovoltaic and concentrating solar power). So a
support mechanism is created to attract the investors on solar energy. Feed in tariff,
incentive for promoting the use of local equipment and support from major international
financial institutions are the most important ones of this support scheme. (Ministry of
The New Investment Incentives Program in Turkey since the January 1, 2012,
offers 4 kinds of plans as;
 General Investment Plan that is available for all investment types and offers
VAT and customs duty exemption for electricity generation facilities from
renewables
 Regional Investment Incentive Plan that is depends on the region and aims to
eliminate inter-regional imbalances within the country
 Large Scale Investment Incentive Plan that aims to improve the technological
abilities and R&D of Turkey
 Strategic Investment Incentive Plan that aims to reduce the dependency of
imported (more than %50) intermediate and final goods on production.
Minimum investment of 50 million TL is eligible for this support. (Ministry of
30
Figure 1.21 Regions of Turkey according to incentive plan
Source : (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, 2014a)
Table 1.9 Support Measures for Regional and Large Scale Investments in Turkey
Source: (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, 2014a)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Regional Incentive Applications
Tax reduction Investment 15% 20% 25% 30% 40% 50%
Contribution Rate
Incentive for Large Scale Investments
Tax Reduction Investment 25% 30% 35% 40% 50% 60%
Contribution Rate
Support for Employer’s 2 3 5 6 7 10
National Insurance Year Year Year Year Year Year
Contribution
Government has an objective to eliminate the regional imbalances within the

country so low developed regions get larger support in this context. The regions and the
regional incentive applications are given in Figure 1.21 and on Table 1.9 respectively.
(Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, 2014a)
Government offers feed-in tariff for the investors within the supporting
mechanism (Electricity Market Law No. 6446 and Utilization of Renewable Energy
Sources for the Purpose of Generating Electricity Energy Law No.5346). The incentive
established in USD and the licensees can benefit from these tariffs over 10 years. This
31
plan extends until 2020 and covers the facilities that start to operate before December
31, 2015. However, each year investors have an option to choose this feed-in-tariff plan
or direct sales in the power market. (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, 2014a)
Each renewable energy sources have different feed-in-tariff, solar energy has
13.3$cent per kWh and also has local content bonus. These incentives are given on
Table 1.10 in detail.
Table 1.10 Feed in Tariff and Local Bonus for Solar
Source: (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, 2014a)
Feed-in-tariff USD cent/kWh

Solar PV 13.3
Locally Manufactured component Bonus (USD cent/kWh)
PV panel integration and production 0.8
PV Modules 1.3
PV Module Cells 3.5
Inverter 0.6
Material which focuses radiation on PV Module 0.5
Turkey has relatively high guaranteed feed-in-tariff for solar PV as 13.3 $ cent per kWh
and also gives local content bonus as 0.6-6.6 $ cent per kWh. In addition related to
electricity generation from renewables, there are % 85 discounts in usufruct, easement,
permit or lease fees for the first 10 years operation.
1.8 Solar Electricity
In regard to solar electricity, mainly there are two common technologies meet
us. One of them is concentrating solar power (CSP) that uses solar energy indirectly and
other one is solar photovoltaic (PV) that uses solar energy directly. In the scope of this
study, mostly PV technology is discussed.
32
1.8.1 Concentrating solar power
In a brief description, concentrating solar power technology uses mirrors to

concentrate the sun’s energy onto a receiver then transfer this energy to a heat transfer
fluid such as oil, molten salt then the steam drives conventional steam turbines to
generate electricity. Mainly there are four types of CSP technologies; Parabolic Trough
(PT), Fresnel Reflectors (FR), Solar Dishes (SD) and Solar Tower. Compared to PV,
CSP has quietly small market share. (IEA-IRENA-ETSAP, 2013)
Figure 1.22 CSP working scheme (Parabolic Trough)

Source: (CSP-WORLD, 2012)
1.8.2 Photovoltaic
Photovoltaic technology is the direct way to convert the sunlight energy to the
electricity by using electronic device known as solar cell which consists of
semiconductors. This conversion is based on photovoltaic effect. (Lorenzo, 1994)
Figure 1.23 Solar Cell
Solar cell consists of two types of semiconductor as N type and P type. At first N
type silicon has a negative character, due to one of silicon wafer diffused with a “n”
dopant such as phosphorous which has more electron than silicon and give excess of
33
free electrons, P type silicon has positive character due to other silicon wafer diffused
with a “p” dopant such as boron which has less electron than silicon and provides
tendency to attract electrons to the holes. Both side are not charged yet and have equal
protons and electrons in themselves. When these two types of wafers are placed side by
side, free electrons from n layer flow into p layer in a very short time, then a barrier
occurred called as p-n junction to prevent more electrons from moving. Now n type is
positive charged while p type is negative charged. However this imbalance produces
electric field between p and n sides. If the solar cell exposed to the sunlight, the photons
inside the sunlight transfer their energy to release the electrons by moving from the p
side to the n side. Also a conducting wire between p and n sides creates a pathway for
free electrons. Thus electric current is obtained by travel of electrons. (NEED, 2014)
Figure 1.24 Solar Cell Working Principal
Source: (NEED, 2014)
1.8.3 Production of solar Cell
Pure Si is needed to start the process which is abundantly found in SiO2. Firstly
SiO2 reacts with carbon. It resulted with a purity of 98% Si. Then for further
purification, a gaseous purification technique is used known as Siemens method. Si
reacts with HCl to get purified SiHCl3 from distillation of H3ClSi. Then SiHCl3 is
decomposed with hydrogen. As a result of these processes pc-Si (polycrystalline
silicon) is gathered with a purity of 99.99%. To convert pc-Si (polycrystalline silicon) to
sc-Si (single crystalline), Czochralski (CZ) method is used. Silicon crystals rods of
34
mono crystalline are pulled from molten silicon, cooled and suspended in a reactor at
high temperature and high pressure. If we need polycrystalline we don’t use this
method. Single crystalline is also called as mono crystalline. The cylindrical ingot of
sc-Si is sliced into wafers. Then this process is followed by; phosphorous diffusion,
applying anti-reflective coating and making of front and back contacts. (Takiguchi &
Morita, 2011)
Figure 1.25 Solar Cell Production Process

Source: (The German Solar Energy Society, 2007)
1.8.4 Structure of solar module
A solar PV panel is consisted of six main components as; frame, glass, EVA,
solar cells, back sheet and junction box. Glass protects solar panel from the
environmental damages such as wind, rain and dust as it has anti-reflective feature.
EVA which is the trade name of ethylene-vinyl acetate is used to encapsulate the solar
cells. It provides durability for high temperature, humidity, weather resistance, optical
transmission and transparency. It also provides flexibility for mechanical stresses. Solar
cell is the place where the electricity is generated by converting solar energy to
35
electricity. Solar cells are connected to each other in serial with electrical connections.
Back sheet, acts like an electrical insulator as it protects PV module from the damages
such as ultraviolet rays, moisture and weather. Junction-box provides collecting and
channeling the electricity that is generated from solar cells. Frame protects whole
structure from external affects while it plays as assistant to hold other components. For
longer durability, it is generally made from aluminum material. (FEEDPOOL, 2006)
Figure 1.26 General Structure of a PV Module

Source: (NORDSON, 2008)
1.9 Types of Solar Cells
Solar Cells are mainly divided into three different groups as; first generation, second
generation and third generation PV systems.
 First generation is based on crystalline silicon technology and includes single

crystalline (sc-Si) and multi crystalline (pc-Si). This type is mostly preferred and
fully commercial.
 Second generation is based on thin film technologies and early market
deployment. It includes amorphous (a-Si) micromorph silicon (a-Si/µc-Si),
36
Cadmium-Telluride (CdTe), Copper-Indium-Selenide (CIS) and Copper-
Indium-Gallium-Selenide (CIGS)
 Third generation is still under development and includes new technologies such
as concentrating Photovoltaics (CPV), Organic PV (OPV), dye-sensitized cells
(DSC). (IRENA, 2012)
1.9.1 First generation solar cells
1.9.1.1 Monocrystalline
Monocrystalline is also known as single crystalline and this type of cell made
from pure crystalline. It has continuous lattice crystal structure. It can easily be
discriminated with its pure texture and hexagonal shape. Its main advantage is high
efficiency. On the other hand due to its manufacturing process needs more time and
more energy accordingly high costs, prices are slightly more than polycrystalline and
thin-film modules. (Kalogirou, 2013) Its efficiency ranges from %13 to %17 with
lifespan about 25-30 years. (IRENA, 2012) Its production process is given in Figure
1.25.
Figure 1.27 Monocrystalline Solar Cell
1.9.1.2 Polycrystalline
Polycrystalline is also known as multi crystalline made from poly silicon

material. So it doesn’t have smooth texture. It is cheaper to produce and easier
manufacturing process (see Figure 1.25) than monocrystalline. Briefly manufacturing
process; melting polysilicon material, casting into blocks, slicing into wafers, then
doping, coating and wiring. Its efficiency is slightly lower than mono crystalline as it
37
has cheaper price. (Kalogirou, 2013) Its efficiency ranges from %10 to %14 with the
life span about 20-25 years. (IRENA, 2012)
Figure 1.28 Polycrystalline Solar Cell
1.9.2 Second generation solar cells
Thin film cells are based on depositioning of very thin film silicon layers onto
cheap substrates such as glass or metal. Their manufacturing process is easier and
cheaper than crystalline silicon cells. But they are not as efficient as crystalline silicon
cells. (Balfour, Shaw, & Jarosek, 2013)
In general, their efficiencies range from %5 to %13 with lifespan about 15-20
years. (IRENA, 2012) In addition, power output of crystalline silicon cells decreases
quicker than thin film cells with increasing temperatures, decreasing about minus
%0.4-%0.5/oC. In low light conditions while the efficiency of crystalline silicon cells
decrease, thin film cells keep it constant. (Marion, 2008)
1.9.2.1 Amorphous silicon
Amorphous silicon (a-Si) is one of the members of thin film family is produced
by silicon atoms in amorphous silicon unlike crystalline silicon. (Kalogirou, 2013)
Amorphous silicon is the least efficient cell compared to other thin-film technologies.
But it is cheapest type of cell to manufacture. Its efficiency ranges from %6 to %8.
Although a-si cells are suitable for roof-top and other installations, we are generally
used to seeing this type of cell on calculators or watches. A-si cells are good at
38
generating power even on high temperature conditions or on a cloudy day in contrast to
crystalline cells. (Boxwell & Glasbey, 2012)
Figure 1.29 Amorphous Silicon Cell

source : (Jinan Linquan Im and Ex Co., Ltd., n.d)
1.9.2.2 Cadmium telluride
This type of thin film is formed from Cadmium and Telluride. It offers high
efficiency with low manufacturing cost. (First Solar Inc., 2014) Cell efficiency is up to
%16.7. In contrast ease of supplying cadmium; tellurium doesn’t exist as abundant as
cadmium. (IRENA, 2002).
On the other hand main concern about using of cadmium telluride is containing
toxic materials. As a result of this toxicity problem of cadmium limits its use.
(Goetzberger & Hoffman, 2005)
Figure 1.30 Cd-Te Thin Film
Source: (IRENA, 2002)
39
1.9.2.3 Copper indium gallium selenide
CIGS thin film also abbreviated as CIS is made from copper, indium, selenium,
and gallium. CIS is incorporated with gallium to increase cell efficiency and reduce
module integration losses. (Gillespie, Marshall, & Keane, 1999)
CIS thin film technology is more efficient than amorphous silicon and cadmium
telluride thin film technologies. Also its efficiency is comparable with poly-crystalline
cells, up to %20 at the laboratory conditions with low manufacturing cost. Typically
ranges from % 7 to %11. However its performance is quite well even in low light
conditions, in other words it performs well in a cloudy day as well as in a sunny day.
(AVANCIS, 2014)
Figure 1.31 CIGS cell
Source: (Fabricalo, 2013)
1.9.3 Third generation solar cells
This type of solar cells are still under development and includes new technologies
1.9.3.1 Concentrating PV (CPV)
Concentrating Photovoltaic system is based on concentrating large amount of

sunlight onto the small area of PV cells with the help of optical devices. CSP systems
as: trough, tower, linear, fresnel and dish can also be applied on concentrating PV
systems. Conversion efficiency of a PV cell can be improved by Concentrating PV
system due to increasing level of irradiance. (Lovegrove & Stein, 2012) Concentrating
PV systems don’t collect diffuse radiation, they only require direct radiation. So cloudy
days affect the efficiency in a bad way and the sun tracking system seems an
40
obligation. On the other hand CPV helps reducing the cost of generated electricity
compared to non-concentrating PV systems, by increasing irradiation and having less
area of expensive PV cells. (Danny Harvey, 2010)
The efficiency of concentrating solar PV modules range between 26% and 32%
by using multi-junction solar cells and according to Fraunhofer Institute for Solar
Energy, multi-junction solar cell for concentrator photovoltaic systems has the highest
world record conversion efficiency at 46 %. (Fraunhofer ISE, 2014b)
Briefly multi-junction solar cell consists of stacking different types of solar cells
on top one after such as AlGaAs/GaAs, GaInP/GaInAs/Ge or GaInP/GasAs/InGaAs.
Every single cell type is designed to convert different range of solar spectrum. Multi
junction cells have higher efficiencies and higher production costs compared to
conventional solar cells. The costs can be minimized by using inexpensive
concentrating systems. (SOITEC)
Figure 1.32 CPV System
Source: (SOITEC)
1.9.3.2 Dye-Sensitized solar cells
Dye-sensitized solar cells are based on using dyes to generate electricity. A dye
solar cell mainly composed of two conductive electrodes, as anode and cathode which
are made from glasses coated with TCO (Transparent Conductive Oxide) on one sides.
Anode as negative side has titanium oxide layer that is sensitized with dye. Cathode as
positive side is coated with catalytic material such as carbon and platinum. Between
41
these two electrodes is filled with electrolyte. Dye molecules absorbs the light, that
energy gives travel freedom to the electron which flows to TiO2 then through an electric
circuit flows to cathode side. Finally electrolyte drives the electrons back to the dyes.
(David Martineau, 2012) Main advantage of this system is low costs and simple
manufacturing process comparing to silicon solar cells. But efficiencies are lower.
However using liquid electrolyte has risk of freezing on cold weather. (Bailey, Park, &
Dhirani, 2014)
Figure 1.33 Working Principle of Dye-sensitized Solar Cell
Source: (Bailey, Park, & Dhirani, 2014)
1.9.3.3 Organic solar cells
Organic cells formed by conductive organic or polymer materials which are

almost infinite. Manufacturing process covers: roll to roll manufacturing on high speed
at low temperature and standard printing. They are light and flexible so they fit
anywhere we desire. Although they have low manufacturing costs, they have quietly
low efficiencies and short life time compared to silicon solar cells. (IRENA, 2012)
Organic PV module efficiencies range from %4 to %5 for commercial and up to % 8 in
the laboratory conditions.
(orgaPVnet, 2009)
42
Figure 1.34 Organic Solar Cell
Source: (Bagher, 2014)
In Figure 1.35, development of solar cell efficiencies are given in the period of
1992-2014 and it is seen that while organic solar cells have the lowest efficiency, multi-
junction solar cells have the highest efficiency. However it is realized that fully
commercialized solar cell types (multi crystalline and mono crystalline) don’t have huge
efficiency improvements. It should be remembered that the efficiencies belongs to
laboratory conditions. (Green, Emery, Hishikawa, Warta, & Dunlop, 2014)
Figure 1.35 Developments of Laboratory Solar Cell Efficiencies
Source: (Green, Emery, Hishikawa, Warta, & Dunlop, 2014)
43
1.10 Market Share of PV types
Global PV market share by technology, shows that poly crystalline silicon cells,
abbreviated as p-Si or multi-Si dominates the global market share by 21.3 GWp of
production in 2013. Another 1st generation PV cell technology as; mono-crystalline has
13.9 GWp of production. 2nd generation PV cells as: Cadmium Telluride (Cd-Te),
Amorphous Silicon (a-Si) and Copper Indium Gallium Selenide (CIGS) have 1.9, 0.8
and 0.8 GWp of production respectively. In figure 1.36, their percentages are given.
(Fraunhofer ISE, 2014b)
Cd-Te a-Sİ CI(G)S

