Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Machine learning models to quantify and map daily global solar radiation T
and photovoltaic power
Yu Fenga, Weiping Haoa, Haoru Lia, Ningbo Cuib, Daozhi Gonga,∗, Lili Gaoa,∗∗
a
State Engineering Laboratory of Efficient Water Use of Crops and Disaster Loss Mitigation/ MOAR Key Laboratory for Dryland Agriculture, Institute of Environment and
Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulics and Mountain River Engineering & College of Water Resource and Hydropower, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Global solar radiation (Rs) reaching Earth's surface is the primary information for the design and application of
Machine learning solar energy-related systems. High-resolution Rs measurements are limited owing to the high costs of measuring
Solar radiation devices, and their stringent operational maintenance procedures. This study evaluated a newly developed ma-
Model comparison chine learning model, namely the hybrid particle swarm optimization and extreme learning machine (PSO-ELM),
Photovoltaic power
to accurately predict daily Rs. The newly proposed model was compared with five other machine learning
Loess Plateau of China
models, namely the original ELM, support vector machine, generalized regression neural networks, M5 model
tree, and autoencoder, under two training scenarios using long-term Rs and other climatic data taken during
1961–2016 from seven stations located on the Loess Plateau of China. Overall, the PSO-ELM with full climatic
data as inputs provided more accurate Rs estimations. We also calculated the daily Rs at fifty other stations
without Rs measurements on the Loess Plateau using the PSO-ELM model, as well as the potential photovoltaic
(PV) power using an empirical PV power model, and then generated high-resolution (0.25°) Rs and PV power
data to investigate the patterns of Rs and PV power. Significant reductions in Rs (−6.49 MJ m−2 per year,
p < 0.05) and PV power (−0.46 kWh m−2 per year, p < 0.05) were observed. The northwestern parts of the
study area exhibited more Rs and PV power and are therefore considered more favorable for solar energy-related
applications. Our study confirms the effectiveness of the PSO-ELM for solar energy modeling, particularly in
areas where in-situ measurements are unavailable.

1. Introduction estimations when measured data are unavailable, such as machine

Renewable energy is gaining interesting attention owing to the de-
pletion of conventional fossil fuel resources. It is an optimal solution to
overcome the energy crisis and alleviate the environmental pollution
triggered by burning of fossil fuels [1]. Among the several renewable
energy resources, solar energy, which is environmentally-friendly and
abundantly available around the world, is considered a promising en-
ergy source for industrial, municipal and agricultural production [2,3].
Global solar radiation (Rs) reaching Earth's surface is the primary in-
formation for the optimal implementation and design of solar energy-
related systems [4–7]. However, the Rs measurements are limited on
Earth surface, particularly in developing countries such as China
[8–10], due to the expensive devices for measurements and stringent
requirement of maintenance of the devices.
In recent years, various methods have been proposed for Rs
learning models [11–15], empirical models [16–20], and remote sen-
sing approaches [21]. Machine learning models are promising methods
for Rs estimations owing to their high accuracy, of which the most
commonly applied is artificial neural networks (ANN), e.g., multilayer
perceptron neural networks, evolutionary ANN, generalized regression
neural networks (GRNN), and backpropagation neural networks [8].
Marzouq et al. [22] established an evolutionary ANN with automatic
selection of input variables for predicting Rs in Morocco, with good
results. Wang et al. [23] compared three types of ANN models with
empirical models in predicting daily Rs. Although, the contrasting
performance of the models at different stations was observed, the ANN
models generally showed better estimations, compared with empirical
models. Hussain and AlAlili [24] developed four ANN models, namely a
multilayer perceptron neural networks, a adaptive neuro-fuzzy in-
ference system, a GRNN, and a nonlinear autoregressive recurrent

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fengyu272@163.com (Y. Feng), gongdaozhi@caas.cn (D. Gong), gaolili@caas.cn (L. Gao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109393
Received 30 May 2019; Received in revised form 19 August 2019; Accepted 12 September 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Feng, et al.
Nomenclature
Variables
n sunshine duration (h)
Ppv potential photovoltaic power (kWh m−2)
Ra extra-terrestrial solar radiation (MJ m−2 day−1)
RH relative humidity
Rs global solar radiation (MJ m−2 day−1)
Ta average air temperature (°C)
Tmax maximum air temperature (°C)
Tmin minimum air temperature (°C)
VPD vapor pressure deficit (kPa)
Abbreviations
AE autoencoder
exogenous neural networks, for estimating Rs (decomposed by a wa-
velet multiresolution analysis) in the United Arab Emirates. The results
showed the wavelet multiresolution analysis can significantly enhance
the accuracy of the ANN models. Conventional ANN models like
backpropagation neural networks tend to get stuck in local minima
[25], thus implementation of optimization algorithms for training ANN
models can improve the potential of ANN for Rs prediction. Mousavi
et al. [26] coupled an ANN with simulated annealing, developed a
hybrid ANN and simulated annealing model, which was proved to
outperform the original ANN model. Feng et al. [27] presented a hybrid
genetic algorithm and ANN model for predicting daily Rs in Northwest
China, with satisfactory. The ANN model has also been coupled with a
mind evolutionary algorithm and applied for daily Rs prediction in
China, with favorable results [28]. Other studies conducted in China
showed the performance of ANN models can be improved by using
particle swarm optimization (PSO) for model parameter selection [29].
Ghimire et al. [30] reviewed, developed and evaluated ANN models
and several other types of machine learning models for predicting Rs
generated through ECMWF Reanalysis fields, with effective forecast.
More recently, an extension of the ANN method, called deep learning,
has been developed for Rs modeling. This model, with a neural network
structure to reconstruct the data, shows efficacious performance in
predicting Rs [31]. Kaba et al. [31] applied a deep neural network for
estimating daily Rs and reported deep neural networks is comparable to
or even better than the models reported previously. Other types of deep
learning models have been developed and tested, including long short-
term memory networks employed in Alice Springs of Australia [32],
deep belief networks employed in Lhasa of China [33], deep belief and
deep neural networks employed in four cities of Australia [34].
Other machine learning algorithms for Rs modeling include kernel-
based algorithms, fuzzy algorithms, evolutionary algorithms, and tree-
based algorithms [8]. Fan et al. [35] comprehensively reviewed existing
machine learning models for predicting Rs and compared them with
empirical models. Wu et al. [8] compared two kernel-based models
with multilayer perceptron, M5 model tree (M5T), random forest and
multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS), for modeling Rs in
humid regions of China. Both the kernel-based models showed rea-
sonable accuracy with high stability and less computational time. Deo
et al. [36] coupled support vector machine (SVM) with wavelet trans-
form and developed a hybrid model for modeling Rs in Australia. The
coupled model yielded better estimations than the original SVM model.
Ghimire et al. [37] integrated the support vector regression model with
PSO and maximum overlap discrete wavelet transformation, con-
structed a three-phase hybrid model for Rs prediction using satellite
data as inputs. Li et al. [38] established an hourly Rs model based on
MARS, with superior performance in both interpretability and
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393
ANN artificial neural networks
DOY day of the year
ELM extreme learning machine
GRNN generalized regression neural networks
M5T M5 model tree
MAE mean absolute error (MJ m−2 day−1)
NS Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient
PSO particle swarm optimization
PSO-ELM hybrid particle swarm optimization and extreme learning
machine
PV photovoltaic
RRMSE relative root mean square error
SLFN single hidden layer feed-forward neural networks
SVM support vector machine
predicting accuracy. Zang et al. [39] proposed two optimized adaptive
neuro-fuzzy inference system models for predicting Rs across six cli-
mates in China. The two models exhibit superb capacity in Rs prediction
across diverse climatic conditions. Prasad et al. [40] developed a multi-
stage multivariate empirical mode decomposition coupled with ant
colony optimization and random forest, and compared the new model
with M5 tree, original random forest, and minimax probability machine
regression models for predicting monthly Rs. Ghimire et al. [41] con-
structed an extreme learning machine (ELM) model integrated with the
satellite and the reanalysis data for predicting Rs. Hassan et al. [42]
compared three tree-based ensemble models with multilayer perceptron
neural networks, SVM, and decision tree for predicting daily and hourly
Rs. Voyant et al. [43] reviewed the machine learning based Rs models
and concluded the error of the models was quite equivalent, im-
plementation of ensemble forecast approach or hybrid models can en-
hance the accuracy of the models.
Previous studies generally focused on model comparison and as-
sessment for Rs estimations [44–47]. Studies on the application of the
proposed models to predict Rs in areas without Rs measurements are
lacking. In addition, most current studies failed to assess and quantify
the patterns of Rs and PV power output using high-resolution Rs data
generated from the machine learning models; such patterns can provide
pivotal information for solar energy applications (e.g., the intensity and
distribution of Rs are two key environmental variables primarily de-
termining the development of solar technologies [48]). Using the Rs
data and solar photovoltaic (PV) power models, the power output of a
PV system can be determined [6]. Zou et al. [6] investigated the tem-
poral variations and spatial distributions of PV power output across the
globe based on an empirical PV model and the long-term Rs data pro-
jection. They found the aerosols caused by anthropogenic activities and
cloudiness led to the variability of Rs, which showed a decreasing trend
from 1850 to 2005. Furthermore, future potential PV power also pre-
sents a declining trend worldwide from 2006 to 2100. Prăvălie et al.
[48] analyzed the intensity and distribution of solar radiation at dif-
ferent spatial scales, global, continental, and national scales, the results
indicated China is one of the countries for the large-scale installation of
PV power systems. China, which is currently the largest PV manu-
facturer, produces approximately half of the global PV. China is ex-
pected to have a PV installation capacity of 20 GW by 2020 [49].
However, Rs data for PV power assessment are unavailable in many
regions of China, with only 122 stations recording Rs, across a land area
of ~9.6 million km2 [50]. Thus, the generation of accurate and high-
resolution Rs data can provide reliable information for PV power as-
sessment.
To address the aforementioned issues, we first combined the merits
of parameter selection provided by PSO and model generalization
Y. Feng, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393