5% 2% 2%
mono-Sİ poly-Si
36% 55%
Figure 1.36 PV Market Share by Technology in 2013
Source: (Fraunhofer ISE, 2014b)
44
1.11 PV Systems
According to the operational requirements and the equipment that are used, PV
systems are mainly divided into three groups as; stand-alone, grid connected and hybrid
PV system.
1.11.1 Stand-alone PV system
Stand-alone PV systems are basically aren’t connected to the grid or any other
power supply. So they are also called as off-grid. Due to system produces electricity
only at day time, in order to use electricity when there is no sunshine or night time,
produced electricity should be stored by batteries however it is not an obligation. In
addition due to batteries are still expensive, they increase investment costs seriously. On
the other hand they are generally suitable for remote areas which are not connected to
the grid and smaller sized compared to grid connected systems in general. (Solanki,
2012)
Figure 1.37 Main Equipment of Stand-alone PV system
1.11.2 Grid connected PV system
Grid connected PV systems are the PV systems which are connected to the grid. They
don’t need to store the electricity so absence of battery reduces investment costs. If it is
desired, batteries can be used. The excess of electricity production is supplied to the grid
while the deficit of electricity production is drawn from the grid. Payback period of grid
45
connected systems are slightly shorter than stand-alone due to the absence of expensive
batteries and the excess of electricity production is sold to the grid. (Solanki, 2012)
Figure 1.38 Main Equipment of Grid Connected PV System
1.11.3 Hybrid PV system
When there is more than one power supply is connected to the system, such as
wind turbine or diesel motor with PV modules, this combination is called as hybrid PV
system which is either stand alone or grid connected. When electricity production is not
enough or at nigh time, electricity can be supplied from auxiliary power system which
also causes extra costs. Batteries can be also used to store the electricity.
(Solanki, 2012)
Figure 1.39 Main Equipment of Stand Alone Hybrid PV System
46
1.11.4 PV system equipment
 PV module; is the place where the solar energy is converted to the electricity.
The current is still DC power and needs to be converted to AC power to get used
by most of the electrical devices
 Inverter; is used to convert DC power which comes from either modules or
batteries to AC power.
 Battery; is used to store the produced electricity in order to use when there is no
sunshine.
 Charge Controller; is a piece of electronics which is placed between inverter
and battery. It is used to control the charge coming from PV module. And most
importantly prevent batteries from overcharging or completely draining.
 DC Disconnect; is placed between PV modules and the rest of system and used
to disconnect DC conductors (PV) from the rest of the system.
 AC Disconnect; is placed after the Inverter and used to disconnect AC current.
However some of the inverters have integrated AC//DC disconnect equipment.
 Meter; is used to measure produced electricity or the electricity that is drawn
from the utility grid.
(Mayfield, 2010)
47
1.12 Factors Affecting PV Performance
As was mentioned before, solar cells which are used in photovoltaic

applications, convert solar energy to the electricity without using any fossil fuel or
polluting the environment. Although the sun is assumed as an infinite energy source, the
energy which can be utilized is limited by some technical and environmental factors. So
these factors must be taken into consideration comprehensively to reach higher working
efficiencies.
The conversion efficiency of PV module is generally defined by the ratio of

maximum power output to the collected solar energy on module area at standard test
conditions as seen in Equation 1.1. While G and A define certain solar incidence and
module area, and define the current and voltage at maximum power point of
the cell. (Kalogirou, 2013)
(1.1)
So the factors that affect power output of PV module must be examined carefully. These
factors can be divided into two main groups as technology and environmental
conditions.
1.12.1 PV technology
As it was mentioned on previous chapters, different types of solar cell

technologies are existed with different efficiencies. Choosing the most efficient solar
cell, directly affects the power output positively. Crystalline based solar cells take the
lead, for being fully commercial. Mono-crystalline cell type conversion efficiency
ranges from %13 to %17. Due to its manufacturing process needs more time and more
energy accordingly high costs, its prices are slightly more than poly-crystalline and thin
film cells. Poly crystalline cell type is also cheaper than mono-crystalline ones with the
range of %10-14 efficiency. (IRENA, 2012)
Thin Film solar cell technologies such as amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride,
copper indium gallium selenide are not fully commercial yet although some of them
48
have reasonable efficiencies. The highest efficiency belongs to multi-junction solar cell
technology by 46% at laboratory conditions. (Fraunhofer ISE, 2014a)
1.12.2 Environmental conditions
Apart from photovoltaic technology, enviromental conditions are the major factors that
affect the PV performance. They are mainly; cell temperature, irradiance level, shading,
soiling, albedo and wind speed.
1.12.2.1 Cell temperature
As noted on solar cell efficiency depends on I-V characteristic. Temperature has

more influence on short circuit voltage rather than the short circuit current. In this
regard as operating temperature increases, the cell efficiency decreases.
(Kalogirou, 2013)
It is seen that while the open circuit voltage decreases, short circuit current
increases in figure 1.40 where the temperature dependency of a 250W power of poly-
crystalline solar cell is given.
Figure 1.40 Temperature Dependency of a Solar Cell
49
On the other hand, different types of solar cells are affected by temperature
changes differently. Makrides et al. (2012) analyzed the temperature reaction of
different types of cells so study shows that amorphous silicon is the least sensitive type
while poly-crystalline is the most sensitive to the change of temperature as seen on table
1.11 where the approximate temperature coefficient of different cell types are given.
Table 1.11 Approximate Temperature Coefficients of Different Types of Solar Cells

Source: (Makrides, Zinsser, Norton, & Georghiou, 2012)
Technology Approximate Temperature Coefficient (-%C)

Mono-Si 0.40
Poly-Si 0.45
a-Si 0.20
μc-Si 0.26
CIGS 0.36
CdTe 0.25
As seen below equations by Duffie and Beckman (1991), it is seen that how the
PV array efficiency varies with the temperature and solar radiation. The terms in
equations; , , , , , , ,
, and define as; maximum power point efficiency under STC, efficiency of PV
array at its maximum power point, Cell temperature under STC (=25oC), cell
temperature, ambient temperature, nominal operating cell temperature, ambient
temperature at NOCT (=20oC), solar radiation on PV array, solar radiation under NOCT
(=800W/m2), temperature coefficient, solar transmittance of any cover over the PV
array, solar absorptance of the PV array respectively. (Duffie & Beckman, 1991)
[ ( )] (1.2)
( )( )( ) (1.3)
50
1.12.2.2 Incident Irradiance
Solar irradiance level is one the most important factors that affects solar cell
efficiency. As seen in figure 1.41, at the constant temperature condition of 25 oC, open
circuit voltage increases logaritmically while short circuit current increases lineary with
increasing irradiance levels. Thus solar cell efficiency increases as the irradiance level
increases. (Kalogirou, 2013)
Figure 1.41 Incident Irradiance Dependency of a Solar Cell
A recent study compares mono-crystalline silicon, poly-crystalline silicon and

amorphous silicon solar cells in regard to efficiencies at both high and low irradiance
conditions. Study briefly shows that crystalline based solar cells perform better than
amorphous silicon solar cell at high level irradiance conditions. On the other hand at
low irradiance conditions, amorphous silicon cell type performs better with showing
better light absorption characteristic than mono-crystalline and poly-crystalline cell
types. (Bashir, Ali, & Siddiqui, 2014)
Solar irradiance has also importance on solar energy calculations and this data is
generally taken from solar measurement stations. But sometimes this data lose accuracy
51
due to the distances between the measurement station and project site of photovoltaic
installation. (Li & Lam, 1999) If measured values at project site don’t exist for more
accurate results, several meteorological databases might be used for this purpose. A
study reported by Quesada et al. (2010) show that different databases in Valencia, Spain
(PVGIS, Meteoronorm, NASA, Satel-Light, Atlas Solar Radiation) differ from
measured values with respect to the PV energy output within a band of 11%.
Another study which is conducted by Ineichen (2013), investigates the accuracy

of meteorological databases such as PVGIS, RetScreen, NASA-SSE, ESRA, Satellight,
Solemi, SolarGis etc. The study covers 18 European and Mediterranean sites over 8
years. It is found that on hourly and daily differences are high, on monthly basis they
are relatively lower. It is also seen that some of databases overestimate the annual solar
irradiation while some of them underestimate.
1.12.2.3 Module orientation
Energy outputs of PV modules are dependent on solar radiation that is collected.

Thus in order to collect maximum solar radiation, the collectors must be oriented at
optimum azimuth and tilt angles. It is suggested that for maximum annual energy, tilt
angle should equal to latitude. But for summer time tilt should be approximately 10o to
15o less than latitude while for winter 10o to 15o more than the latitude. The best azimuth
angle for maximum incident radiation, azimuth angle is 0o in the northern hemisphere
which also means facing collectors to the south while azimuth angle is 180o in the
northern hemisphere which also means facing collectors to the north. (Duffie &
Beckman, 1991)
Nijegorodov et al. (1994) presented a set of 12 equations to find monthly

average optimum tilt angles for any location that lies between latitude of 600 south to
600 north.
Gunerhan and Hepbasli (2005) found the optimum tilt angles by months for
Izmir, Turkey. As they reported, optimum tilt angle for the months of March and
52
September, are equal to latitude and they suggests that solar collectors should be
mounted once a month.
Figure 1.42 Tilted PV array
1.12.2.4 Latitude
Latitude is another factor that affects solar energy. Equal amount of sunlight
strikes to earth with different aspects. Sunlight strikes at an angle at mid-latitudes while
parallel to the surface at polar latitudes and perpendicular to the surface at tropical
latitudes. In addition, equal amount of sunlight spreads over a greater area at polar
latitudes while it spreads at tropical latitudes over a smaller area. Thus polar latitudes
receive less solar radiation due to explained reasons above and contribution of more
atmosphere filtering and high reflection compared to tropical latitudes. (Garrison, 2012)
600
500
Insolation W/m^2
-90
400
-60
300 -30
200 0
30
100
60
0 90
Figure 1.43 Monthly Values of Available Insolation of Different Latitudes

Source: (NASA, 2013)
53
As reported by (NASA); peak energy received at different latitudes changes
throughout the year. At local noon of each day of the year changes with latitude. At the
equator, peak energy changes very little while at south and north latitudes seasonal
changes are very high. Monthly average insolation values for different values are given
in Figure 1.43 according to data that is taken from NASA web site. It is realized that on
June, insolation amount of North Pole latitudes is higher than the amount of equator.
1.12.2.5 Wind
Photovoltaic modules work better under the standard test conditions whereas
under the outdoor conditions they are expected to exhibit less performance due to
variable environment conditions such as ambient temperature which has negative effect
on PV module efficiency.
Siddiqui and Bajpai (2012) show that solar module output isn’t affected by wind
speed directly, but due to module temperature decreases, it contributes to PV module
efficiency. Skoplaki and Palyvos (2008) suggest below model which shows wind
velocity effect on module temperature as defines wind convection coefficient.
[ ] (1.4)
1.12.2.6 Shading
Shading is one of the factors that affects PV performance negatively by clouds

or objects such as buildings, trees etc. As known PV modules consist of lots of solar
cells in series. So in theory if a cell stops working due to shading effect, it is expected
that whole cells stops working. Fortunately extra p-n junction known as by-pass diode is
implemented to modules to protect them. On a study conducted by Patel and Agarwal
(2007), shows that shading on PV modules decrease energy output by causing non-
linearity on I-V characteristic of PV arrays.
54
Figure 1.44 Shade of tree on PV array
Source: (Homepower, 2013)
1.12.2.7 Soiling
Soiling causes degradation on photovoltaic performance and it might be ash,

sand or even snow .But its influence is not same on every location and rain has a
cleaning effect on some certain size of particles.
5 weeks of study conducted by Appels, et al. (2013) shows that in Belgium dust
accumulation on PV module may cause power loss between 3% and 4% if the dust can’t
be cleaned by rain. While Salim et al. (1988) shows that on desert conditions soiling
losses reach up to %32. Another study conducted by Khatib et al. (2013) in Malaysia
shows that degradation on PV performance due to soiling depends on pollutant type and
deposition level. When red soil, ash, sand, calcium carbonate, and silica are compared
as pollutants, ash has the highest voltage decrease by 25%. In figure 1.45, dust
accumulation on a PV module is given.
Figure 1.45 Dust layer accumulations on PV modules

Source: (Khatib, et al., 2013)
55
1.12.2.8 Albedo
Albedo or reflection coefficient means the fraction of incident radiation which is

reflected from a surface. The albedo values range from 0 to 1. Zero refers to a ground
that absorbs all the radiation, while one refers to a ground that completely reflect the
radiation. (Weast & Astle, 1982) Albedo has an importance on calculating solar
radiation on sloped surfaces as reflected diffuse radiation is the part of the total solar
radiation. So the higher albedo value means the higher reflectance. Thus the reflected
diffuse radiation contributes to total radiation on sloped collector. On table 1.12, albedo
values of some of the surfaces are given (The German Solar Energy Society, 2007)
Table 1.12 Typical Albedo Values of Different Surfaces
Surface Albedo
Grass 0.25
Lawn 0.18-0.23
Asphalt 0.15
Forests 0.05-0.18
Gravel 0.18
Clean Cement 0.55
Old Layer of Snow 0.45-0.70
Fresh Layer of Snow 0.80-0.90
56
2. MATERIAL AND METHOD
The objective of this study is to compare energy outputs from three solar
radiation models with actual energy outputs on inclined surfaces for two different
locations as Turkey and Greece. Due to the difficulty of measuring solar irradiance and
temperature momentarily, PVGIS-CMSAF (European Commision, 2005) data base is
used to obtain monthly average daily horizontal solar irradiation and average
temperature values for desired locations. PVGIS provides meteorological data which
covers the period of 1998-2011 for free. However, PVsyst simulation software allows
modeling a solar PV plant with real equipment (PV modules, inverters etc.) and making
the energy calculations with two different solar radiation model as; Hay Model and
Perez Model. In addition, in this study estimations of Liu and Jordan are done based on
the equations on chapter 2.2 by Excel, and losses of Hay model from PVsyst are also
used for each case.
First of all, calculation methods of the solar irradiation on inclined surfaces are
mentioned briefly by starting with isotropic model (Liu & Jordan, 1962) and then two
anisotropic model (Hay & Davies, 1980) and (Perez et al., 1990) respectively. Then
basically 4 different cases are presented. First case compares energy production from
estimations with actual values in general. Second case evaluates the effect of theoretical
optimum tilt angle while third case concentrates on soiling effect on energy production
by PV plants. Fourth case compares total energy production from the estimations with
actual values in terms of NASA-SSE and PVGIS-CMSAF meteorological databases.
However NASA-SSE meteorological database (NASA-POWER, 2005) covers the
measurements in the period of 1983-2005. For all cases the results from these two
anisotropic models and isotropic model are also compared with each other and actual
energy outputs. Solar radiation model and meteorological database performances are
also evaluated by using PR (Performance ratio), RMSE (Root Mean Square Error),
MBE (Mean Bias Error) statistical test methods and percentage error. In addition to
energy calculations a brief economic analysis is done for desired locations. In this
context, net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and payback period are
calculated.
57
2.1 Solar Radiation Models
Solar radiation measurements are mostly performed on horizontal plane while

most of the solar PV systems are tilted to maximize the radiation they collect. So these
data obviously isn’t adequate for estimations on tilted planes. (Notton, Poggi, &
Cristofari, 2005)
Solar radiation models are mathematical representations of solar radiation to

estimate the total solar radiation on inclined planes by using the data from
measurements on horizontal. There are lots of models have been devised and the main
difference among them is the way they treat three parts of diffuse radiation. Some
researchers (Liu & Jordan, 1962), (Koronakis, 1984) assume the diffuse radiation as
isotropic while others (Hay & Davies, 1980), (Perez et. al, 1987) assume anisotropic.
Figure 2.1 Beam, isotropic diffuse, circumsolar diffuse, horizon brightening,

and ground reflected radiation on a tilted surface
Source: (Duffie & Beckman, 1991)
Total incident radiation on tilted surface consists of three main parameters as;
beam radiation which is received from the sun without having been scattered by the
atmosphere, diffuse radiation (isotropic, circumsolar, horizon brightening) which is
received from the sun after its direction has been changed by scattering by atmosphere
58
and reflected radiation from various surfaces respectively as seen on equation (2.1).
(Duffie & Beckman, 1991)
(2.1)
2.1.1 Liu and Jordan model
Isotropic model (Liu & Jordan, 1962) is the simplest model that assumes all the
diffuse radiation is uniformly distributed over the sky. So total incident radiation
consists of three components as; beam radiation, isotropic diffuse radiation and the
radiation that is reflected. Thus, total irradiance on a surface tilted by can be written
as Eq. (2.2).
( ) ( ) (2.2)
is the slope of the surface, is ground reflectivity, is the ratio of the beam
radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface, is beam irradiance on
horizontal, is diffuse irradiance on horizontal, is total irradiance on horizontal

Circumsolar diffuse and horizon brightening diffuse radiation terms in Eq. (2.2) are
assumed as zero.
2.1.2 Hay and Davies model
According to the Hay and Davies model (Hay & Davies, 1980); diffuse radiation
consists of only two terms as; isotropic sky and circumsolar. Horizontal brightening is
not taken into account. In addition, it is assumed that circumsolar is from the same
direction with beam radiation. Ai is the anisotropy index that defines the transmittance
of atmosphere for beam radiation as seen in Eq. (2.3) where is the extraterrestrial
irradiance.
(2.3)
59
Thus, total irradiance on a surface tilted by can be written as Eq. (2.4).
( ) ( ) (2.4)
2.1.3 Perez model
Compared to other two models mentioned before, Perez Model (Perez et. al,
1990) has more detailed analysis of three diffuse radiation components (isotropic
diffuse, circumsolar and horizontal brightening). Thus, total irradiance on a surface
tilted by can be written as Eq. (2.5).
[ ( ) ] ( )
(2.5)
F1 and F2 are the circumsolar and horizontal brightness coefficients respectively. A and
B terms are that account for the angles of incidence of circumsolar radiation on tilted
and horizontal surface and given by below equations. a/b can be taken as Rb for most
hours.
a= max (0o, ) (2.6)
b=max ( ) (2.7)
F1 and F2 depend on the three sky parameters that describe the sky condition; zenith
angle , clearness and brightness which are defined in Eq. (2.8) and Eq. (2.9)
respectively where m is the air mass and Ion is the extraterrestrial normal radiation.
(2.8)
(2.9)
F1 and F2 are given in Eqs. ( ) and ( ), respectively.
60
[ ( )] (2.10)
(2.11)
f11, f12, f13, f21, f22, f23 are derived by Perez et al. (Perez, Stewart, Seals, & Guertin, 1988)
for different locations ( values) based on statistical analysis of empirical data.
Table 2.1 Brightness Coefficients of Perez Anisotropic Model

Source : (Perez et al., 1988)
Range of f11 f12 f13 f21 f22 f23

0 - 1.065 -0.196 1.084 -0.006 -0.114 0.180 -0.019
1.065 - 1.230 0.236 0.519 -0.180 -0.011 0.020 -0.038
1.230 - 1.500 0.454 0.321 -0.255 0.072 -0.098 -0.046
1.500 - 1.950 0.866 -0.381 -0.375 0.203 -0.403 -0.049
1.950 - 2.800 1.026 -0.711 -0.426 0.273 -0.602 -0.061
2.800 - 4.500 0.978 -0.986 -0.350 0.280 -0.915 -0.024
4.500 - 6.200 0.748 -0.913 -0.236 0.173 -1.045 0.065
6.200 - 0.318 -0.757 0.103 0.062 -1.698 0.236
A study conducted by Quesada et al. (2010) show that choice of different

radiation models (Liu and Jordan, Perez, Hay and Davies, Reindl) lead to 5% difference
in the predicted PV output and the biggest differences between models occur in the
winter season.
Loutzenhiser et al. (2007) compared total solar radiations on tilted surface with 7
different solar models in Duebendorg, Switzerland by using measured hourly solar
radiation at EMPA campus in two 25 days periods of October and March/April. In
regard to only isotropic sky, Hay-Davies and Perez models, for two periods, mean
deviations are % -5.3 and % -7.7 for isotropic sky, % -1.1 for Hay-Davies, %1.0 for
Perez 1990 and %3.5 for Perez 1987 model
Diez-Mediavilla et al. (2005) compared 10 diffuse solar irradiance models of

south facing and inclined at 42o in Valladolid, Spain. As different from most of
61
literature studies, Perez model doesn’t give the best results, it is stated that for better
results f11, f12, f13, f21, f22, f23 coefficients should be derived for particular place.
Performance of isotropic model seems good but illogical, it is seen that number of clear
days are greater than cloudy days. In regard to root mean square error values, best one is
Muneer Model with % 17.8 and %19.4 for isotropic, %22.0 for Perez, %22.1 for Hay-
Davies.
Li and Lam (1999) evaluated inclined solar irradiance of three anisotropic

models; Hay, Perez and Klucher for Hong Kong using two year measured data. In
regard to south facing and vertical surface, Hay model has the most accurate prediction
with %2.6 MBE and %16.5 RMSE while Perez model has %6.3 MBE and %17.9
RMSE.
Khalil and Shaffie (2013) reported that mean bias error values of isotropic, Perez
and Hay models under-predict the irradiance incident on inclined surface at Cairo,
Egypt by using the meteorological data during the time period 1990-2010. On the other
hand RMSE values of anisotropic models (Hay, Perez, and Klucher) show similar
performances while isotropic model and Temps and Coulson model show larger errors.
Thus Perez and Klucher models give the most accurate predictions on inclined surface
among 11 solar models.
Kambezidis and Psiloglou (1996) presents a comparative study of tilted 12

irradiation models with 4 different albedo models using 17 months of hourly
measurements of total solar irradiation on a surface tilted 50 degrees and oriented to the
south in Athens, Greece. It is seen that most of the models over-estimate slightly at high
irradiations. In general results; Gueymard, Hay, Reindl and SkartVeit-Olseth models
show the best performances with each one’s combination of albedo models.. In addition
Perez model doesn’t perform as well as isotropic model although it performs better in
most cases on previous assessment studies. This is explained by the coefficients of
Perez model don’t perfectly fit at Athens climate.
Demain et al. (2012) revealed that model performances are highly dependent on
sky conditions as evaluating the performance of 14 widely used solar models on
inclined surfaces for Belgium. While Perez model best fits under overcast condition,
62
Bugler model performs best under all sky conditions and Wilmott model gives best
results under partly cloudy and cloudy conditions
Chirarattananon et al. (2006) investigated accuracy of different solar models for

Bangkok, Thailand and point out that while Temp and Coulson gives the worst results
under overcast sky condition, Perez model gives more accurate results if its coefficients
derived from experimental data.
Padovan and Col (2012) show that if tilted planes oriented due south, isotropic
(Liu and Jordan) and anisotropic models have similar accuracy but for east oriented
planes, anisotropic models (Perez et al. , Reindl et al.) have significantly more accurate
results in Padova, Italy.
2.2 Calculation of Solar Energy on PV modules
As it is well known, photovoltaic cells are used to generate electricity from solar
radiation. So it is important to know solar radiation potential on a location where we
conduct our study. This can be achieved by calculating solar radiation hourly, daily or
monthly. In this manner we can calculate the solar radiation incident on sloped surface.
In regard to electricity which is generated by PV modules, the relevant losses must be
removed from solar radiation. In figure 2.2, we see the angles that are used on solar
energy calculations.
Figure 2.2 Solar Angles
Source: (Surles, n.d)
63
= Latitude, the angular location north or south of the equator, north positive
= Declination, the angular position of the sun at solar noon with respect to the plane
of the equator, north positive;
= Slope, the angle between the plane of the surface
= Surface azimuth angle, the deviation of the projection on a horizontal plane of the
normal to the surface from the local meridian, with zero due south, east negative and the
west positive
= Hour angle, the angular displacement of the sun east or west of the local meridian
due to rotation of the earth on its axis at 15o per hour, morning negative, afternoon
positive
= Angle of incidence, the angle between the beam radiation on a surface and the
normal to that surface.
Additional angles that seen below, describes the position of the sun in the sky
= Zenith angle, the angle between the vertical and the line to the sun
Solar altitude angle, the angle between the horizontal and the line to the sun
= Solar azimuth angle, the angular displacement from south of the projection of beam
radiation on the horizontal plane
Monthly average daily total radiation for any desired location is provided widely by lots
of corporation that are about solar energy. So in order to calculate total monthly average
daily radiation on tilted surfaces, we use equation 2.12 with the isotropic diffuse model
approach that includes beam radiation, isotropic diffuse and solar radiation diffusely
reflected from the ground that is developed by Liu and Jordan (1962) as extended by
(Klein, 1977) .
64
2.2.1 Calculation of monthly average daily total radiation on sloped surface
̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅ = ̅̅̅ ( ) ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ ( ) ̅ ( ) (2.12)
̅
̅̅̅̅ : Monthly average daily total radiation on sloped surface
̅̅̅ : Monthly average daily total radiation on a horizontal surface
̅̅̅̅ : Monthly average daily diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface
̅̅̅̅ : The ratio of the average daily beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on a
horizontal surface for the month
: Slope
As a result of Equation (2.12), monthly average daily radiation on sloped surface is

obtained. Thus to calculate the monthly average total radiation, this result should be
multiplied with the day number of desired month. (e.g for January, 31 is the number that
we multiply)
̅̅̅̅ is calculated by either equation (2.13) or (2.14), according to the hemisphere where
the collectors are. For surfaces in the northern hemisphere, sloped toward the equator
with = 0o
̅̅̅̅ (2.13)
For surfaces in the southern hemisphere, sloped toward the equator with = 180o
̅̅̅̅ (2.14)
65
̅̅̅̅ : The ratio of the average daily beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on a
horizontal surface for the month
: Sunset hour angle for the tilted surface for the mean day of the month
: Sunset hour angle
: Latitude
: Declination angle
, the sunset hour angle for the tilted surface for the mean day of the month is given
by equation (2.15) and (2.16). On both equations, minimum values in the brackets must
be chosen. The mean days of the months are given on table 2.2 .For surfaces in the
northern hemisphere, sloped toward the equator with = 0o equation (2.15) is used
otherwise equation (2.16) is used.
[ ] (2.15)
For surfaces in the southern hemisphere, sloped toward the equator with = 180o
[ ] (2.16)
, the sunset hour angle is calculated by equation (2.17) as below.
(2.17)
, the declination angle is calculated by equation (2.18) which is derived by Cooper,

(1969).
( ) (2.18)
n = The day of the year that is given on Table 2.2
66
Table 2.2 Recommended Average Days of Months
Source: (Klein, 1977)
For the Average day of The Month

th
n for i n, Day of the , declination
Month Day of the month Date Year
January i 17 17 -20.9
February 31+i 16 47 -13.0
March 59+i 16 75 -2.4
April 90+i 15 105 9.4
May 120+i 15 135 18.8
June 151+i 11 162 23.1
July 181+i 17 198 21.2
August 212+i 16 228 13.5
September 243+i 15 258 2.2
October 273+i 15 288 -9.6
November 304+i 14 318 -18.9
December 334+i 10 344 -23.0
̅̅̅̅
̅
, the ratio of monthly average daily diffuse radiation on horizontal surface to the
monthly average daily radiation on a horizontal surface can be calculated from a

knowledge of and ̅̅̅̅ values, as shown in equation (2.19) and (2.20).
For and ̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ (2.19)
̅
For and ̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ (2.20)
̅
67
2.2.2 Calculation of monthly average hourly total radiation on sloped surface
For some purposes, daily total radiations or monthly average daily radiations on
horizontal aren’t sufficient to determine hour by hour performances of solar systems
precisely. Because daily radiation values in the middle of the clear sky and cloudy sky
conditions don’t have same characteristics. However it is known that cloud intensity
which makes impossible determining of the exact solar radiation of any hour of the day,
affects the radiation level. In addition losses such as temperature losses must be
calculated by the hour. Due to these reasons hourly radiation calculations are needed for
more precise results. In Equation (2.21), determining hourly radiation on sloped
surfaces is given. (Duffie & Beckman, 1991)
( ) ( ) (2.21)
: The ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on horizontal surface
: Hourly total radiation on tilted surface
: Hourly beam radiation on horizontal
: Hourly diffuse radiation on horizontal
: Hourly total radiation on horizontal
: Slope
In addition to equation (2.21), hourly radiation for desired hours can be estimated by
using daily radiation values. (Collares-Pereira & Rabl, 1979) Developed an equation; as
seen in equation (2.22) which is used to estimation of hourly radiation from daily
radiation data.
(2.22)
68
(2.23)
: Hour angle
I : Hourly total radiation
H : Daily total radiation
The coefficients a and b are given by
(2.24)
(2.25)
As the same way obtaining of , hourly average diffuse radiation can be estimated by
using daily diffuse radiation values as seen on equation (2.26) and (2.27)
(2.26)
(2.27)
; the hour angle is calculated by this method: 150 for per hour times and it is taken as
negative before noon otherwise positive (e.g at 10.30 AM, its value is -22.5 o). In
addition, for hour periods, midpoint of these hours can be taken to determine the hour
angle. (Duffie & Beckman, 1991)
Equation (2.28) and (2.29) provide obtaining monthly average hourly radiation on tilted
surfaces by using monthly average daily values.
̅= [ ̅ ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ ( ) ̅ ( )] (2.28)
69
Equation (2.28) could be written as it is shown in equation (2.29) by writing ̅ as ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅
̅ = ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ [ ( ) ( )] (2.29)
̅ ̅
̅ : Monthly average hourly radiation on tilted surface
̅̅̅̅ : Monthly average clearness index, the ratio of monthly average daily radiation on a
horizontal surface to the monthly average daily extraterrestrial radiation
̅̅̅̅ : Monthly mean daily extraterrestrial radiation on horizontal surface
̅ : Monthly average daily radiation on a horizontal surface
̅̅̅̅: Monthly average daily diffuse radiation on horizontal surface
: Ratio of total radiation in an hour to total in a day
: Ratio of hourly diffuse radiation to daily diffuse radiation
: Ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on horizontal surface
= reflectance coefficient
Slope
Monthly mean daily extraterrestrial radiation on horizontal surface is obtained by

equation (2.30), the solar constant is generally taken as 1367 W/m2.
̅̅̅̅ ( ) ( )
(2.30)
: Latitude
: Declination
70
: Solar constant
: Sunset hour angle
n : Day of year
̅
̅̅̅̅ (2.31)
̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅ : Clearness index
̅ : Monthly mean daily radiation on horizontal surface
In the northern hemisphere, for
(2.32)
In the southern hemisphere, for
(2.33)
: Ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on horizontal surface
: Latitude
: Declination
: Azimuth angle
̅̅̅̅
̅
depends on and ̅̅̅̅ values
For and ̅̅̅̅
71
̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ (2.34)
̅
For and ̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅
̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ (2.35)
̅
Sunset hour angle is calculated from the knowledge of declination and latitude as it is
shown in equation (2.36).
(2.36)
2.2.3 Calculation of total electricity production
As seen above, monthly average hourly radiation and monthly average daily
radiation on tilted surfaces are obtained by equation (2.21) and (2.12) respectively.
However if the instantaneous measured data of solar radiation provided, exact total
radiations can be calculated rather than the average ones. After obtaining solar radiation
amount on tilted surfaces electrical energy output of system can be calculated.
The cost of PV equipment is slightly high. Thus before designing such system,
investments must be made carefully. So it is important to predict electrical output to
prevent from loss of money and time. A method to obtain electrical output of a PV
system is given on below. Monthly average hourly electrical output is obtained from the
knowledge of monthly average hourly radiation on tilted surface, monthly average
efficiency, the collector area, inverter efficiency and losses as seen in equation (2.37)
(RETSCREEN, 2004)
72
̅ ̅ ̅ (2.37)
̅: The monthly average array electrical energy output
: Monthly average array efficiency
: Module area
̅: Monthly average hourly radiation incident on sloped surface
: Inverter efficiency
: Miscellaneous array losses
: Various power conditioning losses
Monthly average array efficiency depends on a lot of variables as seen in equation