offered by ELM and constructed a hybrid PSO-ELM model for predicting increasing–decreasing trend in the one-year period.
daily Rs on the Loess Plateau of China. To test the model performance,
we compared the PSO-ELM with the original ELM and four other 2.2. Machine learning models
commonly used machine learning models: SVM, GRNN, M5T, and au-
toencoder (AE). The new hybrid PSO-ELM has not been implemented 2.2.1. Extreme learning machine
for Rs prediction, and its potential has not been tested and compared The ELM is a training algorithm used in optimizing single hidden
with other widely used machine learning models. Using the proposed layer feed-forward neural networks (SLFN). It has a better general-
machine learning model, we estimated Rs at stations without Rs mea- ization ability and a higher learning speed than conventional neural
surements from other commonly available data to generate high-re- networks. Like the conventional ANN model, the ELM model comprises
solution Rs data, as well as the PV power output using an empirical PV three layers:an input layer (the input predictors, i.e., meteorological
model, and quantified the patterns of Rs and potential PV power on the variables in the present study), a hidden layer (neurons), and an output
Loess Plateau. layer (the target, i.e., Rs in the present study). The ELM model has been
successfully implemented in solar radiation modeling [15,41,46], with
2. Materials and methods excellent performance for Rs prediction.
In general, an SLFN with L hidden neurons can be expressed as [53]:
2.1. Study area and data collection L
∑ βi g (xk , ;ci, ai) = yk , k = 1,2, ..., M
The present study selected China's Loess Plateau located in Northern i=1 (1)
China (Fig. 1) as the study area. This region is known for its severe soil where βi is the weight vector, g(.) is the transfer function, And ci is the
erosion because of rare vegetation covers and frequent heavy rain- randomly specified bias.
storms and is characterized by a continental temperate climate [51,52]. Eq. (1) can be rewritten as:
There are 57 stations with long-term (1961–2016) meteorological
Hβ = T (2)
variable measurements, among which only seven stations have Rs
measurements. Therefore, daily meteorological variables, including where
sunshine duration (n), relative humidity (RH), average (Ta), and max-
g (x1; c1, ω1) ... g (x1; cm, ωM ) ⎤
imum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) air temperatures, during 1961–2016 H=⎡
were utilized. The daily Rs data measured during 1961–2016 from ⎢ g (xN ; c1, ω1) ... g (xN ; cM , ωM ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦N × M (3)
seven stations were also included. These data were provided and pre-
T
liminary quality controlled by the China Meteorological Administra- Hβ = [β1T , β2T , ..., βLT ]m × M (4)
tion. We performed further data quality control in cases wherein the
measured Rs values were higher than extra-terrestrial radiation (Ra) and 1) The output weight matrix can be computed using the least squares
in cases wherein the variable was missing [2]. Fig. 1 shows the geo- method:
graphical distribution of the seven stations with Rs measurements and
β = H+T (5)
of the fifty stations without Rs measurements. Table 1 and Fig. 2 present
the annual mean (or annual values) and monthly variations in Rs, Ta, n where H is the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse of the hidden layer
+

and vapor pressure deficit (VPD, that is calculated from relative hu- output matrix. For the original ELM model, the hidden nodes were
midity and average air temperature) at the seven stations with Rs tuned using a grid-search algorithm.
measurements respectively. The four variables exhibited an

Fig. 1. Geographical distribution of the meteorological stations on the Loess Plateau of China. Red triangles indicate meteorological stations with global solar
radiation measurements, whereas the black dots indicate meteorological stations lacking such measurements. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

3
Y. Feng, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393

Table 1
Geographical locations and annual mean (or annual values) of global solar radiation (Rs), average air temperature (Ta), sunshine duration (n) and vapor pressure
deficit (VPD) at the seven stations with global solar radiation measurements.
Station name Latitude (°N) Longitude (°E) Elevation (AMSL) Rs (MJ m−2) Ta (oC) n (h) VPD (kPa)