(2.38). On the other hand, most of these terms in equation (2.38) are given by PV
module manufacturers so calculations must be repeated for different PV modules.
̅̅̅
̅ [ ( ) ( ) ]
(2.38)
̅ : Monthly average array efficiency
: Maximum power point efficiency, measured at reference conditions
: The efficiency of any power conditioning equipment
: Temperature coefficient of maximum power point efficiency of the array
: Ambient temperature
: Cell temperature under STC
̅ : Monthly average hourly radiation incident on sloped surface
73
( ) (2.39)
: The nominal operating cell temperature
: Incident solar radiation at nominal operating temperature conditions
: Transmittance of any cover that may be over the cells
: Fraction of the radiation incident on the surface of the cells that is absorbed
: Collector overall heat loss coefficient
The Nominal operating conditions, abbreviated as NOCT generally given in

specifications of PV module. In addition, the subscript of mp, defines the maximum
power point that is based on the point where the product of current and voltage is
maximum for PV cells. The maximum power point efficiency of module can be
calculated by equation (2.40) if it is needed.
(2.40)
: Maximum power point efficiency of module
: Maximum current at maximum power point
: Maximum voltage at maximum power point
: Incident solar radiation at nominal operating temperature conditions
: Module area
Monthly average hourly extraterrestrial radiation is obtained by equation (2.41), and

defines the hour angles for selected hours
74
̅
( )
( ) (2.41)
̅ Monthly average hourly extraterrestrial radiation
̅
(̅̅̅) (2.42)
(2.43)
(2.44)
[ ] (2.45)
̅̅̅ (2.46)
̅̅̅ (2.47)
̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅ (2.48)
̅̅̅ Monthly average hourly clearness index
a1, a2, a3, b1, b2, b3 = Empirical constants
̅ ̅
̅̅̅ = ̅̅̅̅ ̅̅̅̅ (2.49)
̅ ̅̅̅̅
(2.50)
(2.51)
: Hour angle
̅ : Monthly average hourly radiation on horizontal surface
In addition if it is needed calculating daylight hours, it is given in equation (2.52)
75
(2.52)
N : number of daylight hours
2.2.4 Performance parameters of PV system
Final yield is the ratio of the net energy output (AC) of system and total (DC) power of
the PV array at STC (1000W/m2 solar irradiance, 25oC cell temperature). It also means
the total hours that system needs to operate at its rated power to obtain same amount of
energy. (Kurokawa, Komoto, Vleuten, & Faiman, 2007)
(kWh/kW) (2.53)
Reference yield is the ratio of total solar irradiance on PV area and reference irradiance,
which is assumed as 1 kWh/m2. It also means number of peak sun hours. (Kurokawa et
al., 2007)
(2.54)
Performance ratio (PR) is Yf divided by Yr or in other words the ratio of actual energy
output and theoretically energy output of PV systems. It is calculated weekly, monthly
or yearly basis. It is also a dimensionless measurement of losses of the system and
generally used to compare different solar PV plants. . (Kurokawa et al., 2007)
(2.55)
Kymakis et al. (2008) present the performance evaluation of a grid connected

photovoltaic park which has a peak power of 171.36 kWp in island of Crete, Greece.
Actual data are used and the PV system is analyzed hourly, daily and monthly bases. It
is seen that final yield and reference yield are 1336.6 and 1984 respectively thus
76
average annual performance ratio of the system is 67.36%, while energy output is 229
MWh in 2007 and the losses are calculated individually as; PV degradation losses,
temperature losses, soiling losses, internal network losses, inverter losses, transformer
losses, availability & grid connection losses by 5%, 7.12%, 5.86%, 6%, 7.84%, 2%,
4.54%
Messina et al. (2013) compared 2.4 kW grid-connected two same PV

installations which are located at different climatic locations in Mexico in terms of
energy outputs and performance ratios. First system is located in Tepic, oriented toward
south and inclined at 22o to the horizontal and with an azimuth of 9o to the southwest
and the second system is located in Temixco-Morelos, oriented 30o from the south
toward west and inclined at 15o to the horizontal. Performance ratio (PR) is calculated
to compare different PV installations. Thus obtained PR values are %84.3 for first
system and %81.8 for second system however it is seen that first system supplied 3888
kWh energy to the grid while second system supplied 4118 kWh.
2.3 Test methods of accuracy of models
2.3.1 Mean bias error
Mean Bias Error (MBE) is used to evaluate the accuracy of prediction and this method
gives information on long-term performance of model. Negative values of MBE
indicate that the underestimation in the estimated value while its positive values mean
the overestimation. In ideal case its values are equal to zero otherwise low MBE is
desired. %MBE, between -%10 and +%10 is acceptable. (Robaa, 2008)
(2.56)
(2.57)
77
2.3.2 Root mean square error
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is used to evaluate the accuracy of prediction and this
method gives information on short-term performance of model. Its values are always
positive and the smaller value of RMSE is always desired. (Glover & McCulloch, 1958)
√ (2.58)
(2.59)
2.3.3 Percentage error
It is used to see difference between estimated and actual (observed) value or in other
words; it is the measure of uncertainty.
% error = x 100 (2.60)
2.4 Economic analysis methods
2.4.1 Net Present Value
Net present value (NPV) is the sum of the present value of cash inflow and cash outflow
over a period of time. Decision rule is given below; ( Brigham, 1979)
Accept if NPV > 0 Reject if NPV < 0
∑ (2.61)
78
T :Time
C :Cash flow
r :Discount rate
Co :Initial investment
2.4.2 Internal rate of return
Internal rate of return (IRR) is the discount rate that makes the net present value of all
cash flows equal to zero. If he IRR is larger than expected rate, project might be
accepted. Ranking criteria is selecting the project with the highest IRR. ( Brigham,
1979)
∑ (2.62)
2.4.3 Payback period
Payback period (PB) calculates how long it takes to recover the cost of project. Decision
rule is given below; ( Brigham, 1979)
Accept if payback period (PB) < desired maximum period of time
(2.63)
79
2.5 Calculation Tool for Energy Calculations
On energy calculations of solar photovoltaic installations for more accurate

results and most importantly to save time, several solar energy calculation tools are
released such as PVSYST, PVSOL, PVGIS, RetScreen etc.
Sharma and Chandel (2013) carried out a study of performance analysis and
prediction of a 190 kWp (poly-crystalline) placed facing south and inclined at fixed
angle of 25o, solar photovoltaic power installed in Khatkar-Kalan, India. Performance
prediction is done by PVSYST software. However measured global solar radiation and
the ambient temperature at the solar plant location are used as input data. Average
annual performance ratio and system efficiency are calculated from actual data as; 74%
and 8.3% respectively. It is seen that predicted values of annual energy yield is in
concordance with measured values with uncertainty of 1.4%.
Another study conducted by Caglayan et al. (2013) evaluates the viability of

solar PV plants across 135 locations in Turkey. Prediction of energy production is done
by Retscreen software by using interpolated 22 year of meteorological data over
Turkey. As a result, in terms of electricity production Osmaniye, Dalaman, Koycegiz,
Manavgat, and Aydın have the highest values respectively while Artvin, Gumushane,
Tosya, Samsun, and Giresun have the lowest values respectively.
PVsyst software which is mainly used for conducting energy calculations and
economic evaluations in regard to PV systems, allows designing full-featured study and
analysis of grid-connected, stand alone, pumping and dc-grid systems accurately with
extensive meteorological data and real PV components. On energy calculations PVsyst
not only use solar irradiation and temperature data of selected locations but also use
other parameters such as shading, soiling and electrical resistance. Users can also
modify most of the parameters of their system. (PVSYST, 2012)
80
Figure 2.3 PVsyst Main Page
When we first open PVsyst, main page meets us, including 3 main options:
preliminary design, project design and tools. Briefly preliminary is preliminary study of
a system as providing quick evaluation of the PV potential and possible constraints of
any requested area thanks to given meteorological data independently from real
components. On the other hand project design is a full-featured study section that
provides energy yield and performance ratio of system, shading studies, detailed losses,
and economic evaluation for selected locations by using real components and
meteorological data. Tools section allows not only reviewing meteorological data and
behavior of PV components but also importing or modifying PV components,
meteorological data as desired.
Figure 2.4 New Project Screen
81
On main page we choose “project design” below the option title, then system
asks to choose grid-connected, stand alone, pumping and dc grid. We choose grid-
connected due to we design a PV solar plant with grid connected. As we see 7 different
sections face us as: project, orientation, horizon, near shadings, system, module layout
and simulation respectively. We first start a new project by clicking project button.
Project and simulation version definitions screen faces us to input the relevant
information about our project such as name of project, customer address, and mail
address. This screen is the place where we can load or cancel our project.
Figure 2.5 Project and Simulation Version Definitions Screen
We have to define a geographical site and meteorological data so next move is

clicking site and meteo button. We can either choose a site from built-in database of
PVsyst based on Meteonorm which holds around 1200 sites or we can create a new site.
Project’s site defines the coordinates (latitude, longitude, altitude, time zone) and
monthly meteorological data (global irradiation, diffuse irradiation, temperature, wind
speed). After choosing our site, we can click next button.
82
Figure 2.6 Meteorological Data Screen
We can check the meteo file as below under the monthly meteo description that
includes monthly solar irradiation and temperature values. However under the
geographical coordinate description, site name, country, region, latitude, altitude,
longitude, time zone values are also seen.
Figure 2.7 Geographical Site Parameters: Monthly Meteo Screen
83
Figure 2.8 Geographical Site Parameters: Geographical Coordinates Screen
Tools section at the PVsyst main screen leads us to create a new site. We can
either create a new site from geographical sites section or import meteo data section.
Geographical sites section imports the meteorological data from NASA-SSE database.
Some users find this data is rather old to conduct high accurate study. Import meteo data
section allows us to import any meteorological data from several databases such as
PVGIS, Meteonorm, NASA and SolarGIS. If we have newer or measured
meteorological data, that will result our study more accurately.
Figure 2.9 Tools Screen
84
On tools screen under the components database description we can also examine the
definition of the component that we use. However if we can’t find our component we
have chance to import them via internet or manually.
Figure 2.10 Definition of a PV module Screen
Figure 2.11 Grid Inverter Definitions Screens
85
After we choose our site, we leave albedo values settings as default. Albedo is used to
define the measurement of the reflectivity of the earth’s surface. We can also modify
these values if we are experienced enough.
Figure 2.12 Albedo Values Screen
After we save our project, we go back new project screen to click on orientation section where
we define field paramaters (tilt and azimuth angle) and the field type of our solar panel
installation (fixed tilted, tracking two axis, tracking sun shields, seasonal tilt etc).
Figure 2.13 PV Module Orientation Screen
86
On horizon section, we can see the horizon line or modify it. Actually this section is
used for far-shading effect where the shading objects are far enough from our PV
system. It is generally left as default.
Figure 2.14 Horizon for Far Shading Screen
On system section we define almost everything about our PV system. Firstly we

define whether planned power or available area. Then choose a PV module from under
the select PV module description, where the PV panels are grouped by their power,
technology and manufacturer. System gives us maximum number of modules as we
choose our PV module. After module type, we should choose our inverter. As well as
PV module section, inverter section is also grouped by power, voltage and
manufacturer. However system shows dialogue for warnings, errors and how to
proceed. Finally we can design array of our system as defining number of modules and
strings. In addition PVsyst components database doesn’t include every PV components,
so we can import them on Tools/Component Database description if it is needed. On the
other hand several parameters are fixed by PVsyst as reasonable default values but they
can be modified. These parameters are grouped as thermal parameters, ohmic losses,
module quality mismatch, soiling Loss and IAM Losses under the detailed loss
description.
87
Figure 2.15 System Definition Screen
Figure 2.16 Detailed Losses Screen
88
On near shading section for more accurate results we can plot our 3d model of the
system. If there are objects that cause shading on PV system like trees or buildings can
easily be added to 3d model to take shading factor into consideration. We can save our
model or open a model which is made before.
Figure 2.17 Near Shadings Screen
Figure 2.18 A sample of 3D model
89
On simulation screen, the summary of our system face us .We start hourly simulation
progress by clicking the simulation button that is at the bottom of the simulation screen.
Figure 2.19 Simulation Screen
As the simulation finishes, we click ok button then results screen faces us. At the
top of the results screen the summary of system is seen. In the middle of the screen
there is a frame summarizing the main results that includes six values as: main
production, normalized production, specific production, performance ratio, array losses
and system losses. On the bottom left of screen we see input/output diagram that shows
the energy that was injected to the grid as a function of the global incident irradiation in
the collector plane for every simulated days. In order to obtain complete report we
should click on report button. For deeper analysis of the simulation results, we can
examine tables, predefined graphs and hourly graphs sections.
90
Figure 2.20 Main Results Screen
We can examine simulation results as several monthly tables (balances and main results,
detailed system losses, detailed inverter losses etc.).
Figure 2.21 Simulation Results Monthly Tables Screen
91
Figure 2.22 Simulation Results Graphs Screen
On results screen, there is a description named Economic Evaluation allows us to make

a detailed economic evaluation including investment, financing values in detail.
Figure 2.23 Economic Evaluation Screen
92
2. 6.Technical Information about PV Plants
2.6.1. Greece Plant
The PV system which is located in Kastoria is ground-mounted installation and

has a peak power of 500 kWp and has been in operation since 2013. It supplied 734
MWh to the grid during 2014, ranging from 34.53 to 89.37 kWh. The PV system is
mainly comprised of 2120 x Yingli Green 235W YL235P-29b polycrystalline PV
modules and connected to the 41 x SMA Sunny Tripower 11000TL reactive Power
Control, 1 SMA Sunny Tripower 15000Tl-10 and 1 SMA Sunny Tripower 11000 TL-10
inverters. The PV system is facing south and tilted at 25o.
Table 2.3 Geographical Data of Kastoria Plant
Description Value
Latitude 40.5193o
Longitude 21,2687o
Altitude 715 m
Time Zone +2
Table 2.3 shows geographical data of Kastoria plant with latitude, longitude,
altitude and time zone values. However on the following Figure 2.24 and Figure 2.25,
monthly average global irradiation and monthly average ambient temperature values are
given respectively. These values are used as input data for simulation and imported
from PVGIS-CMSAF database (European Commision, 2005) rather than measured
values at the same place where the PV plant is installed. Meteorological data from
different databases can be used for energy calculations to see their accuracy.
93
250 226,6
211,8 204
190
200
150 142,2
150 126,5
102,9
100 71,3 64,5
55,5 47,4
50
0
Global Irradiance (kWh/m^2.mth)
Figure 2.24 Monthly Average Global Irradiations of Kastoria
According to PVGIS meteorological database; highest monthly irradiation

belongs to July by 226.6 kWh/m2 and the lowest monthly irradiation is in December by
47.4 kWh/m2.
25 23,6 23,4
20,2
20 18
15,8
15 13
10,6
10 7,5
6,4
5 2,4 2,7
0,9
0
o
Temperature C
Figure 2.25 Monthly Average Ambient Temperature Values of Kastoria
94
According to PVGIS meteorological database; highest average monthly ambient
temperature is on July by 23.6 oC and the lowest average monthly ambient temperature
is on January by 0.9 oC. Technical properties of this plant, as general properties on table
2.4, PV module properties are given on Table 2.5 and inverter properties on Table 2.6
are given respectively.
Table 2.4 Technical Properties of Kastoria Plant
Technical Properties
PV system power 500 kWp
Tracking Fixed
Modules 235W YL 235P-29b x 2120 pcs
PV technology Polycrystalline
Module Manufacturer Yingli Green Energy
Inverter Sunny Tripower 11000TL reactive Power
Control x 41pcs
Sunny Tripower 15000Tl-10
Sunny Tripower 11000 TL-10
Inverter Manufacturer SMA
Sensors Sunny SensorBox
Table 2.5 PV Module Specifications of Kastoria Plant
Type Multi Crystalline Silicon (mc-Si)

Module Efficiency 14.42 %
Maximum Power, Pmax (W) 235.5
Module Area (m2) 1.633
NOCT 46 +/-2
95
Table 2.6 Inverter Specifications of Kastoria Plant
Model SMA 11000TL

Type Monophased
Nominal AC Power (kW) 11
Maximum Efficiency 98.0 %
Model SMA 10000 TL
Type Triphased
Model SMA 15000 TL
Type Triphased
2.6.2. Turkey Plant
The PV system which is located in Kocaeli is a roof-top installation and has a peak
power of 110 kWp and has been in operation since February of 2014. It supplied 114.22
MWh to the grid during 2014, ranging from 2.83 to 16.76 MWh. The PV system is
mainly comprised of 441 x Yingli Green 250W P-29b (UL) polycrystalline PV modules
and connected to the 7 x SMA 15000W Sunny Tripower TL-10 inverters. The PV
system is facing south and tilted at 15o.
Table 2.7 Geographical Data of Kocaeli Plant
Description Value
Latitude 40.8111o
Longitude 29,5558 o
Altitude 309 m
Time Zone +2
96
Table 2.7 shows geographical data of Kocaeli plant with latitude, longitude,
altitude and time zone values. However on the following figures monthly average global
irradiation and monthly average ambient temperature values are given respectively.
These values are used as input data for simulation and imported from PVGIS database
rather than measured values at the same place where the PV plant is installed.
Meteorological data from different databases can be used for energy calculations to see
their accuracy.
According to PVGIS meteorological database; highest monthly irradiation belongs to

July by 224.4 kWh/m2 and the lowest monthly irradiation is in December by
41.5kWh/m2.
250 224,4
211,8
193,8 198,1
200
141,3 139,2
150
110,4
93,6
100
61,8 60,9
45,2 41,5
50
Global Irradiance (kWh/m^2.mth)
Figure 2.26 Monthly Average Global Irradiations of Kocaeli
According to PVGIS meteorological database; highest average monthly ambient

temperature are in July and August by 23.1oC and the lowest average monthly ambient
temperature is in January by 3.6oC. Technical properties of this plant, as general
properties on Table 2.8, PV module properties on Table 2.9 and inverter properties on
Table 2.10 are given respectively.
97
25 23,1 23,1
20,2 19,2
20
16,2
14,4
15
11,5
10
10 7,4
4,5 5,4
5 3,6
Temperature ( Celcius )
Figure 2.27 Monthly Average Temperature Values of Kocaeli
Table 2.8 Technical Properties of Kocaeli Plant
Technical Properties
PV system power 110 kWp
Tracking Fixed
Modules 250W P-29b (UL) x 441pcs
PV technology Multi crystalline
Module Manufacturer Yingli Green Energy
Inverter 15000W Sunny Tripower TL-10 x 7pcs
Inverter Manufacturer SMA
Sensors Sunny SensorBox
98
Table 2.9 PV Module Specifications of Kocaeli Plant
Type Multi Crystalline Silicon (mc-Si)

Module Efficiency 15.37 %
Maximum Power, Pmax (W) 250.3
Module Area (m2) 1.792
NOCT 46 +/-2
Table 2.10 Inverter Specifications of Kocaeli Plant
Type Triphased
99
2.7. Case Studies of Energy Calculations
2.7.1. Case 1
In this case estimated results from different solar radiation models (Liu &
Jordan, Hay & Davies and Perez et al.) are compared with actual energy outputs. Solar
irradiation and temperature data are obtained from PVGIS database and used as input
data for calculations. Root mean square error (RMSE), mean bias error (MBE)
statistical test methods and percentage error (% error) are also used to see the accuracy
of models. On the other hand losses of systems are given in detail and compared with
each other. It is also assumed that albedo value (ground reflection coefficient) is 0.2,
wind velocity is 1.5 m/s, soiling factor is 0, PV modules are positioned to the south and
systems work with no failures.
2.7.2. Case 2
In this case, evaluation of the effect of change in PV module orientation in terms

of tilt angle on total energy production is done for both PV plants. Tilt angles are
changed from 25o to 33o for Kastoria, Greece and from 15o to 33o for Kocaeli, Turkey.
Total energy productions are calculated by using different solar radiation models (Liu
and Jordan, Hay and Davies, Perez et al.) then simulation results from systems with old
and new tilt angle, are compared with both each other and actual energy production
results. Solar irradiation and temperature data are obtained from PVGIS database and
used as input data for calculations. Root mean square error (RMSE) and mean bias error
(MBE) statistical test methods and percentage error are also used to see the accuracy of
models. It is assumed that albedo value (ground reflection coefficient) is 0.2, wind
velocity is 1.5 m/s, soiling factor is 0, PV modules are positioned to the south and
systems work with no failures.
100
2.7.3. Case 3
In this case evaluation of soiling effect on energy production for plants in

Kastoria, Greece and Kocaeli, Turkey are performed. Soiling factors are taken 0%, 1%
and 3% respectively and the estimations from different solar radiation models (Liu &
Jordan, Hay & Davies and Perez et al.) are compared with each other and actual results.
Solar irradiation and temperature data are obtained from PVGIS database and used as
input data for calculations. Root mean square error (RMSE) and mean bias error (MBE)
statistical test methods and percentage error are also used to see the accuracy of models.
It is also assumed that albedo value (ground reflection coefficient) is 0.2, wind velocity
is 1.5 m/s, PV modules are positioned to the south and systems work with no failures.
2.7.4. Case 4
In this case total energy productions from estimations and actual results are
compared in terms of different meteorological databases (PVGIS-CMSAF and NASA-
SSE) to obtain solar irradiation and average ambient temperature values, by using
different solar radiation models (Liu & Jordan, Hay & Davies and Perez et al.). Root
mean square error (RMSE), mean bias error (MBE) statistical methods and percentage
error are used to see the accuracy of models and the meteorological databases.
In addition only Hay-Davies and Perez models are compared because on

NASA-SSE database diffuse radiation is not given while PVGIS gives measured diffuse
radiation. Thus PVSYST calculates diffuse radiation by using Liu-Jordan correlation if
the NASA database is used. It is also assumed that albedo value (ground reflection
coefficient) is 0.2, wind velocity is 1.5 m/s, soiling factor is 0, PV modules are
positioned to the south and systems work with no failures.
101
2.8. Case Studies of Economic Analysis
2.8.1 Case A
In this case internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV) and payback
periods of PV plants as given Kocaeli and Kastoria are calculated. The calculations are
based on following assumptions which is given on Table 2.11.
Table 2.11 Assumptions of Economic Analysis
Assumptions of Economic Analysis

1 USD 0.9122 EUR
1 TRY 0.3494 EUR
Solar Feed in tariff in Turkey 13.3$ cent/kWh
Solar Feed in Tariff in Greece 9 € cent/kWh
Project insurance cost 0.1%
Project O&M cost 1.25%
Surcharge percentage of annual expenses 0.5%
Yearly system performance decrease 0.7%
EPC cost of 1MW plant €1.1 million
Rate of own capital 30%
Rate of bank credit 70%
Bank credit interest rate 4.5%
Credit period 10 years
Grace period 2 years
Own Consumption None
Current interest of bank sector 3.5%
*Note : EPC :Engineering, Procurement and construction, O&M : Operations & Maintenance
102
2.8.2 Case B
In this case internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV) and payback
periods of PV plants as given Kocaeli and Kastoria are calculated. But it is assumed that
that both plants are ground mounted and have same conditions and capacity. So in this
case only differences are feed-in-tariff rates and electricity productions. The
calculations are done based on the assumptions on Table 2.11
103
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Energy Calculations for Selected Plants
Energy calculations are done for multi-crystalline based two solar PV plants as; 500kW
ground-mounted installation in Kastoria, Greece and 110kW roof-mounted installation
in Kocaeli, Turkey. Actual energy production values are compared with results of
estimations from PVSYST software by using three solar radiation models (Liu &
Jordan, Hay & Davies and Perez et. al) and two meteorological databases (NASA-SSE
and PVGIS-CMSAF). The accuracy of cases is evaluated in terms of some statistical
test results (Root mean square error, mean bias error and percentage error).
3.2. Case 1 Results
3.2.1 Case 1- Kastoria
According to PVsyst energy production results which are given on Table 3.1,
produced energy, specific production and performance ratio are calculated as 700
MWh/year, 1403 kWh/kWp/year and %79 respectively. It should be noted that in this
case only PVGIS meteorological database is used to obtain solar irradiation and ambient
temperature data for given coordinates rather than actual instantaneous meteorological
data. Soiling assumed as zero also. The results from Hay model is given in detail.
Table 3.1 Main Results of Kastoria (Hay Model)
Main Simulation Results

Produced Energy 700 MWh/year
Final Yield 1403 kWh/kWp/year
Performance Ratio % 79
Produced energy is the final energy output of the system while final yield is
obtained by dividing produced energy by the nominal power of the system. Performance
ratio means ratio of actual energy output and theoretically possible energy output of the
system.
104
Table 3.2 Balances and Main Results of Kastoria (Hay Model)
GlobHor T Amb GlobInc GlobEff EArray E_Grid EffArrR EffSysR

2 o 2 2
kWh/m C kWh/m kWh/m MWh kWh % %
January 55.5 0.90 81.6 76.5 35.39 34.46 15.20 12.17
February 71.3 2.40 93.7 88.9 40.66 39.65 12.51 12.20
March 126.5 6.40 150.3 143.2 63.87 62.38 12.25 11.96
April 150.0 10.60 161.1 153.5 66.73 65.15 11.94 11.65
May 189.7 15.80 188.8 179.6 75.55 73.76 11.53 11.26
June 211.8 20.20 203.4 193.9 79.21 77.32 11.23 10.96
July 226.6 23.60 220.5 210.7 83.85 81.88 10.96 10.70
August 204.0 23.40 214.8 205.8 82.14 80.25 11.02 10.77
September 142.2 18.0 163.7 156.5 65.19 63.66 11.48 11.21
October 102.9 13.00 132.3 125.9 54.57 53.27 11.89 11.61
November 64.5 7.50 93.5 88.4 39.35 38.37 12.13 11.83
December 47.4 2.70 72.8 67.6 30.96 30.12 12.27 11.93
Year 1592.4 12.10 1776.4 1690.5 717.48 700.27 11.64 11.36
On Table 3.2, GlobHor defines the solar irradiation on horizontal provided by

meteorological data. Tamb defines the ambient temperature. The lowest value of
temperature is in January by 0.9 oC while the highest one is in July by 23.6 oC. GlobInc
defines the solar irradiation on inclined plane and with parallel to the GlobHor, highest
and the lowest values of solar irradiation are in July and in December by 220.5 and 72.8
kWh/m2 respectively. GlobEff defines effective global solar irradiation on the collectors
after losses such as shadings and IAM (Incidence Angle Modifier). EArray defines the
produced energy by PV array as input of the inverters after other losses such as
temperature loss, irradiance loss etc. E_grid is the final energy output of the system and
varied from 30.12 MWh to 81.88 MWh in December and July respectively. EffArrR
and EffSysR define PV array efficiency and system efficiency respectively. Surprisingly
the highest system efficiency is obtained in February by 12.20 % while the lowest one is
obtained in July by 10.70 % in contrast to produced energy by months. On the other
hand yearly average of system efficiency is 11.36 %.
105
0,9
0,8
0,85
0,85
0,83
0,83
0,82
0,81
0,81
0,78
0,78
0,76
0,7
0,75
0,74
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Performance ratio (PR) : 0.790
Figure 3.1 Performance Ratio Values of Kastoria by months (Hay Model)
According to the performance ratio (PR) values of Kastoria by months which are
given in Figure 3.1, annual average performance ratio is 0.79 while the highest and the
lowest values of PR are in January and February by 0.85 and in July by 0.74
respectively. As mentioned before, performance ratio is the indicator of the quality of
the system and means ratio of actual energy output and theoretically possible energy
output of the PV system. The reason why PR values of summer months are lower than
winter months can be understood by analyzing the losses in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3.
106
8
Normalized Energy Kwh/kWp/day 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Months
Yf : 3.84 kWh/kWp/day Ls : 0.09 kW/kWp/day Lc : 0.93 kW/kWp/day
Figure 3.2 Normalized Productions of Kastoria Plant (Hay model)
Normalized productions for Kastoria plant are given in Figure 3.2. Final yield
(Yf), (see chapter 2.3.4) system losses (Ls) and array capture losses (Lc) are obtained as
3.84, 0.09 and 0.93 kW/kWp/day respectively. It is realized that array losses (Lc) and
system losses (Lc) have their highest values on June, July and August when the highest
energy production values (Yf) are obtained. However temperature as a biggest loss
factor causes higher losses on summer months. That is also an answer for the lower
performance ratios of these months compared to other months.
In Figure 3.3, loss diagram of the system is given in detail. Diagram starts with
the 1592 kWh/m2 of solar irradiation on horizontal. Due to the tilted PV modules,
11.6 % of gain is obtained. 1.9 % and 2.9 % of losses are occurred by shading and IAM
factor (corresponds to the decrease of the irradiance really reaching the PV cells’
surface) respectively. Irradiance level causes 3.4 % of energy loss while temperature
causes 7.9 % of energy loss. Because the solar cell efficiency is generally measured
under standard test conditions (STC), with PV cell temperature of 25 °C, irradiance of
1000 W/m2 and air mass 1.5 spectrum. Any condition under or above these values may
cause losses on energy. Other losses are 1.6 % for module quality, 2.1% for module
array mismatch, and 1.0% for ohmic wiring losses.
107
Finally inverter causes 2.4% of energy loss during its operation and the injected
energy into the grid is obtained as 700 MWh for Kastoria by using Hay model on
energy calculations.
Figure 3.3 Loss Diagram Over the Whole Year for Kastoria Plant (Hay model)
108
Figure 3.4.Whole Year Loss Diagram Comparison of Hay-Davies and Perez models for
Kastoria
If the loss diagrams are compared, it is realized that the largest difference between
the results of Hay-Davies and Perez models is global solar irradiation on inclined plane.
It is seen that system and array losses are almost same.
109
100
Energy Production ( MWh) 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Months
Liu and Jordan Hay and Davies Perez et al. Actual
Figure 3.5 Actual versus Estimated Energy Production of Kastoria Plant for Case 1
In Figure 3.5, estimated results are compared with 12 months of actual data for
Kastoria, Greece. It is seen that during the whole year, all of the simulation results for
energy production have good agreement with actual results by some little errors. It is
also realized that all solar radiation models give underestimated results for all months
except April, October and November.
As given on Table 3.3, actual energy production is 734.90 MWh while estimated
results are 694.28MWh for Liu-Jordan, 700.27 MWh for Hay-Davies and 713.56 MWh
for Perez model respectively. Largest percentage error between estimated and actual
results belongs to Liu Jordan by %5.53.
Table 3.3 Comparison of Energy Production of Kastoria for Case 1
Model Energy Production (MWh) Error ( % )

Actual 734,90 -
Liu-Jordan 694,28 5.53
Hay-Davies 700,27 4,71
Perez et al. 713,56 2,90
110
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the models, statistical test methods are applied and
it is seen that Perez model gives the most accurate results for both long term (MBE) and
short term (RMSE) estimations for this plant. Mean bias error and root mean square
error values are given on Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 1
Model RMSE (MWh) RMSE % MBE (MWh) MBE %

Liu-Jordan 5,34 8,73 -3,39 -5,53
Hay-Davies 4,74 7,74 -2,89 -4,71
Perez et al. 4,13 6,75 -1,78 -2,90
3.2.2 Case 1- Kocaeli
According to PVsyst energy production results which are given on Table 3.5, produced
energy, specific production and performance ratio are calculated as 130.7 MWh/year,
1186 kWh/kWp/year and 72.2% respectively. It should be noted that on energy
calculations PVGIS meteorological database is used to obtain solar irradiation and
ambient temperature data for given coordinates rather than actual instantaneous
meteorological data. However, soiling is assumed as zero. Results from Hay model is
given in detail.
Table 3.5 Main Results of Kocaeli (Hay Model)
Main Simulation Results

Produced Energy 130.7 MWh/year
Final Yield 1186 kWh/kWp/year
Performance Ratio 72.2 %
Produced energy is the final energy output of the system while final yield is
obtained by dividing produced energy by the nominal power of the system. Performance
ratio is the indicator of the quality of the system and means ratio of actual energy output
and theoretically possible energy output of the PV system.
111
Table 3.6 Balances and Main Results of Kocaeli (Hay Model)
GlobHor TAmb GlobInc GlobEff EArray E_Grid EffArrR EffSysR

2 o 2 2
kWh/m C kWh/m kWh/m MWh MWh % %
January 46.2 3.60 58.2 45.7 4.76 4.62 11.34 11.01
February 61.8 4.50 72.9 59.1 6.09 5.93 11.60 11.30
March 110.4 7.40 123.6 103.1 10.50 10.27 11.80 11.53
April 141.3 11.50 149.6 128.4 12.64 12.36 11.73 11.47
May 193.8 16.20 196.8 170.2 16.23 15.88 11.45 11.20
June 211.8 20.20 210.3 181.7 16.84 16.49 11.12 10.88
July 224.4 23.10 224.7 195.4 17.76 17.38 10.97 10.74
August 198.1 23.10 208.0 182.2 16.60 16.25 11.08 10.85
September 139.2 19.20 155.5 133.6 16.29 12.43 11.33 11.09
October 39.6 14.40 112.1 92.0 9.06 8.85 11.22 10.96
November 60.9 10.0 77.8 61.9 6.24 6.08 11.12 10.84
December 41.5 5.40 53.7 41.7 4.30 4.17 11.10 10.79
Year 1523.0 13.27 1643.1 1395.1 133.71 130.72 11.30 11.04
On table 3.6, GlobHor defines the solar irradiation on horizontal provided by

meteorological data. Tamb defines the ambient temperature. The lowest value of
temperature is in January by 3.60 oC while the highest ones are in July and August by
23.10 oC. GlobInc defines the solar irradiation on inclined plane, highest and the lowest
values of solar irradiation are in July and December by 224.7 and 53.7 kWh/m2
respectively. GlobEff defines effective global solar irradiation on the collectors after
losses such as shadings, IAM (Incidence Angle Modifier). EArray defines the produced
energy by PV array as input of the inverters after other losses such as temperature loss,
irradiance loss etc. E_grid is the final energy output of the system and varied from 4.17
MWh to 17.38 MWh in December and July respectively. EffArrR and EffSysR define
PV array efficiency and system efficiency respectively. Surprisingly the highest system
efficiency is obtained in March by 11.53% while the lowest one is obtained in July by
10.74 % in contrast to produced energy by months. On the other hand yearly average of
system efficiency is 11.04 %.
112
0,8
0,75
0,75
0,7
0,74
0,73
0,72
0,72
0,72
0,71
0,71
0,71
0,70
0,70
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
Performance ratio (PR) : 0,722
Figure 3.6 Performance Ratio Values of Kocaeli by months (Hay Model)
According to the performance ratio values of Kocaeli by months which are shown in
Figure 3.6, annual average performance ratio is 0.722 while the highest and the lowest
values of PR are in March and April by 0.75 and in July and December by 0.70
respectively. As mentioned before performance ratio is the indicator of the quality of the
system and means ratio of actual energy output and theoretically possible energy output
of the PV system. If the PR values of Kocaeli compared with PR values of Kastoria, it is
realized they don’t have same characteristic by months. It can be answered by analyzing
Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8.
113
8
Normalized Energy Kwh/kWp/day
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Months
Yf : 3.25 kWh/kWp/day Ls :0.07 kW/kWp/day Lc : 1.18 kW/kWp/day
Figure 3.7 Normalized Productions of Kocaeli Plant (Hay model)
Normalized productions of Kocaeli plant are given in Figure 3.6. Final yield
(Yf), system losses (Ls) and array capture losses (Lc) are obtained as 3.25, 0.07 and
1.18 kW/kWp/day respectively. It is realized that array losses (Lc) have the highest
values on June, July and August when the highest energy production values (Yf) are
obtained. Different from the Kastoria, on this plant shading loss is also highly
responsible for the losses.
114
Figure 3.8 Loss Diagram over the Whole Year for Kocaeli Plant (Hay Model)
In Figure 3.8, loss diagram of the system is given in detail. Diagram starts with
the 1523 kWh/m2 of solar irradiation on horizontal. Due to the tilted PV modules, 7.9 %
of gain is obtained. 12.9 % and 2.5 % of losses are occurred by shading and IAM factor
(corresponds to the decrease of the irradiance really reaching the PV cells’ surface)
respectively. Irradiance level causes %3.4 of energy loss while temperature causes %7.6
of energy loss. Because the solar cell efficiency is generally measured under standard
test conditions (STC), with PV cell temperature of 25 °C, irradiance of 1000 W/m and
air mass 1.5 spectrum. So any condition under or above these values may cause losses
on energy. Other losses are 0.1 % for module quality, 2.1% for module array mismatch,
% 0.9 for ohmic wiring losses. Finally inverter causes 2.2% of energy loss during its
operation and the injected energy into the grid is obtained as 130.7 MWh.
115
Figure 3.9 Whole year Loss Diagram Comparison of Hay-Davies and Perez models for
Kocaeli
If the loss diagrams are compared it is realized that the largest difference between the
results of models is global solar irradiation on inclined plane. It is seen that system and
array losses are almost same.
116
Estimated results are compared with 11 months of actual data for Kocaeli,
Turkey. It is seen that from February to April, all the models give under estimated
results for energy production. On the other hand from May to December over estimated
results are obtained from the simulations and large disagreements are seen between
estimated and actual results from September to November. In Figure 3.10 comparison
between estimations from different models and actual results are given by months.
However energy production of January is intentionally left blank, because the
installation has started working since February of 2014.
20
18
Energy Production (MWh)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Months
Liu and Jordan Hay and Davies Perez et al. Actual
Figure 3.10 Actual versus simulation on Kocaeli Plant for Case 1
On Table 3.7 total energy productions are given in the period of (February 2014
-December 2014). Actual energy production is 114.22 MWh while estimated results are
124.80 MWh for Liu-Jordan, 126.09MWh for Hay-Davies and 127.52 MWh for Perez
model respectively. Largest percentage error between estimated and actual results
belongs to Perez model by % 11.64.
117
Table 3.7 Comparison of Energy Production of Kocaeli for Case 1
Model Energy Production (MWh) Error (%)