Xining 36.6 101.9 2295 5792 6.0 2656 0.54

Lanzhou 36.1 103.9 1874 5361 6.9 2586 0.50
Datong 40.1 113.3 1067 5622 7.1 2708 0.67
Yinchuan 38.5 106.3 1111 5962 9.3 2876 0.72
Taiyuan 37.8 112.6 778 5266 10.2 2509 0.66
Houma 35.7 111.4 434 4933 12.9 2217 0.70
Xi'an 34.3 108.9 398 4494 14.0 1801 0.68

Although the ELM has been proven to be a promising tool for solar
radiation modeling, the main disadvantage is that it will generate non-
optimal solutions and reduce its applicability, owing to its randomly
initialized input weights and hidden biases. Therefore, we applied the
PSO to determine the parameters of the ELM, and then developed a
hybrid PSO-ELM model for Rs prediction. The PSO is a widely applied
optimization algorithm for parameter selection and can conduct global
search with a lower computational cost owing to its easier im-
plementation and fewer required parameters [37,54]. The PSO has been
widely implemented in optimizing machine learning models (e.g., op-
timization of SVR for Rs and electricity demand prediction in Australia
[37,55]).
In a D dimension space, given a population with n particles
X = (X1 , X2 , ⋯, Xn ) , the position and velocity of particle i can be ex-
pressed as Xi = (x i1, x i2, ⋯, x iD) T and Vi = (vi1, vi2, ⋯, viD) T , respectively,
and the best positions of particle i and the entire population can be
expressed as Pi = (pi1, pi2 , ⋯, piD ) T and Pg = (pg1, pg 2 , ⋯, pgD ) T respec-
tively [56].
During the iterative optimization of the PSO, the position and the Fig. 3. Flowchart of the PSO-ELM model proposed in this study.
velocity of particle i can be updated as follows:
Xid = Xid + Xid (d = 1,2, ⋯, D , i = 1,2, ⋯, n) (6) the PSO-ELM in this study.

Vidk+ 1 = ωvidk + c1 r1,k i (Pidk − Xidk ) + c2 r2,k i (Pgd

k
− Xidk )
where ω is the inertial weight, k is the current iteration number, c1 and
c2 are the acceleration coefficients with non-negative values, and r1,k i and
r2,k i are random values in the range of [0 1]. Fig. 3 shows the flowchart of
(7)
2.3. Support vector machine
The SVM is a supervised machine learning model for regression or
pattern recognition [57]. It is based on the statistic learning theory, or

Fig. 2. Monthly variations in the global solar radiation, average air temperature, sunshine duration, and vapor pressure deficit at the seven stations with global solar
radiation measurements on the Loess Plateau.

4
Y. Feng, et al.
to be more precise, it is an approximate realization of structural risk
minimization [14]. For regression problems, SVM is based on kernel
functions, which can convert the low-dimensional input data to a high-
dimensional feature space in an implicit manner. The SVM generally
presents a unique solution resulting from the convex nature of optim-
ality problem, as compared with the traditional ANN models which
always have multiple local minima [2]. In recent decades, SVM has
provided accurate Rs estimations in different climates, e.g., in humid
and arid regions of China [2,7,14], and humid regions of Australia [36].
Therefore, we selected the SVM to compare the effectiveness of the
PSO-ELM in estimating Rs. We applied the non-linear RBF as the kernel
function and determined the parameters of the RBF using a grid-search
algorithm with cross-validation [58]. The details of the SVM have been
provided by Vapnik [57].
2.4. Generalized regression neural networks
The GRNN is a radial basis function networks and has been ex-
tensively implemented for non-linear modeling [59]. Although it is a
widely utilized ANN model for regression, its operation scheme is
fundamentally different from conventional feed-forward neural net-
works, as it is based on nonlinear regression theory for function esti-
mations. The structure of the GRNN is also different from conventional
feed-forward neural networks that generally has three layers. The
GRNN has four layers: an input layer (the input predictors, i.e., me-
teorological variables in the present study), a pattern layer, a summa-
tion layer, and an output layer (the target, i.e., Rs in the present study).
It can model any arbitrary function between the inputs and outputs and
directly draw the function estimate from the training data. The circuit
training method was applied to determine the spread constant, a user-
defined parameter when establishing the GRNN. The detailed theory of
the GRNN can be found elsewhere [59].
2.4.1. M5 model tree
The M5T is a regression tree model with powerful learning ability in
predicting the true values in large datasets. It is a hierarchical, decision-
tree type model based on the binary decision framework [60]. The M5T
model has three types of nodes: root, internal, and terminal nodes. The
regression functions at the terminal nodes help develop relationships
between the predictors and the targets [8,11]. There are three steps to
establish an M5T: the splitting, creating (building), and extracting
(deriving). In recent years, the M5T model has been widely applied for
estimating Rs or selected as a benchmark model to compare other
models [8,11]. Therefore, we selected M5T as a benchmark model to
test PSO-ELM. The parameters of the M5T, such as minimum leaf size
and minimum parent size, were determined using a grid-search algo-
rithm. Details regarding the M5T model have been provided by Sani-
khani et al. [60].
2.4.2. Autoencoder
The AE is a deep learning model, comprising simple and un-
supervised networks. The AE generally consists of three layers, namely
Table 2
Input combinations for the machine learning models. PSO-ELM represents hybrid particle swarm optimization and extreme learning machine; ELM represents
extreme learning machine; SVM represents support vector machine; GRNN represents generalized regression neural networks; M5T denotes M5 model tree; AE
denotes autoencoder; n represents sunshine duration; Tmax and Tmin represent maximum and minimum air temperatures respectively; VPD represents vapor pressure
deficit. Ra represents extra-terrestrial solar radiation; DOY represents day of the year.
Training scenario Input scenario Model
PSO-ELM ELM
Local Full data PSO-ELM1 ELM1
Sunshine data PSO-ELM2 ELM2
Air temperature data PSO-ELM3 ELM3
Regional Full data PSO-ELM4 – –
5
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393
an input layer, a hidden layer, and a decoding layer, and can auto-
matically extract features of the input data in an unsupervised manner.
The three layers of the AE can be structured into two blocks: an encoder
block mapping the inputs to the hidden layer and a decoder block re-
constructing the inputs [61]. The AE has been utilized for forecasting
PM2.5 concentration [62] and wind energy [63]; however, its perfor-
mance in solar energy modeling has not been reported. The details of
the AE model formulation have been provided by Liu et al. [61].
2.5. Model training and testing
The present study applied two scenarios for training the machine
learning models: local and regional training scenarios. For the local
scenario, the data at each station among the seven stations with Rs
measurements were divided into two subsets. The first set (data taken
during 1961–2000) was used for training the models, and the second set
(data taken during 2001–2016) was utilized for testing the models. The
training and testing of the models were separately performed at each
station with Rs measurements. We selected three input combinations for
training the local models. Table 2 lists the details of the input combi-
nations. The model performance cab be enhanced by introducing the
geographic, periodic and solar information as the inputs for training
models [8,64]. Therefore, the day of the year (DOY)and Ra calculated
from latitude data and number of days were also used for training the
models. For the regional scenario, the data from the seven stations were
pooled and then divided into two subsets. The first set (data pooled
from the period 1961–2000) was also used for training the regional
model, and the second set (data pooled from the period 2001–2016)
was utilized for testing the regional model. We selected only one input
combination that has the best estimation accuracy to train the regional
model (full data as inputs, Table 2).
Training and testing the regional model can provide a promising
tool for Rs prediction in stations without Rs measurements. After vali-
dating the regional model, we implemented the regional model to
predict Rs in the fifty other stations that do not have Rs measurements.
First, we used data (n, Tmax, Tmin, VPD, Ra, and DOY) from the non-
measurement stations as inputs to predict Rs, using the regional PSO-
ELM model. The predicted Rs data in the fifty stations and the measured
Rs data in the seven stations were then used as inputs for the PV power
model to compute the potential PV power, and quantify the patterns of
Rs and potential PV power on the Loess Plateau.
We applied three statistical indices, namely the mean absolute error
(MAE), relative root mean square error (RRMSE), and Nash-Sutcliffe
coefficient (NS), to test and evaluate the models [65,66].
m
1
MAE =
m
∑ Xi − Yi
i=1 (8)
1 m
m
∑i = 1 (Yi − Xi )2
RRMSE =
X‾ (9)
Inputs
SVM GRNN M5T AE
SVM1 GRNN1 M5T1 AE1 n, Tmax, Tmin, VPD, Ra, DOY
SVM2 GRNN2 M5T2 AE2 n, Ra, DOY
SVM3 GRNN3 M5T3 AE3 Tmax, Tmin, Ra, DOY
– – – n, Tmax, Tmin, VPD, Ra, DOY
Y. Feng, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393

m
∑i = 1 (Yi − Xi )2 2.7. Methods for trend evaluation
NS = 1 − m
∑i = 1 (Xi − X‾ )2 (10)
The trends in Rs and Ppv were quantified using linear regression, and
where Xi and Yi denote the measured and predicted values, respectively, the significance of the changing trend was tested by the Mann-Kendall
and X is the mean value of Xi. test [69]. The Mann-Kendall test is based on the statistic S:

k−1 k
2.6. Solar photovoltaic model
S= ∑ ∑ sgn(x j − x i )
i=1 j=i+1 (14)
As primary energy source for PV power systems is solar radiation,
the amount of solar radiation greatly affects the output power of a PV
system. Moreover, the operating temperature substantially influences xj − xi > 0
⎧ 1 x −x =0
the efficiency of a PV cell or module [6]. Skoplaki and Palyvos [67] sgn(x j − x i ) = 0 j i
⎨− 1
reviewed the effects of temperature on the electrical performance of a ⎩ xj − xi < 0 (15)
PV module, and summered a negative gradient linear relationship be-
tween the electrical efficiency of the PV cell and the cell temperature. where xi and xj are the i-th and j-th values of the time series (e.g., Rs and
Therefore, the power output of a PV cell can be obtained as [68]: Ppv), and k is the length of the time series. A positive value of S indicates
a positive trend in the time series whereas a negative value indicates a
Ppv = Rs × ηcell (11)
negative trend. The variance of the S statistic can be estimated as:
where Ppv is the output power of a PV cell, in W/m2, and Rs is global
l
solar radiation, in W/m2. ηcell , the electrical efficiency of a PV cell, can k (k − 1)(2k − 5) − ∑m − 1 tm (tm − 1)(2tm + 5)
Var (S ) =
be expressed as: 18 (16)
ηcell = ηref [1 − β (Tcell − Tref ) + γ log10 Rs] (12) where tm is the number of ties for the m-th value.
where ηref is the electrical efficiency of a PV cell at the reference tem- Thus, the normalized test statistic Zc can be expressed as:
perature, β and γ are respectively the temperature and radiation
S−1
coefficients determined by the cell material and structure, with typical ⎧
⎪ Var (S ) S>0
values of 0.0045 and 0.1 respectively, for monocrystalline silicon cells, Zc = 0 S=0
and Tref (25 °C) and Tcell are the reference and cell temperatures, re- ⎨ S+1
⎪ S<0
spectively. Tcell can be empirically expressed in terms of ambient tem- ⎩ Var (S ) (17)
perature and Rs [57]:
where Zc is the test statistics. If the absolute value of Zc is greater than
Tcell = c1 + c2 T + c3 Rs (13)
Z1-α/2, the hypothesis that there is no trend will be rejected at the sig-
where T is ambient temperature, in °C, and c1, c2, and c3 are the nificance level of α (α = 5% in this study).
coefficients determined from the details of the module and mounting, For the spatial variability analysis, we implemented the inverse
which affect the heat transfer from the cell, with values of −3.75 °C, distance weighting method [69] for spatial interpolation, and then
1.14 and 0.0175 °C m2 W−1 for monocrystalline silicon cells respec- applied the nearest method to resample the interpolated data at a re-
tively. solution of 0.25° in ArcGIS (version 10.4).

Fig. 4. Comparison of six locally trained machine learning models with full climatic data as inputs.