Actual 114,22 -
Liu-Jordan 124,80 9.26
Hay-Davies 126,09 10,39
Perez et al. 127,52 11,64
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the models, statistical test methods are
applied and it is seen that none of these methods seem good enough for short term
observations in terms of RMSE but for long term observations MBE % values may
seem hardly acceptable if %10 of error is assumed acceptable. Mean bias error and
root mean square error values are given on Table 3.8.
Table 3.8 Statistical Test Results for Kocaeli for Case 1
Model RMSE (MWh) RMSE % MBE (MWh) MBE %

Liu -Jordan 1.83 17.60 0.96 9.26
Hay-Davies 1.92 18.47 1.08 10.39
Perez et al. 1.99 19.19 1.21 11.64
118
3.2.3 Comparison of plants for case 1
On table 3.9 and Table 3.10 comparison of two plants in terms of main simulation
results and losses are given
Table 3.9 Main Simulation Results of Kastoria and Kocaeli plants
Kastoria Kocaeli
Installation Type Ground-mounted Roof-mounted
Peak Power 500 110 kWp
PV efficiency at STC 14.42 15.37 %
Produced Energy 700 130.7 MWh/year
Specific Production 1403.0 1146.4 kWh/kWp/year
Performance Ratio 79.0 72.2 %
Note: Values belongs to the results from Hay model on PVSYST, STC means standard
test conditions under PV cell temperature of 25 °C, irradiance of 1000 W/m2 and air mass 1.5 spectrum
Table 3.10 Losses Table of Kastoria and Kocaeli plants
Kastoria Kocaeli
Losses % %
Temperature Loss 7.9 7.6
Shading Loss 1.9 12.9
Irradiance Level Loss 3.4 3.4
Ohmic Wiring Loss 1.0 0.9
Module Quality Loss 1.6 0.1
Module Array Mismatch Loss 2.1 2.1
IAM factor loss 2.9 2.5
Inverter Efficiency Lost 2.4 2.2
Note: Given losses are not exact actual values and belongs to the results from Hay model on PVSYST
119
3.3. Case 2 Results
3.3.1 Case 2- Kastoria
o
At Kastoria plant, tilt angle is changed from 25 to 33o which is theoretically
optimum angle for this location then the change in energy production is evaluated.
According to the results, change in tilt angle doesn’t affect too much but affects the 12
months of energy output of the system in Kastoria in negative way. It is realized that
percentage errors increase for all models as given on Table 3.11.
Liu-Jordan Hay-Davies Perez et al.

Tilt Angle Energy Error Energy Error Energy Error
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
25o 694.28 5.53 700.27 4.71 713.56 2.90
33o 690.38 6.06 695.26 5.39 711.69 3.16
Note: Actual Energy Production is 734.90 MWh
Table 3.12 Short Term Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 2

Tilt Angle RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
o
25 5.34 8.73 4.74 7.74 4.13 6.75
33o 6.85 11.19 6.02 9.82 5.25 8.58
On Table 3.12, RMSE and RMSE% results are given for Kastoria and it is realized
that RMSE and RMSE% values increase for all models. On Table 3.13 MBE and
MBE% values are given for all models and increase as well as RMSE values.
Although new tilt angle seems better to collect solar radiation at first sight, the
new energy production results are less than old ones. That can be explained as; tilt angle
is not only factor that affects energy production. Thus on this case shading may cause
120
this decrease on energy production because the spaces between the PV rows are
calculated to minimize the shading loss for specific tilt angle before the installation.
Table 3.13 Long Term Statistical Test Results of Kastoria for Case 2

Tilt Angle MBE MBE MBE MBE MBE MBE
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
o
25 -3.39 -5.53 -2.89 -4.71 -1.78 -2.90
33o -3.71 -6.06 -3.30 -5.39 -1.93 -3.16
Note: Negative Values of MBE mean under estimation
According to statistical test results Perez model gives the most accurate results in terms
of long term (MBE) and short term (RMSE) predictions.
3.3.2. Case 2 - Kocaeli
o
At Kocaeli plant, tilt angle is changed from 15 to 33o which is theoretically
optimum angle for this location then the change in energy production is evaluated.
According to the results, change in tilt angle doesn’t affect too much but affects the 11
months of energy output of the system in Kocaeli in positive way. Percentage errors
increase for all models as given on Table 3.14.

Tilt Angle Energy Error Energy Error Energy Error
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
15o 124.80 9.25 126.09 10.38 127.52 11.60
33o 130.00 13.81 131.79 15.37 134.84 18.04
Note: Actual Energy output is 114.22 MWh and covers only 11 months except January
121
On Table 3.15, RMSE and RMSE% results are given for Kocaeli and it is realized
that RMSE and RMSE% values increase for all models. On table 3.16 MBE and MBE%
values for all models are given and increase as well as RMSE values. According to
statistical test results Liu-Jordan model gives the most accurate results in terms of long
term (MBE) and short term (RMSE) predictions.
Table 3.15 Short Term Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 2

Tilt Angle RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
15o 1.83 17.60 1.92 18.47 1.99 19.19
o
33 2.3 22.49 2.44 23.46 2.61 25.13
Table 3.16 Long Term Statistical Test Results of Kocaeli for Case 2

Tilt Angle MBE MBE MBE MBE MBE MBE
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
15o 0.96 9.26 1.08 10.39 1.21 11.64
o
33 1.43 13.80 1.60 15.38 1.87 18.02
As a result new tilt angle helps to increase total energy production in theory but,
statistical test error results increase because the simulation results get far away from
actual energy production. In addition it may seem that the change in tilt angle affects the
energy output in positive way but other variables such as installation type, the
construction type, static calculations, wind and snow loads, current area for installation,
objects that cause shading must be taken into consideration for roof-mounted PV
installations.
122
3.4. Case 3 Results
3.4.1 Case 3 – Kastoria
Soiling factor is taken as 0%, 1% and 3% respectively to see how it affects total energy
output and statistical test results. According to the results which are given on Table
3.17, energy production values decrease while percentage error increase for all models
with all soiling factor combinations. Thus it is seen that model accuracies decrease by
increasing soiling factor values.
Table 3.17 Comparison of Energy Production of Kastoria of Case 3

Soiling Factor Energy Error Energy Error Energy Error
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
no soiling 694.28 5.53 700.27 4.71 713.56 2.90
%1 soiling 686.87 6.54 692.82 5.73 706.02 3.93
%3 soiling 672.23 8.53 678.03 7.74 690.93 5.98
Note: Actual Energy Production is 734.90 MWh
According to statistical test results, for both short term and long term predictions, it
is seen that RMSE and MBE values increase by the increasing soiling factor percentage
for all models as given on Table 3.18 and Table 3.19. Perez model seems the most
accurate model for this plant under these conditions.

Soiling Factor RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
No soiling 5.34 8.73 4.74 7.74 4.13 6.75
%1 Soiling Factor 5.84 9.53 5.19 8.47 4.48 7.31
%3 Soiling factor 6.84 11.17 6.17 10.08 5.35 8.73
123

Soiling Factor MBE MBE MBE MBE MBE MBE
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
No soiling -3.39 -5.53 -2.89 -4.71 -1.87 -2.90
%1 Soiling Factor -4.00 -6.54 -3.50 -5.73 -2.41 -3.93
%3 Soiling factor -5.22 -8.53 -4.74 -7.74 -3.66 -5.98
3.4.2 Case 3 - Kocaeli
Soiling factor is taken as 0%, 1% and 3% respectively to see how it affects total
energy output and statistical test results. According to the results which are given on
Table 3.20, energy production values for 11 months, decrease for all models with all
soiling factor combinations. However percentage errors for all models decrease by
increasing soiling factor.

Soiling Factor Energy Error Energy Error Energy Error
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
no soiling 124.80 9.26 126.09 10.39 127.51 11.64
%1 soiling 123.29 7.94 124.77 9.24 126.18 10.47
%3 soiling 120.85 5.81 122.12 6.92 123.50 8.12
According to the statistical test results, for both short term and long term
predictions, it is seen that RMSE and MBE values decrease by the increasing soiling
factor percentage for all models. It means that results with soiling factor, improve the
model accuracy for this plant under these conditions.
124
However Liu Jordan seems the most accurate model although it is not common
in the literature researches.

Soiling Factor RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE RMSE
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
No soiling 1.83 17.60 1.92 18.47 1.99 19.19
%1 Soiling Factor 1.76 16.91 1.85 17.85 1.92 18.49
%3 Soiling factor 1.68 16.19 1.74 16.78 1.79 17.26

Soiling Factor MBE MBE MBE MBE MBE MBE
(MWh) % (MWh) % (MWh) %
No soiling 0.96 9.26 1.08 10.39 1.21 11.64
%1 Soiling Factor 0.83 7.97 0.96 9.24 1.09 10.46
%3 Soiling factor 0.60 5.79 0.72 6.91 0.84 8.11
As a result no matter the amount of soiling on PV modules, it affects energy production

in negative way. It must be noted that measuring soiling is a tough job and the rain has a
cleaning effect on some certain size of particles.
On Kocaeli plant soiling factor increase the estimation accuracy while it decrease
estimation accuracy on Kastoria plant at given assumptions and it is seen that soiling
factor is more effective on Kocaeli plant than Kastoria plant.
125
3.5 Case 4 Results
3.5.1 Case 4 - Kastoria
PVGIS-CMSAF and NASA-SSE meteorological databases are used and total energy
production values of estimations from solar radiation models are compared with actual
results. RMSE, MBE statistical test results are applied to see the accuracy of models
and meteorological databases It is realized that solar irradiation values of PVGIS-
CMSAF are higher than NASA-SSE in total except January, February and December.
However average ambient temperature values have little difference.
Table 3.23 Comparison of Different Databases of Kastoria
Global Solar Irradiation on Average Ambient

Horizontal (kWh/m2) Temperature (C o )
PVGIS-CMSAF NASA-SSE PVGIS-CMSAF NASA-SSE
January 55.5 60.1 0.9 1.3

February 71.3 75.0 2.4 2.2
March 126.5 116.9 6.4 5.5
April 150.0 135.9 10.6 10.5
May 190.0 168.6 15.8 16.3
June 211.8 199.2 20.2 21.0
July 226.6 205.2 23.6 23.8
August 204.0 180.4 23.4 23.6
September 142.2 134.7 18.0 19.1
October 102.9 95.2 13.0 13.4
November 64.5 59.7 7.5 7.1
December 47.4 48.0 2.7 2.3
Year 1592.7 1478.9 12.0 12.2
On Table 3.24 total energy production values of Kastoria for two different
databases are given and it is seen that results by using PVGIS-CMSAF are higher than
results that use NASA-SSE databases. Perez model and PVGIS-CMSAF database give
more accurate results in terms of percentage error.
126
Hay-Davies Perez et al.

Database Energy (MWh) Error % Energy (MWh) Error %
PVGIS-CMSAF 700.27 4.71 713.56 2.90
NASA-SSE 647.06 11.95 659.63 10.24
Note: Actual Energy Output is 734.92 MWh
In Figure 3.11, comparison of monthly energy production of Kastoria is given for

NASA-SSE and PVGIS-CMSAF databases and compared with actual energy
production results by months. The figure 3.11 shows that energy production results
from estimations that use NASA-SSE database are mostly lower than the ones that use
PVGIS-CMSAF database.
It is also realized that simulation results are always under estimated that use
NASA-SSE for all models while simulation results that use PVGIS-CMSAF database,
are over estimated for April, October and November.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Hay - Davies (PVGIS-CMSAF) Perez (PVGIS-CMSAF)

Hay- Davies (NASA-SSE) Perez (NASA-SSE)
Measured
Figure 3.11 Comparison of Monthly Energy Production of Kastoria with different

meteorological databases
127
According to the statistical test results PVGIS-CMASAF gives more accurate results in
terms of RMSE% and MBE% for Kastoria as given on Table 3.25 and Table 3.26.

Database RMSE (MWh) RMSE % RMSE (MWh) RMSE %
PVGIS-CMSAF 4.74 7.74 4.13 6.75
NASA-SSE 8.79 14.36 7.85 12.82

Database MBE (MWh) MBE % MBE (MWh) MBE %
PVGIS-CMSAF -2.89 -4.71 -1.78 -2.90
NASA-SSE -7.32 -11.95 -6.27 -10.24
Note: Negative value of MBE means under estimation
3.5.2 Case 4 – Kocaeli
PVGIS-CMSAF and NASA-SSE meteorological databases are used and total energy
production values of estimations from radiation models are compared with actual
results. RMSE, MBE statistical test results are applied to see the accuracy of models
and meteorological databases It is realized that solar irradiation values of PVGIS-
CMSAF are higher than NASA-SSE values in total except January, February,
September and December. However, yearly average ambient temperature values are
totally same.
128
Table 3.27 Comparison of Different Databases of Kocaeli
Global Solar Irradiation on Average Ambient

Horizontal (kWh/m2 ) Temperature ( C o )
PVGIS-CMSAF NASA-SSE PVGIS-MSAF NASA-SSE
January 46.2 51.8 3.6 3.6
February 61.8 64.7 4.5 3.9
March 110.4 108.2 7.4 6.7
April 141.3 133.8 11.5 12.1
May 193.8 183.2 16.2 17.0
June 211.8 201.3 20.2 20.9
July 224.4 210.5 23.1 23.0
August 198.1 183.8 23.1 22.8
September 139.2 140.7 19.2 19.7
October 93.6 92.7 14.4 14.9
November 60.9 56.4 10.0 9.2
December 41.5 43.1 5.4 5.0
Year 1523.0 1470.2 13.2 13.2
On Table 3.28 total energy production of Kocaeli for two different databases are given
and it is seen that results by using PVGIS-CMSAF are higher than the results that use
NASA-SSE database. Hay-Davies model and NASA-SSE database give more accurate
results on Kocaeli plant.

Database Energy (MWh) Error % Energy (MWh) Error %
PVGIS-CMSAF 126.09 10.39 127.52 11.64
NASA-SSE 119.58 4.69 120.99 5.95
Note: Actual Energy output is 114.22 MWh and covers only 11 months except January
129
In Figure 3.12, comparison of monthly energy production of Kocaeli is given for
NASA-SSE and PVGIS-CMSAF databases and compared with actual energy
production results by months. The figure shows that energy production results from
simulations that use NASA-SSE database are mostly lower than the ones that use
PVGIS-CMSAF database. It is also realized that simulation results are over estimated
for both NASA-SSE and PVGIS-CMSAF except February, March and April.
20,00
18,00
16,00
14,00
12,00
10,00
8,00
6,00
4,00
2,00
0,00
Hay - Davies (PVGIS-CMSAF) Perez (PVGIS-CMSAF)

Hay- Davies (NASA-SSE) Perez (NASA-SSE)
Measured
Figure 3.12 Comparison of Monthly Energy Production of Kocaeli with different

meteorological databases
130
According to the statistical test results NASA-SSE gives more accurate results in terms
of RMSE% and MBE% for Kocaeli as given on Table 3.29 and Table 3.30.