6
Y. Feng, et al.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Comparison of models for global solar radiation estimations
Comparison of the six machine learning models locally trained using
the full climatic data is presented in Fig. 4. Generally, the PSO-ELM1
(on average MAE of 1.576 MJ m−2 day−1, RRMSE of 0.149, and NS of
0.914) exhibits the best prediction accuracy among the six machine
learning models at each station of the Loess Plateau. The SVM1 ranks as
the second model, followed by ELM1, GRNN1, M5T1 and AE1. How-
ever, the SVM1 gives the lowest accuracy at Xi'an station. The model
performances at different stations differ significantly. The six machine
learning models at Yinchuan station give the highest prediction accu-
racy, and are much better than those at Taiyuan or Xi'an, in which the
model performance is lowest.
Fig. 5 illustrates the statistical performance of the six machine
learning models locally trained using sunshine data. Similar to the
previous case, the PSO-ELM2 (on average MAE of 1.649 MJ m−2 day−1,
RRMSE of 0.159, and NS of 0.906) provides the highest prediction ac-
curacy among the six models at each station. The SVM2 also shows
worse estimates, as compared with the PSO-ELM2, and ranks as the
second model, followed by the ELM2, the GRNN2, the M5T2. Similar to
the full input combination, the SVM2 shows the lowest accuracy at
Xi'an station. The models have varied performance at different stations.
All the models at Yinchuan station provides the best modeling results.
However, at Xi'an station, the models show the worst modeling results,
unlike that in the case of the full input combination.
The statistical performance of the six machine learning models lo-
cally trained by temperature data is provided in Fig. 6. The best mod-
eling results are also achieved by the PSO-ELM3 at each station. The
SVM3 provides relatively poor predictions than the PSO-ELM3, fol-
lowed by the ELM3, the GRNN3, the M5T3, and the AE3. A comparison
of the models across different stations shows that the model perfor-
mances differ substantially, with quite different patterns, compared
with the previous two input combinations. The models at Xining station
give the lowest error, whereas the models at Taiyuan station give the
highest error.
Fig. 5. Comparison of six locally trained machine learning models with sunshine duration data as inputs.
7
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393
The PSO-ELM exhibits the best accuracy in all the stations under all
the input scenarios, other models, however, show varied performance
in different stations. For example, the M5T shows the worst perfor-
mance in Xining and Taiyuan while the AE gives the worst prediction in
other stations when training with full inputs, indicating the model
performance is influenced by the local climate. When training with
sunshine duration data, the GRNN shows the worst prediction in Xining
station whereas the AE exhibits the worst performance in other stations.
A comparison of models with different inputs indicates the models with
full input combination provide the best estimates. The models with
sunshine duration data as inputs just shows slightly poor performance
as compared with models with full climatic data as inputs, and shows
much better accuracy as compared with models trained using tem-
perature data. This indicates sunshine duration data are the primary
input for training machine learning models for Rs estimations, con-
sistent with other studies [8,27]. The PSO-ELM presents higher accu-
racy than the original ELM in Rs modeling, indicating that the PSO can
effectively enhance the performance of the ELM, in accordance with
other studies that applied PSO for SVM or ANN optimization [29,37].
Although the AE has excellent performance in wind energy modeling
[63], its performance in solar energy modeling is questionable. Other
deep learning models, e.g., deep neural networks and long short-term
memory, have been proven promising for solar energy modeling
[31,32]. The M5T had poor performance, this conclusion was also
drawn by Wu et al. [8], who found that the M5T gave a lower perfor-
mance than the other five machine learning models for Rs prediction in
humid regions of China. Our findings as well as the finding of Wu et al.
[8] confirms that the M5T is unsuitable for calculating Rs in both humid
and arid regions of China. The PSO-ELM with full climatic data as in-
puts provided the best Rs prediction among the six models under dif-
ferent input scenarios, and the PSO could effectively improve the model
accuracy of the ELM. We, therefore, re-trained the PSO-ELM using re-
gional data (data pooled from the seven stations with Rs measurement,
the regional training scenario in Table 2), and built a regional PSO-
ELM4. The statistical performance of the regional PSO-ELM4 is illu-
strated in Fig. 7. The estimations show significant correlation with the
measurements, with an R2 value of 0.902 (p < 0.05). The model also
Y. Feng, et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison of six locally trained machine learning models with air temperature data as inputs.
Fig. 7. Statistical performance of the regional PSO-ELM4 with full climatic data
as inputs for global solar radiation (Rs) estimations. * indicates a significant
correlation at a probability of 0.05.
gives accurate Rs predictions, with an MAE of 1.774 MJ m−2 day−1,
RRMSE of 0.161, and NS of 0.903, indicating that the regionally trained
model can be employed for Rs estimations, particularly at stations
without Rs measurements in cases where a machine learning model
cannot be locally trained. The seasonal analysis (Fig. 8) shows the re-
gional PSO-ELM model exhibits varied seasonal performance in dif-
ferent stations. The PSO-ELM underestimated Rs in Lanzhou and
Taiyuan, whereas it overestimated Rs in the other five stations, with a
relative error in the range of −3.1%–2.7%.
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393
3.2. Quantifying and mapping regional global solar radiation and
photovoltaic power
The regional PSO-ELM4 has been proven to be a promising tool for
Rs estimations. Therefore, we implemented the PSO-ELM4 for Rs esti-
mations in the other fifty stations that do not have Rs measurements,
using n, Tmax, Tmin, VPD, Ra, and DOY during 1961–2016 as inputs. We
then calculated the potential PV power and investigated the temporal
and spatial patterns of Rs and PV power at the 57 stations on the Loess
Plateau. Fig. 9 shows the temporal and spatial distributions of annual Rs
during 1961–2016 on the Loss Plateau. In general, annual mean Rs
presents a significant decreasing trend (Fig. 9a), with a declining rate of
−6.49 MJ m−2 per year (p < 0.05, Mann-Kendall test). Regarding the
spatial patterns, the annual Rs increases from southeast to northwest
(Fig. 9b), with annual values ranging from 4513 to 6054 MJ m−2 and a
mean value of 5457 MJ m−2. The distribution frequency of the re-
sampled Rs values at a resolution of 0.25° reveals that most areas have
an Rs value of approximately 5400 MJ m−2.
Spatial distributions and frequency distribution of change in sea-
sonal Rs resampled at a resolution of 0.25° are presented in Fig. 10.
Most areas on the Loess Plateau exhibits a decreasing trend in Rs, ac-
counting for 95.7% of the areas (Fig. 10b). Among the 57 stations, 37
stations (64.9%) show significant decreasing trend (p < 0.05, Mann-
Kendall test), whereas only two stations (3.5%) exhibit significant in-
creasing trend (p < 0.05, Mann-Kendall test). The eastern parts of the
Loess Plateau has a higher decreasing rate, while the central and wes-
tern parts of the region show a lower decreasing or even increasing
trend in Rs.
The temporal variations of seasonal Rs in the four seasons (Fig. 11)
all decrease to different extents. Generally, the decreasing rate is higher
in summer (−3.08 MJ m−2 per year, p < 0.05), followed by those in
winter (−1.7 MJ m−2 per year, p < 0.05), autumn (−1.56 MJ m−2
per year, p < 0.05), and spring (−0.15 MJ m−2 per year, p > 0.05).
The decrease rate in Rs in the four seasons accounted for 2.3%, 47.5%,
24.0%, and 26.2% of the decrease in the annual Rs, indicating that the
declining summer Rs primarily drove the decrease in annual Rs on the
Loess Plateau. Rs in spring exhibits the widest distribution (from
 Y. Feng, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393

Fig. 8. Comparison of monthly global solar radiation values between measurements and ones predicted using the regional PSO-ELM4.

1350–1900 MJ m−2), whereas Rs in winter gives the narrowest dis- (Fig. 13a). The declining trend during 1961–1989 (−0.69 kWh m−2 per
tribution (from 900–1000 MJ m−2). In terms of the seasonal mean va- year) is much higher than that during 1990–2016 (−0.12 kWh m−2 per
lues, the Rs values in summer are significant higher year), indicating the decrease in PV power is slowing down. The spatial
(1830 ± 106 MJ m−2), followed by those in spring patterns of the annual PV power exhibit an increasing trend from
(1671 ± 104 MJ m−2), autumn (1109 ± 84 MJ m−2), and winter southeast to northwest (Fig. 13b), with annual PV power ranging from
(874 ± 51 MJ m−2). The spatial patterns (Fig. 12) also reveal that 232 to 332 kWh m−2 and a mean value of 294 kWh m−2. The dis-
seasonal Rs values take the order: summer > spring > autumn > tribution frequency of the resampled PV power at a resolution of 0.25°
winter, and showed an increasing trend from southeast to northwest. indicates most of the areas share a PV power of ~300 kWh m−2.
Fig. 13 presents the temporal and spatial distributions of annual The PV power in the four seasons all decrease to different extents
potential PV power during 1961–2016 on the Loss Plateau. Averaging (Fig. 14), with declining rates of −0.029 (p > 0.05), −0.225
to the whole area, the annual mean PV power also decreases sig- (p < 0.05), −0.104 (p < 0.05), and −0.106 (p < 0.05) kWh m−2
nificantly (−0.46 kWh m−2 per year, p < 0.05, Mann-Kendall test) per year for the four seasons, accounting for 6.3%, 48.5%, 22.4%, and

Frequency (pixels) Fig. 9. Temporal and spatial dis-

0 25 50 75 100 tributions of annual global solar ra-
(a) (b) diation during 1961–2016 on the Loss
Global solar radiation (103 MJ m-2)

6.0 Global solar radiation (MJ m-2)

Plateau. (a) Annual variations and
6054
frequency distribution of global solar
5.8
radiation, (b) spatial distributions of
5.6 annual mean global solar radiation
resampled at a resolution of 0.25°. *
4513
5.4 indicates significant changes at a
probability of 0.05 by Mann-Kendall
5.2 test.
Slope = -6.49* MJ m-2 year-1
5.0

4.8
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

9
Y. Feng, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393

Fig. 10. Spatial distributions (a) and frequency distribution (b) of change in the seasonal global solar radiation resampled at a resolution of 0.25° during 1961–2016
on the Loss Plateau.

22.8% of decrease in annual PV power respectively. This confirms the with previous studies, which demonstrated the “dimming” of Earth
decrease in summer PV power primarily led to the decrease in annual [70]. However, Rs on the Earth's surface, primarily at the Northern
PV power on the Loess Plateau. The spatial characteristics of seasonal Hemisphere, shows a reverse trend since the late 1980s; this is known
PV power (Fig. 15) presents an increasing trend from southeast to as “brightening” and may have been triggered by cloudiness and at-
northwest. Averaged to the whole region, seasonal mean PV power mospheric transmission [70]. The Rs trend on the Loess Plateau after
values are 93 ± 8, 101 ± 8, 56 ± 6, and 43 ± 4 kWh m−2, ac- the 1990s shows regional differences from the global trend of Rs. The
counting for 31.6%, 34.5%, 19.2%, and 14.9% of annual PV power for reduced Rs led to the declining of PV power on the Loess Plateau;
spring, summer, autumn, and winter respectively. however, the decrease rate kept reducing. Generally, the northeastern
The hybrid PSO-ELM outperformed the five other commonly used parts of the Loess Plateau have the highest PV power, and are more
machine learning models, thus demonstrating the capacity of the PSO- favorable for solar energy-related applications.
ELM in modeling Rs. We therefore highly recommend this model for Rs
estimations on the Loess Plateau or other regions with similar climate.
4. Summary and further research
The regional Rs, averaged to the entire region, showed a significant
decrease trend, though few stations showed an increase in Rs. In the
Accurate Rs data serve as the primary information for implementing
study period, there were two stages with different decrease rate:
solar energy-related systems. This study applied PSO to optimally de-
9.88 MJ m−2 year−1 during 1961–1989 and 1.75 MJ m−2 year−1
termine the parameters of ELM and then built a hybrid PSO-ELM model
during 1990–2016. The decrease in Rs before the 1990s is consistent
for Rs estimations. The newly proposed model was compared with the

(a) (b) 0.0 Fig. 11. Patterns of seasonal global

Seasonal global solar radiation (103 MJ m-2)

2.2 -0.15 solar radiation during 1961–2016 on

Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Change in seasonal global solar radiation

-0.5 the Loss Plateau. (a) Annual varia-

2.0
tions in the seasonal global solar ra-
1.8
-1.0 diation, (b) comparison of changes in
seasonal global solar radiation, (c)
(MJ m-2 year-1)

1.6 -1.5 frequency distribution and (d) mean

-1.56*
-1.7* seasonal global solar radiation re-
1.4 -2.0 sampled at 0.25° resolution. * in (b)
indicates significant change at a
1.2
-2.5 probability of 0.05 by Mann-Kendall
1.0 test. The different lowercase letters
-3.0 above the bars in (d) indicate sig-
-3.08 *
0.8 nificant differences between different
-3.5 seasons at a probability of 0.05 by t-
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Spring Summer Autumn Winter
test.
(c) (d)
350
Spring Summer Autumn Winter
2000 a
b
300
Global solar radiation (MJ m-2)
Frequency (pixels)

250 1500

c
200

1000 d
150

100
500
1671 ± 104 1830 ± 106 1109 ± 84 874 ± 51
50

0 0
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Spring Summer Autumn Winter

Global solar radiation (MJ m-2)

10
 Y. Feng, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Global solar radiation (MJ m-2)

<800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 >1900
Fig. 12. Spatial distributions of seasonal global solar radiation resampled at a resolution of 0.25° during 1961–2016 on the Loss Plateau. (a) Spring, (b) summer, (c)
autumn, and (d) winter.

five other widely applied machine learning models, namely the original patterns of PV power. The proposed models can be utilized to estimate
ELM, SVM, GRNN, M5T, and AE, to assess its effectiveness in Rs esti- Rs in other regions of China or elsewhere on Earth. Our study is a first in
mations. Long-term Rs and other meteorological data taken during which a PSO optimized ELM is used for Rs modeling. The hybrid ELM
1961–2016 from seven stations on the Loess Plateau of China were used model exhibits a better prediction accuracy, compared with the original
to develop and evaluate the models in local and regional scenarios. We ELM and other commonly used machine learning models. However, as
found that the PSO-ELM provided more accurate estimations of Rs with the standard PSO has premature problem, other optimization algo-
full climatic data as inputs in the local scenario, as compared with the rithms (e.g., the self-adaptive differential evolutionary ELM, which can
other three models. Moreover, the regionally developed PSO-ELM also accurately predict Rs [41]) and machine learning models, parti-
showed favorable accuracy for regional Rs prediction. Therefore, the cularly deep learning models like the long short-term memory net-
PSO-ELM is highly recommended for Rs estimations on the Loess works, deep neural networks and deep brief networks [31–33], are
Plateau or other regions with similar climates. worth comparing and investigating. The concordance between the
Using the regional PSO-ELM, we calculated Rs at fifty other stations prediction and measurement is largely consistent, therefore the over-
lacking Rs measurements and then estimated the potential PV power fitting problem might not be a significant issue in this study. Never-
using an empirical PV power model. The annual mean PV power, theless, we applied a holdout validation method, which might reduce
averaged to the entire region, decreased significantly (−0.46 kWh m−2 the generalizability of the models and thus leading to overfitting pro-
per year, p < 0.05), owing to the significant reduction in Rs. The an- blem. A more appropriate method for model assessment is required to
nual mean Rs and PV power were 5457 MJ m−2 and 294 kWh m−2 assess and avoid overfitting [71]. The regional PSO-ELM can accurately
respectively, with the northwestern parts exhibiting more Rs and PV predict Rs using other climatic data, however, stations recording these
power. Thus, we conclude that the northwestern Loess Plateau is more routine climatic data are relatively limited (e.g., only ~800 stations
favorable for solar energy-related applications. with sunshine duration data are available in China). The satellite-
Prior studies focused on model comparison, e.g., they compared monitored land surface temperature and other atmospheric data have a
different models in terms of the model accuracy using measured Rs data high correlation with Rs and have been proven to be effective inputs for
as the benchmark. We concentrated on the implementation of machine Rs modeling in areas where measurements are unavailable [46]. These
learning models in predicting Rs in areas lacking Rs measurements, then satellite data generally have a substantially high spatial resolution (e.g.,
generated high-resolution Rs data for calculating and quantifying the 250-m for Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer data), and

Frequency (pixels) Fig. 13. Temporal and spatial dis-

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 tributions of annual potential photo-
Potential photovoltaic power (kWh m-2)

(a) Potential photovoltaic power (kWh m-2) (b) voltaic power during 1961–2016 on
340 332 the Loss Plateau. (a) Annual varia-
tions and frequency distribution of
320 potential photovoltaic power, (b)
spatial distributions of annual mean
232
300 potential photovoltaic power re-
sampled at a resolution of 0.25°. *
280 indicates significant changes at a
probability of 0.05 by Mann-Kendall
260 Slope = -0.46* kWh m-2 year-1 test.