Database RMSE (MWh) RMSE % RMSE (MWh) RMSE %
PVGIS-CMSAF 1.92 18.48 1.99 19.19
NASA-SSE 1.75 16.90 1.78 17.21

Database MBE (MWh) MBE % MBE (MWh) MBE %
PVGIS-CMSAF 1.08 10.39 1.21 11.64
NASA-SSE 0.49 4.69 0.62 5.93
131
3.6 Economic Analysis
3.6.1 Case A
Based on the assumptions on chapter 2.8, payback period, internal rate of return
(IRR) and net present value (NPV) of the investments are calculated. In Figure 3.13,
payback period of Kocaeli plant is calculated as approximately 10.5 years while IRR
and NPV are 7.08% and 174.072€ respectively.
Figure 3.13 Payback period of Kocaeli for Case A
In Figure 3.14, payback period of Kastoria is given as approximately 11.5 years.

IRR and NPV are 6.71% and 821900€ respectively. It is realized that payback period of
Kocaeli is shorter than Kastoria plant although estimated performance of Kastoria plant
is 1403kWh/kWp and larger than the performance of Kocaeli plant which is 1186
kWh/kWp according to simulation results. On the other hand solar feed-in-tariff of
Kocaeli, Turkey is 13.3 dollar cent/kWh while it is 9 euro cent/kWh in Kastoria,
Greece.
132
Figure 3.14 Payback period of Kastoria for case A
As a result of this before starting on an investment there are two significant

factors that must be taken into consideration; performance of system, accordingly solar
irradiation and feed-in-tariff. However, on Table 3.31 comparison of the plants are
given.
Table 3.31 Comparison of two plants for Case A
Kastoria (Greece) Kocaeli (Turkey)

Installation Type Ground-mounted Roof-mounted
PV Capacity kWp 500 110
2
Solar irradiation on horizontal kWh/m 1592.4 1523.0
Estimated performance 1 kWh/kWp 1403 1186
Performance Ratio % 79.0 72.2
Payback Period years 11.5 10.5
IRR % 6.71 7.08
NPV € 821900 174072
2
Feed-in-tariff €cent/kWh 9.0 12.21
1
Estimated performances are taken from case 1 based on the results of Hay Model by using PVsyst
software
2
Feed-in-tariff is the guarantee payment contract for the electricity that is produced by renewable energy
sources over a long term periods such as 10-20 years.
133
3.6.2 Case B
In this case, both system are assumed as 500kWp and has same characteristics as
ground mounted. However based on the assumptions on chapter 2.8, payback period,
internal rate of return (IRR) and net present value (NPV) of the investments are
calculated. Estimated performance of Kocaeli is calculated as 1317 kWh/kWp if it has
same characteristic with Kastoria plant. Estimated performance of Kastoria is taken as
1403 kWh/kWp.
According to case B, payback period of Kocaeli is calculated as approximately 9.5 years

IRR and NPV are obtained as 9.02% and 906.121€ respectively and it is realized that
payback periods reduces while IRR increases. If there are many projects to invest, it is
recommended to choose the one with high IRR.
Figure 3.15 Payback Period of Kocaeli for Case B
Table 3.32 Comparison of Case A and Case B for Kocaeli
CASE A CASE B
Payback period 10.5 9.5
IRR 7.08% 9.02%
Estimated Performance 1186 kWh/kWp 1317 kWh/kWp
134
Table 3.33 Comparison of two plants for Case B
Kastoria (Greece) Kocaeli (Turkey)
Installation Type Ground-mounted Ground-mounted

PV Capacity kWp 500 500
Solar irradiation on horizontal kWh/m2 1592.4 1523.0
Estimated performance kWh/kWp 1403 1317
Performance Ratio % 79 78.5
Payback Period years 11.5 9.5
IRR % 6.71 9.02
NPV € 821900 906121
Feed-in-tariff €cent/kWh 9.0 12.21
1
Estimated performances are taken from case 1 based on the results of Hay Model by using PVsyst
software.
2
Feed-in-tariff is the guarantee payment contract for the electricity that is produced by renewable energy
sources over a long term periods such as 10-20 years.
135
4. CONCLUSIONS
This study presents a brief technical and economic evaluation for multi-
crystalline based two solar PV plants as; 500kW ground-mounted installation in
Kastoria, Greece and 110kW roof-mounted installation in Kocaeli, Turkey. Actual
energy production values are compared with estimations from PVSYST software by
using three solar radiation models (Liu & Jordan, Hay & Davies and Perez et. al) and
two meteorological databases (NASA-SSE and PVGIS-CMSAF) in terms of some
statistical test results (Root mean square error, mean bias error and percentage error). As
well as energy calculations a brief economic analysis is also presented.
For all cases it is seen that as Kocaeli plant has overestimated results, Kastoria
plant has underestimated results and higher performance ratio than Kocaeli plant. So it
is significant to conduct better feasibility studies, for higher performance ratios. It is
also realized that the deviations between actual and estimated energy outputs and
statistical test results have higher values at Kocaeli plant compared to Kastoria plant.
There might be several reasons for this; solar irradiation values, shading losses and
soiling losses may not be as close as their exact values or the existence of some
unpredictable losses that aren’t added to the calculations. It is seen that assuming soiling
as 0% might be too optimistic, although it is assumed that rain has a cleaning effect. It is
also seen that soiling loss might be more effective on Kocaeli plant than Kastoria plant
in real. As analyzing the losses, temperature causes the highest loss at Kastoria plant
while both temperature and shading cause the highest losses at Kocaeli plant. The effect
of tilt angle is evaluated and it is seen that if any tilt angle is chosen, PV row space must
be calculated for this angle to avoid shadings. However on roof mounted installations
some factors limit to apply optimum tilt angles. It is also seen that the choice of
meteorological database is so important that affects the energy output and statistical test
results significantly. Because, if the measurement station is so far away from the PV
installation site or the meteorological data is too old, the results become less accurate
consequently. For both plants NASA-SSE database offers lower solar irradiation
accordingly lower energy output values than PVGIS-CMSAF. On estimations, PVGIS-
CMSAF database fits better on Kastoria plant while NASA-SSE fits better on Kocaeli
plant under given assumptions. It can be recommended that if it is possible to measure
136
solar irradiation and temperature values at the PV installation sites that leads better
results by including soiling and shading losses already. Solar radiation models also
make difference on calculating energy output. For all cases while Liu & Jordan model
gives the lowest total solar irradiation, Perez model gives the highest total solar
irradiation on inclined surfaces, consequently higher energy output due to taking all the
diffuse radiation terms into consideration. Perez model gives more accurate results on
Kastoria plant which is generally stated in literature. In contrast, Liu-Jordan model
gives more accurate results on Kocaeli plant which is rarely stated in literature.
On the other hand as conducting economic analysis, it is seen that amount of

solar irradiation and feed-in tariff are the most significant variables that affect the
payback period.
As a result, world total solar PV capacity increases globally and in Turkey as

well. In addition Turkey has great solar energy potential compared to Europe (except
Spain) which can’t be ignored. It is important not only to break our dependency on
imported fuels but also for preserving the nature. In near future, it is expected that
decreasing of PV equipment costs and increasing of support mechanisms may lead
Turkey increase its installed PV capacity faster than today. Obviously if government of
Turkey wants more investments on solar PV, feed-in tariff of solar energy must be
increased to make the investments more attractive.
137
REFERENCES
Brigham, E. F. (1979). Financial Management: Theory & Practice . Atlantic Publishers & Distri
(pp. 390-400).
Kyoto Protocol. (2014). Retrieved 2014, from United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
AGI. (2000). Geothermal Energy. Retrieved 2014, from American GeoSciences Institute:
http://www.agiweb.org/
Appels, R., Lefevre, B., Herteleer, B., Goverde, H., Beerten, A., Paesen, R., . . . Poortmans, J.
(2013). Effect of soiling on photovoltaic modules. Solar Energy 96 (2013) 283–291.
AVANCIS. (2014). CIS Technology. Retrieved 2014, from Advanced Solar Power:
http://www.avancis.de/en/cis-technology/cis-photovoltaics/
AWEA. (2013). The Basics of Wind Energy. Retrieved 2014, from American Wind Energy
Association: http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=900
Bagher, A. M. (2014). Introduction to Organic Solar Cells. Sustainable Energy. 2014, 2(3), 85-90
doi:10.12691/rse-2-3-2.
Bailey, M., Park, J., & Dhirani, A. (2014). Natural Dye-Sensitized Nanocrystalline Solar Cell,
lecture notes. Retrieved 2014, from Department of Chemistry University of Toronto:
http://www.chem.utoronto.ca/staff/DHIRANI/solar%20cell.pdf
Balfour, J., Shaw, M., & Jarosek, S. (2013). In Introduction to Photovoltaics (p. 43). Jones &
Barlett Learning.
Bashir, M. A., Ali, H. M., & Siddiqui, A. M. (2014). An Experimental Investigation of

Performance of Photovoltaic Modules in Pakistan.
Boxwell, M., & Glasbey, S. (2012). Amorphous Solar Panels. In Solar Electricity Handbook: A
Simple, Practical Guide to Solar Energy (2012 ed., p. 68). GreenStream Publishing.
BP. (2014a). Statistical Review of World Energy. Retrieved from

http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-
2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-full-report.pdf
BP. (2014b). BP Statistical Review of world Energy Workbook. Retrieved from BP Statistical
Review of world Energy 2014: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Energy-
Economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-
Statistical_Review_of_world_energy_2014_workbook.xlsx
Caglayan, N., Ertekin , C., & Evrendilek, F. (2013). Spatial viability analysis of grid-connected
photovoltaic power systems for Turkey. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 56 (2014)
270–278, 270-278.
138
Cetinkaya, S. (2013, September). Turkey:Solar Power Market in Turkey. Retrieved 2015, from
U.S.Commercial ServiceTurkey:
http://www.iberglobal.com/files/turquia_energia_solar.pdf
Chestney, N. (2013). Global Renawable Investment fell in 2012 on Weak Economy article.
Retrieved 2014, from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/renewables-investment-
idUSL5N0EM30P20130612
Chirarattananon, S., Rukkwansuk, P., Chaiwiwatworakul, P., & Pakdeepol, P. (2006). Evaluation
of vertical illuminance and irradiance models against data from North Bangkok.
Building and Environment 42 (2007), (pp. 3894-3904).
Collares-Pereira, M., & Rabl, A. (1979). The Average distribution of solar radiation-correlations
between diffuse and hemispherical and between daily and hourly insolation values.
Solar Energy, Vol.22, (pp. 155-164).
CSP-WORLD. (2012). CSP Library. Retrieved 2014, from CSP-World:

http://www.cspworld.org/sites/default/files/Images/csp-linear-scheme.jpg
Danny Harvey, L. D. (2010). In Energy and the New Reality 2: Carbon-free Energy Supply (pp.
37-38). EarthScan Publishing.
David Martineau. (2012, March 3). Dye Solar Cells for Real. Retrieved 2014, from SOLARONIX:
http://www.solaronix.com/documents/dye_solar_cells_for_real.pdf
Demain, C., Journee, M., & Bertrand, C. (2012). Evaluation of different models to estimate the
global solar radiation on inclined surfaces. Renewable Energy Volume 50, February
2013, (pp. 710-721).
Diez-Mediavilla, M., Miguel, A. D., & Bilbao, J. (2005). Measurement and comparison of diffuse
solar irradiance models on inclined surfaces in Valladolid (Spain). Energy Conversion
and Management 46 (2005), (pp. 2075–2092).
Duffie, J. A., & Beckman, W. A. (1991). In Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes (Second ed.).
John Wiley & Sons.
EIA. (2013). International Energy Outlook. Retrieved 2014, from Energy Information
Administration: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/
EIA. (2014). Overview of Turkey. Retrieved 2014, from U.S Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.gov/countries/analysisbriefs/Turkey/turkey.pdf
EIE. (n.d). Solar Energy in Turkey. Retrieved 2014, from General Directorate of Electrical Power
Resources: http://www.eie.gov.tr/eie-web/english/solar/solarTurkey_e.html
EIE. (n.d). Solar Energy map. Retrieved from http://www.eie.gov.tr/MyCalculator/Default.aspx
139
EPIA. (2012). Global Market Outlook for Photovoltaics 2013-2017 Report. Retrieved from
European Photovoltaic Industry Association:
http://www.epia.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/GMO_2013_-
European Commision. (2005). Retrieved 2014, from Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy
for Energy and Transport: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php
Eurostat. (2011). Eurostat. Retrieved August 2014, from Greece Energy market 2011:
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/doc/el_energy_market_2011_en.pdf
Fabricalo. (2013, April). Retrieved 2014, from http://fabricalo.net/wp-

content/uploads/2013/04/cigs.jpg
FEEDPOOL. (2006). Solar Modules. Retrieved 2014, from FeedPool Technology Co.,Ltd:
http://www.feedpool.com/pdfp29/front/bin/ptlist.phtml?Category=11
First Solar Inc. (2014). First Solar Inc. Retrieved 2014, from
http://investor.firstsolar.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=828273
Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre/BNEF. (2014). Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment

Report. Retrieved 2014, from http://www.unep.org/pdf/Green_energy_2013-
Key_findings.pdf
Fraunhofer ISE. (2010, December). Best practice paper for the International Feed-In
Cooperation 3rd edition. Retrieved 2015, from http://www.feed-in-
cooperation.org/wDefault_7/download-
files/research/Best_practice_Paper_3rd_edition.pdf
Fraunhofer ISE. (2014a, December). New World Solar Cell Efficiency Record, press releases.
Retrieved from Fraunhofer ISE: http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-and-
media/pdfs-zu-presseinfos-englisch/2014/press-release-new-world-record-for-solar-
cell-efficiency-at-46-percent.pdf
Fraunhofer ISE. (2014b, October 24). Photovoltaic Report (p.26). Retrieved 2014, from
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/downloads/pdf-files/aktuelles/photovoltaics-report-
in-englischer-sprache.pdf
Garrison, T. (2012). In Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science (p. 231). Cengage

Learning.
GEA. (2014). Geothermal Basics. Retrieved 2014, from Geothermal Energy Association:
http://geo-energy.org/basics.aspx
General Directorate of Renewable Energy. (2012). Biomass. Retrieved 2014, from

http://www.eie.gov.tr/yenilenebilir/biyokutle_enerjisi.aspx
General Directorate of Renewable Energy. (2014). General Directorate of Renewable Energy.

Retrieved 2014, from http://www.eie.gov.tr/eie-web/english/index-e.html
140
GeoModel SOLAR. (2013). Solar Radiation Maps. Retrieved 2014, from SolarGIS:
http://solargis.info/doc/_pics/freemaps/1000px/ghi/SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-map-
en.png
German Energy Blog. (2014). German Feed-in Tariffs 2013. Retrieved 2015, from German
Energy Blog: http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?page_id=14068
Gillespie, T. J., Marshall, C. H., & Keane, J. (1999). Copper indium diselenide (CIS) process,
control and manufacturing. In Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells 59 (1999) (pp. 27-
34). Elseiver.
Glover, J., & McCulloch, J. (1958). The empirical relation between solar radiation and hours of
sunshine. Journal of Royal Meteorological Society 1958;84:172–5.
Goetzberger, A., & Hoffman, V. U. (2005). In Photovoltaic Solar Energy Generation (p. 146).
Springer.
Green, M. A., Emery, K., Hishikawa, Y., Warta, W., & Dunlop, E. D. (2014). Solar cell efficiency
tables (version 44). In PROGRESS IN PHOTOVOLTAICS: RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
Prog. Photovolt: Res. Appl. 2014; 22:701–710. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Gunerhan, H., & Hepbasli , A. (2005). Determination of the optimum tilt angle of solar
collectors for building applications. Building and Environment Volume 42, Issue 2,
February 2007, Pages 779–783.
Hay, J. E., & Davies, J. A. (1980). Calculation of the Solar Radiation Incident on Inclined Surface.
Ministry of Supply and Services Canada,59.
Herzog, A. V., Lipman, T. E., & Kammen, D. M. (2001). Renewable Energy Sources. Retrieved
2014, from University of California, Berkeley, USA:
http://rael.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/old-site-files/2001/Herzog-Lipman-
Kammen-RenewableEnergy-2001.pdf
Homepower. (2013). 2015 tarihinde

http://www.homepower.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_gallery_active/public/a
rticles/images/1_panels_w_shadow.jpg?itok=SkTeFnf4 adresinden alındı
IEA. (2011). Solar Energy Perpectives. Retrieved 2014, from International Energy Acency:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/solar_energy_perspecti
ves2011.pdf
IEA. (2012). World Energy Outlook report. Retrieved from