240
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

11
Y. Feng, et al.
Fig. 14. Temporal variations of seasonal potential photovoltaic power during 1961–2016 on the Loss Plateau. (a) Annual variations of seasonal potential photo-
voltaic power, (b) comparison of changes in seasonal potential photovoltaic power. * indicates significant changes at a probability of 0.05 by Mann-Kendall test.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Potential photovoltaic power (kWh m-2)
<40 50 60 70
Fig. 15. Spatial distributions of seasonal potential photovoltaic power resampled at a resolution of 0.25° during 1961–2016 on the Loss Plateau. (a) Spring, (b)
summer, (c) autumn, and (d) winter.
the application of these data for Rs prediction and PV power calculation
can aid in the design and management of solar energy systems.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the National Meteorological Information
Center of China Meteorological Administration for offering the me-
teorological data used in this study. This study was also financially
supported by China Major Science and Technology Program for Water
Pollution Control and Treatment (2017ZX07101003), National Natural
Science Foundation of China (51679243, 31661143011, 51922072)
and National Key Technologies R&D Program of China
(2015BAD24B01). We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for
their constructive comments and suggestions for improving the manu-
script.
References
[1] Gouda SG, Hussein Z, Luo S, Yuan Q. Model selection for accurate daily global solar
radiation prediction in China. J Clean Prod 2019;221:132–44.
[2] Fan J, Wu L, Zhang F, Cai H, Wang X, Lu X, Xiang Y. Evaluating the effect of air
pollution on global and diffuse solar radiation prediction using support vector
machine modeling based on sunshine duration and air temperature. Renew Sustain
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393
80 90 100 >110
Energy Rev 2018;94:732–47.
[3] Jamil B, Bellos E. Development of empirical models for estimations of global solar
radiation exergy in India. J Clean Prod 2019;207:1–6.
[4] Fan J, Wang X, Wu L, Zhang F, Bai H, Lu X, Xiang Y. New combined models for
estimating daily global solar radiation based on sunshine duration in humid regions:
a case study in South China. Energy Convers Manag 2018;156:618–25.
[5] Fan J, Chen B, Wu L, Zhang F, Lu X, Xiang Y. Evaluation and development of
temperature-based empirical models for estimating daily global solar radiation in
humid regions. Energy 2018;144:903–14.
[6] Zou L, Wang L, Li J, Lu Y, Gong W, Ying N. Global surface solar radiation and
photovoltaic power from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 climate
models. J Clean Prod 2019;224:304–24.
[7] Fan J, Wu L, Ma X, Zhou H, Zhang F. Hybrid support vector machines with heuristic
algorithms for prediction of daily diffuse solar radiation in air-polluted regions.
Renew Energy 2020;145:2034–45.
[8] Wu L, Huang G, Fan J, Zhang F, Wang X, Zeng W. Potential of kernel-based non-
linear extension of Arps decline model and gradient boosting with categorical fea-
tures support for predicting daily global solar radiation in humid regions. Energy
Convers Manag 2019;183:280–95.
[9] Zhou Y, Wang D, Liu Y, Liu J. Diffuse solar radiation models for different climate
zones in China: model evaluation and general model development. Energy Convers
Manag 2019;185:518–36.
[10] Fan J, Wu L, Zhang F, Cai H, Ma X, Bai H. Evaluation and development of empirical
models for estimating daily and monthly mean daily diffuse horizontal solar ra-
diation for different climatic regions of China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;105:168–86.
[11] Kisi O, Heddam S, Yaseen ZM. The implementation of univariable scheme-based air
temperature for solar radiation prediction: new development of dynamic evolving
neural-fuzzy inference system model. Appl Energy 2019;241:184–95.
Y. Feng, et al.
[12] Liu Y, Zhou Y, Wang D, Wang Y, Li Y, Zhu Y. Classification of solar radiation zones
and general models for estimating the daily global solar radiation on horizontal
surfaces in China. Energy Convers Manag 2017;154:168–79.
[13] Ozoegwu CG. Artificial neural network forecast of monthly mean daily global solar
radiation of selected locations based on time series and month number. J Clean
Prod 2019;216:1–3.
[14] Yao W, Zhang C, Hao H, Wang X, Li X. A support vector machine approach to
estimate global solar radiation with the influence of fog and haze. Renew Energy
2018;128:155–62.
[15] Shamshirband S, Mohammadi K, Yee L, Petković D, Mostafaeipour A. A compara-
tive evaluation for identifying the suitability of extreme learning machine to predict
horizontal global solar radiation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:1031–42.
[16] Wang L, Lu Y, Zou L, Feng L, Wei J, Qin W, Niu Z. Prediction of diffuse solar
radiation based on multiple variables in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;103:151–216.
[17] Chukwujindu NS. A comprehensive review of empirical models for estimating
global solar radiation in Africa. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;78:955–95.
[18] Chen JL, He L, Yang H, Ma M, Chen Q, Wu SJ, Xiao ZL. Empirical models for
estimating monthly global solar radiation: a most comprehensive review and
comparative case study in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;108:91–111.
[19] Hassan GE, Youssef ME, Mohamed ZE, Ali MA, Hanafy AA. New temperature-based
models for predicting global solar radiation. Appl Energy 2016;179:437–50.
[20] Jiang Y. Computation of monthly mean daily global solar radiation in China using
artificial neural networks and comparison with other empirical models. Energy
2009;34(9):1276–83.
[21] Hammer A, Heinemann D, Hoyer C, Kuhlemann R, Lorenz E, Müller R, Beyer HG.
Solar energy assessment using remote sensing technologies. Remote Sens Environ
2003;86(3):423–32.
[22] Marzouq M, Bounoua Z, El Fadili H, Mechaqrane A, Zenkouar K, Lakhliai Z. New
daily global solar irradiation estimations model based on automatic selection of
input parameters using evolutionary artificial neural networks. J Clean Prod
2019;209:1105–18.
[23] Wang L, Kisi O, Zounemat-Kermani M, Salazar GA, Zhu Z, Gong W. Solar radiation
prediction using different techniques: model evaluation and comparison. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;61:384–97.
[24] Hussain S, AlAlili A. A hybrid solar radiation modeling approach using wavelet