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/English.pdf
IEA. (2014). Key World Energy Statistics. Retrieved 2014, from International Energy Acency:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/key-world-energy-
statistics-2014.html
141
IEA-IRENA-ETSAP. (2013, January). Concentrating Solar Power Technology Brief. Retrieved
2014, from Irena: http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA-
ETSAP%20Tech%20Brief%20E10%20Concentrating%20Solar%20Power.pdf
IHA. (2011). International Hydropwer Association. Retrieved 2014, from A brief history of
hydropower: http://www.hydropower.org/a-brief-history-of-hydropower
Ineichen, P. (2013). Long term satellite hourly, daily and monthly global, beam and diffuse
irradiance validation.Interannual variability analysis. University of Geneva, IEA Task,
46.
IRENA. (2002, January). Photovoltaic Systems article. Retrieved 2014, from IRENA - Istrian
Regional Energy Agency Ltd.: http://www.irena-
istra.hr/uploads/media/Photovoltaic_systems.pdf
IRENA. (2012, June). Cost Analysis of Solar Photovoltaics report. Retrieved 2014, from Irena
publications:
http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/RE_Technologies_Cost_Anal
ysis-SOLAR_PV.pdf
Isola, J. (2013, January 14). New Investment In Clean Energy Fell 11% in 2012. Retrieved 2014,
from Bloomberg New Energy Finance: http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/new-
investment-in-clean-energy-fell-11-in-2012-2/
Jinan Linquan Im and Ex Co., Ltd. (n.d). trade india. Retrieved from
http://www.tradeindia.com/fp882650/144W-Thin-Film-Amorphous-Silicon-Flexible-
Solar-Panels.html
Kalogirou, S. A. (2013). In Solar Energy Engineering Process and Systems (Second ed., pp. 482-
498). Elseiver Inc.
Kambezidis, H. D., & Psiloglou, B. E. (1996). Comparison Between Measurements and Models
for Daily Solar Irradiation on Tilted Surfaces in Athens, Greece. Renewable Energy, Vol.
10, No. 4, (pp.505-518), 1997.
Khalil, S. A., & Shaffie, A. M. (2013). A comparative study of total, direct and diffuse solar
irradiance by using different models on horizontal and inclined surfaces for Cairo,
Egypt. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 27 (2013), (pp. 853-863).
Khatib, T., Kazem, H., Sopian, K., Buttinger, F., Elmenreich, W., & Albusaidi, A. S. (2013). Effect
of Dust Deposition on the Performance of Multi-Crystalline Photovoltaic Modules
Based on Experimental Measurements. International Journal of Renewable Energy
Research (IJRER), 3(4), 850-853.
Klein, S. A. (1977). Calculation of Monthly Average Insolation on Tilted Surfaces. Solar Energy
19, (p. 325).
142
Koronakis, P. S. (1984). On the choice of the angle of tilt for south facing solar collectors in the
Athens basin area. Solar Energy, Volume 36, Issue 3, 1986, (pp. 217-225).
Kurokawa, K., Komoto, K., Vleuten, v. P., & Faiman, D. (2007). Energy from the Desert: Practical
Proposals for Very Large Scale Photovoltaic Systems (p.165). Earthscan publishing.
Kymakis, E., Kalykakis, S., & Papazoglou, T. M. (2008). Performance analysis of a grid connected
photovoltaic park on the island of Crete. Energy Conversion and Management Volume
50, Issue 3, March 2009, 433-438.
Lee, K., Yoo, H., & Levermore, G. J. (2012). Quality control and estimation hourly solar
irradiation on inclined surfaces. Renewable Energy 57, 2013, 190-199.
Li, D. H., & Lam, J. C. (1999). Evaluation of slope irradiance and illuminance models against
measured Hong Kong data. Building and Environment 35 (2000), (pp. 501-509).
Liu, B., & Jordan, R. C. (1962). Daily Insolation on Surfaces tilted Toward the Equator. ASHRAE
Journal (3) 10, 53.
Lorenzo, E. (1994). In Solar Electricity: Engineering of Photovoltaic Systems (p. 46). Promotora
General de Estudios, S.A.
Loutzenhiser, P. G., Manz, H., Felsmann, C., Strachan, P. A., Frank, T., & Maxwell, G. M. (2007).
Empirical validation of models to compute solar irradiance on inclined surfaces for
building energy simulation. Solar Energy 81 (2007), (pp. 254-267).
Lovegrove, K., & Stein, W. (2012). In Concentrating Solar Power Technology: Principles,
Developments and Applications (pp. 323-324). Woodhead Publishing.
Makrides, G., Zinsser, B., Norton, M., & Georghiou, G. E. (2012). Performance of Photovoltaics
Under Actual Operating Conditions, Third Generation Photovoltaics, Dr. Vasilis
Fthenakis (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0304-2, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/27386. Retrieved
2014, from http://www.intechopen.com/books/third-generation-
photovoltaics/performance-of-photovoltaics-under-actual-operating-conditions
Marion, B. (2008). Comparison of Predictive Models for Photovoltaic Module Performance.

Presented at the 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference May 11–16, 2008. San
Diego, California: NREL.
Mayfield, R. (2010). In Photovoltaic Design and Installation For Dummies (pp. 99-139). Wiley
Publishing Inc.
Messina, S., Rosales, H. I., Durán, C. S., Quiñones, J. J., & Nair, P. K. (2013). Comparative study
of systemperformance of two 2.4 kW grid-connected PV installations in Tepic-Nayarit
and Temixco-Morelos in México. Energy Procedia 57 ( 2014 ) 161 – 167. 2013 ISES
Solar World Congress.
143
Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. (2014a, December). National Renewable Energy
Action For Turkey. Retrieved February 2015, from
http://www.eie.gov.tr/duyurular_haberler/document/National_Renewable_Energy_A
ction_For_Turkey.PDF
Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. (2015, January). Energy Overview of the World and
Turkey. Retrieved 2015, from
http://www.enerji.gov.tr/Resources/Sites/1/Pages/Sayi_07/files/downloads/Sayi%200
7.pdf
NASA. (2013). ModelE AR5 Simulations: Past Climate Change and Future Climate Predictions.
Retrieved 2014, from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ar5/srmonlat.html
NASA. (2014). Solar System Exploration. Retrieved 2014, from NASA:

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=OverviewLong
NASA. (n.d.). Earth Observatory. Retrieved 2014, from

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page3.php
NASA-POWER. (2005). Surface meteorology and Solar Energy. Retrieved 2014, from
Atmospheric Science Data Center: https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/
NEED. (2014). Secondary Solar Fact Sheet (p.41). Retrieved 2014, from National Energy
Education Development Project:
http://www.need.org/files/curriculum/infobook/SolarS.pdf
Nijegorodov, N., Devan, K., Jain, P. K., & Carlsson, S. (1994). Atmospheric transmittance models
and an analytical method to predict the optimum slope of an absorber plate, variously
oriented at any latitude. (pp. 529-543). Renewable Energy: Volume4, Issue 5.
NORDSON. (2008). Solar Solutions. Retrieved 2014, from http://www.nordson.com/en-

us/divisions/adhesive-dispensing/Literature/PAL/PAL5329.pdf
Notton, G., Poggi, P., & Cristofari, C. (2005). Predicting hourly solar irradiations on inclined
surfaces based on the horizontal measurements: Performances of the association of
well-known mathematical models. Energy Conversion and Management 47 (2006),
1816-1829.
NREL. (2009). Feed-in Tariff Policy:Design, Implementation,and RPS Policy Interactions

technical report. Retrieved 2015, from National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45549.pdf
NREL. (2014). State & Local Governments. Retrieved 2015, from National Renewable Energy
Laboratory:
http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_governments/basics_tariffs.html
144
Observ'ER. (2013). Worldwide Electricty Production from Renewable Energy Sources Report.
Retrieved 2014, from Fifteenth Inventory - Edition 2013: http://www.energies-
renouvelables.org/observ-er/html/inventaire/pdf/15e-inventaire-Chap01-Eng.pdf
orgaPVnet. (2009). A Technology Roadmap towards Stable & Low-Cost Organic based Solar
Cells. Retrieved 2014, from www.orgaPVnet.eu
Özeke, H. B. (2013, July 5). Using Solar Energy Sources To Generate Electricity In Turkey article.
Retrieved 2014, from Mondaq:
http://www.mondaq.com/x/248750/Renewables/Using+Solar+Energy+Sources+To+Ge
nerate+Electricity+In+Turkey
Padovan, A., & Col, D. D. (2010). Measurement and modeling of solar irradiance components
on horizontal and tilted planes. Solar Energy 84 (2010), 2068–2084.
Patel, H., & Agarwal, V. (2007). MATLAB-Based Modeling to Study the Effects of Partial Shading
on PV Array Characteristics. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 23,
NO. 1, MARCH 2008.
Perez, R., Steawart, R., Seals, R., Ineichen, P., & Michalsky, J. (1990). Modeling Daylight
Availability and Irradiance Component from Direct and Global Irradiance. Solar Energy
44, no 5, (pp. 271-289).
Perez, R., Stewart, R., Seals, R., & Guertin, R. (1988). Data from the Development and
Verificiation of the Perez Diffuse Radiation Model. Retrieved from Sandia National
Laboratories Contractor Report SAND88-7030: http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-
control.cgi/1988/887030.pdf
PVSYST. (2012). General Features. Retrieved 2014, from

http://www.pvsyst.com/en/software/functionalities
PWC. (2012, April 11). Turkey's Renewable Energy Sector from a Global Perspective report.
Retrieved 2014, from pwc Turkey:
https://www.pwc.com.tr/tr_TR/tr/publications/industrial/energy/assets/Renewable-
report-11-April-2012.pdf
Quesada, B., Sánchez, C., Cañada, J., Royo, R., & Payá, J. (2010). Experimental results and
simulation with TRNSYS of a 7.2 kWp grid-connected photovoltaic system. Applied
Energy 88 (2011), 1772-1783.
REN21. (2014). Renewables 2014 Global Status Report. Retrieved 2014, from
http://www.ren21.net/ren21activities/globalstatusreport.aspx
RETSCREEN. (2004). Retrieved 2014, from Photovoltaic Project Analysis:

https://www.google.com.tr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&
uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.retscreen.net%2Fdownload.php%
145
2Fang%2F1016%2F0%2FTextbook.pdf&ei=dCgCVYqrKYrwUtCAgrAC&usg=AFQjCNHd1
mmgz8uWXoSro7azagA94E2SxA&bvm=bv.8819870
Robaa, S. M. (2008). Evaluation of sunshine duration from cloud data in Egypt. Energy 33,5,
(pp. 785-795).
Salim, A., Huraib, F., & Eugenio, N. (1988). PV power-study of system options and optimization.
in Proceedings of the 8th European PV Solar Energy Conference, Florence, Italy, 1988.
Sharma, V., & Chandel, S. S. (2013). Performance analysis of a 190 kWp grid interactive solar
photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy, Volume 55, 15 June 2013, 476-485.
Siddiqui, R., & Bajpai, U. (2012). Deviation in the Performance of Solar Module under Climatic
Parameter as Ambient Temperature and Wind Velocity in Composite Climate.
International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, Vol.2, No.3.
Skoplaki, E., & Palyvos, J. A. (2008). On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic module
electrical performance: A review of efficiency/power correlations. Solar Energy 83
(2009) 614–624.
SOITEC. (n.d.). MultiJunction Solar Cells. Retrieved 2014, from

http://www.soitec.com/en/technologies/concentrix/components/
Solanki, C. S. (2012). In Solar Photovoltaics Fundamentals, Technologies and Applications

(Second ed., pp. 391-418). PHI Learning.
Surles, W. (n.d). Solar Angles. Retrieved May 2014, from ITL Program, University of Colorado:
https://www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/lessons/cub_pveff/Images/cub_pv
eff_lesson01_figure3web.jpg
Takiguchi, H., & Morita, K. (2011). Global Flow Analysis of Crystalline Silicon. Retrieved from
Intech: http://www.intechopen.com/books/crystalline-silicon-properties-and-
uses/global-flow-analysis-of-crystallinesilicon
TEEIC. (1998). Tribal Energy and Environmental Information ClearingHouse. Retrieved 2014,
from http://teeic.indianaffairs.gov/er/lhhydro/restech/uses/index.htm:
http://teeic.indianaffairs.gov/er/lhhydro/restech/uses/index.htm
TEIAS. (2015, March). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.teias.gov.tr/yukdagitim/kuruluguc.xls
The German Solar Energy Society. (2007). In Planning and installing photovoltaic systems : a
guide for installers, architects and engineers. (p. 24). EarthScan.
Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2008). Earth's Global Energy Budget. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, 311-323.
U.S Department of Energy. (2002). The History of Solar. Retrieved 2014, from
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf
146
Weast, R. C., & Astle, M. J. (1982). CRC handbook of physics and chemistry. CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
YPKEA. (2013). New prices for new entrants Photovoltaic installations,from 1 June 2013.
Retrieved 2015, from
http://www.ypeka.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=389&sni[524]=2401&language=el-GR#
147
CURRICULUM VITAE
I was born in İzmir in 1989. I completed my high school education in İzmir Nevvar
Salih İşgören High School. I studied mechanical engineering in Celal Bayar Univesity
in Manisa and graduated in 2012. Then I started Master of Science program in
mechanical engineering in Marmara University in 2013.

Marmara University: Institute For Graduate Studies in Pure and Applied Sciences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marmara University: Institute For Graduate Studies in Pure and Applied Sciences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARMARA UNIVERSITY

INSTITUTE FOR GRADUATE STUDIES

EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS

OF SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PLANTS WHICH WERE BUILT

UNDER DIFFERENT CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND

FEED-IN TARIFF ZONES

EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS

OF SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PLANTS WHICH WERE BUILT

UNDER DIFFERENT CLIMATE CONDITIONS AND

FEED-IN TARIFF ZONES

April, 2015 Deniz Cura

FARKLI İKLİM ŞARTLARI VE TARİFE BÖLGELERİNDE KURULMUŞ

Fotovoltaik güneş santrallerinin kurulu güç kapasitesi, pahalı donanım maliyetlerinin

EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF

: Maximum current at maximum power point

: Maximum voltage at maximum power point

: Incident solar radiation at nominal operating temperature

: Fraction of the radiation incident on the surface of the cells that is

BTU : British Thermal Unit

Figure 1.1 World Energy Consumption in 2013…………………………………..……3

Figure 1.2 World Energy Consumption by Sector in 2012……………………………..4

Figure 1.3 World Energy Consumption Projections ………………………………..….4

Figure 1.4 World Electricity Production by Source in 2012………………………..…..5

Figure 1.5 Primary Energy Consumption of Turkey in the period of 1990-2013……...6

Figure 1.6 Energy Consumption of Turkey by source in 2013…………………….......7

Figure 1.7 Electricity Consumption and Production in Turkey (2003-2013)………......8

Figure 1.8 Electricity Production by Source in the period of 2003 – 2013……….........9

Figure 1.9 Electricity Energy Review of Turkey in 2013………………………...…….9

Figure 1.10 Installed Power Capacity of Turkey in 2013……………………………...10

Figure 1.11 Primary Energy Consumption of Greece in the period of 1990-2013……11

Figure 1.12 Energy Consumption of Greece by source in 2013……………………....11

Figure 1.13 Electricity Production of Greece by source in 2010 ……………………..12

Figure 1.14 World Consumption of Renewable Energy Projection through 2040……13

Figure 1.16 World Map of Global Horizontal Irradiation…………………………….18

Figure 1.17 Total New Investment in Solar Power…………………………………...21

Figure 1.18 Solar PV Total Global Capacity (2000-2013)……………………………22

Figure 1.19 Renewable Energy Share of Global Electricity Production in 2012……..24

Figure 1.20 Solar Radiation Map of Turkey…………………………………………..27

Figure 1.22 CSP working scheme (Parabolic Trough) ………………………………..33

Figure 1.23 Solar Cell……………………………………………………………….....33

Figure 1.24 Solar Cell Working Principal …………………………………………….34

Figure 1.25 Solar Cell Production Process…………………………………………….35

Figure 1.26 General Structure of a PV Module………………………………………..36

Figure 1.27 Monocrystalline Solar Cell ……………………………………………….37

Figure 1.28 Polycrystalline Solar Cell………………………………………………....38

Figure 1.29 Amorphous Silicon Cell. …………………………………………………39

Figure 1.30 Cd-Te Thin Film…………………………………………………………..39

Figure 1.31 CIGS Cell ………………………………………………………………..40

Figure 1.32 CPV System………………………………………………………………41

Figure 1.33 Working Principle of Dye-sensitized Solar Cell………………………….42

Figure 1.34 Organic Solar Cells……………………………………………………….43

Figure 1.35 Development of Laboratory Solar Cell Efficiencies……………………..43

Figure 1.36 PV Market Share by Technology in 2013………………………………..44

Figure 1.37 Main Equipment of Stand-alone PV system……………………………..45

Figure 1.38 Main Equipment of Grid Connected PV System………………………..46

Figure 1.39 Main Equipment of Stand Alone Hybrid PV System…………………...46

Figure 1.40 Temperature Dependency of a Solar Cell………………………………..49

Figure 1.41 Incident Solar Cell Dependency of a Solar Cell…………………………51

Figure 1.42 Tilted PV array…………………………………………………………...53

Figure 1.44 Shade of tree on PV array………………………………...……………...55

Figure 1.45 Dust layer accumulation on PV modules………………………………...55

Figure 2.2 Solar Angles……………………………………………………………….63

Figure 2.3 PVsyst main page…………………………………………………..……...81