multiresolution analysis and artificial neural networks. Appl Energy
2017;208:540–50.
[25] Feng Y, Jia Y, Zhang Q, Gong D, Cui N. National-scale assessment of pan eva-
poration models across different climatic zones of China. J Hydrol
2018;564:314–28.
[26] Mousavi SM, Mostafavi ES, Jiao P. Next generation prediction model for daily solar
radiation on horizontal surface using a hybrid neural network and simulated an-
nealing method Energy. Convers Manag 2017;153:671–82.
[27] Feng Y, Cui N, Chen Y, Gong D, Hu X. Development of data-driven models for
prediction of daily global horizontal irradiance in northwest China. J Clean Prod
2019;223:136–46.
[28] Feng Y, Gong D, Zhang Q, Jiang S, Zhao L, Cui N. Evaluation of temperature-based
machine learning and empirical models for predicting daily global solar radiation.
Energy Convers Manag 2019;198:111780.
[29] Zhang Y, Cui N, Feng Y, Gong D, Hu X. Comparison of BP, PSO-BP and statistical
models for predicting daily global solar radiation in arid Northwest China. Comput
Electron Agric 2019;164:104905.
[30] Ghimire S, Deo RC, Downs NJ, Raj N. Global solar radiation prediction by ANN
integrated with European Centre for medium range weather forecast fields in solar
rich cities of Queensland Australia. J Clean Prod 2019;216:288–310.
[31] Kaba K, Sarıgül M, Avcı M, Kandırmaz HM. Estimation of daily global solar ra-
diation using deep learning model. Energy 2018;162:126–35.
[32] Ghimire S, Deo RC, Raj N, Mi J. Deep solar radiation forecasting with convolutional
neural network and long short-term memory network algorithms. Appl Energy
2019;253:113541.
[33] Wang M, Zang H, Cheng L, Wei Z, Sun G. Application of DBN for estimating daily
solar radiation on horizontal surfaces in Lhasa, China. Energy Procedia
2019;158:49–54.
[34] Ghimire S, Deo RC, Raj N, Mi J. Deep learning neural networks trained with MODIS
satellite-derived predictors for long-term global solar radiation prediction. Energies
2019;12(12):2407.
[35] Fan J, Wu L, Zhang F, Cai H, Zeng W, Wang X, Zou H. Empirical and machine
learning models for predicting daily global solar radiation from sunshine duration: a
review and case study in China. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;100:186–212.
[36] Deo RC, Wen X, Qi F. A wavelet-coupled support vector machine model for fore-
casting global incident solar radiation using limited meteorological dataset. Appl
Energy 2016;168:568–93.
[37] Ghimire S, Deo RC, Raj N, Mi J. Wavelet-based 3-phase hybrid SVR model trained
with satellite-derived predictors, particle swarm optimization and maximum
overlap discrete wavelet transform for solar radiation prediction. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2019;113:109247.
[38] Li DHW, Chen W, Li S, Lou S. Estimation of hourly global solar radiation using
multivariate adaptive regression spline (MARS) – a case study of Hong Kong. Energy
2019;186:115857.
[39] Zang H, Cheng L, Ding T, Cheung KW, Wang M, Wei Z, Sun G. Estimation and
validation of daily global solar radiation by day of the year-based models for dif-
ferent climates in China. Renew Energy 2019;135:984–1003.
[40] Prasad R, Ali M, Kwan P, Khan H. Designing a multi-stage multivariate empirical
mode decomposition coupled with ant colony optimization and random forest
model to forecast monthly solar radiation. Appl Energy 2019;236:778–92.
[41] Ghimire S, Deo RC, Downs NJ, Raj N. Self-adaptive differential evolutionary
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 118 (2020) 109393
extreme learning machines for long-term solar radiation prediction with remotely-
sensed MODIS satellite and Reanalysis atmospheric products in solar-rich cities.
Remote Sens Environ 2018;212:176–98.
[42] Hassan MA, Khalil A, Kaseb S, Kassem MA. Exploring the potential of tree-based
ensemble methods in solar radiation modeling. Appl Energy 2017;203:897–916.
[43] Voyant C, Notton G, Kalogirou S, Nivet ML, Paoli C, Motte F, Fouilloy A. Machine
learning methods for solar radiation forecasting: a review. Renew Energy
2017;105:569–82.
[44] Calinoiu D, Stefu N, Boata R, Blaga R, Pop N, Paulescu E, Sabadus A, Paulescu M.
Parametric modeling: a simple and versatile route to solar irradiance. Energy
Convers Manag 2018;164:175–87.
[45] Khosravi A, Koury RN, Machado L, Pabon JJ. Prediction of hourly solar radiation in
Abu Musa island using machine learning algorithms. J Clean Prod 2018;176:63–75.
[46] Deo RC, Şahin M, Adamowski JF, Mi J. Universally deployable extreme learning
machines integrated with remotely sensed MODIS satellite predictors over Australia
to forecast global solar radiation: a new approach. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;104:235–61.
[47] Bouchouicha K, Hassan MA, Bailek N, Aoun N. Estimating the global solar irra-
diation and optimizing the error estimates under Algerian desert climate. Renew
Energy 2019;139:844–58.
[48] Prăvălie R, Patriche C, Bandoc G. Spatial assessment of solar energy potential at
global scale. A geographical approach. J Clean Prod 2019;209:692–721.
[49] Sun H, Gui D, Yan B, Liu Y, Li ao W, Zh u Y, et al. Assessing the potential of random
forest method for estimating solar radiation using air pollution index. Energy
Convers Manag 2016;119:121–9.
[50] Pan T, Wu SH, Dai EF, Liu YJ. Estimating the daily global solar radiation spatial
distribution from diurnal temperature ranges over the Tibetan Plateau in China.
Appl Energy 2013;107:384–93.
[51] Feng Y, Gong D, Mei X, Hao W, Tang D, Cui N. Energy balance and partitioning in
partial plastic mulched and non-mulched maize fields on the Loess Plateau of China.
Agric Water Manag 2017;191:193–206.
[52] Feng Y, Hao W, Gao L, Li H, Gong D, Cui N. Comparison of maize water con-
sumption at different scales between mulched and non-mulched croplands. Agric
Water Manag 2019;216:315–24.
[53] Kisi O, Alizamir M. Modelling reference evapotranspiration using a new wavelet
conjunction heuristic method: wavelet extreme learning machine vs wavelet neural
networks. Agric For Meteorol 2018;263:41–8.
[54] Xue B, Zhang M, Browne WN. Particle swarm optimisation for feature selection in
classification: novel initialisation and updating mechanisms. Appl Soft Comput
2014;18:261–76.
[55] Al-Musaylh MS, Deo RC, Li Y, Adamowski JF. Two-phase particle swarm optimized-
support vector regression hybrid model integrated with improved empirical mode
decomposition with adaptive noise for multiple-horizon electricity demand fore-
casting. Appl Energy 2018;217:422–39.
[56] Nedic V, Cvetanovic S, Despotovic D, Despotovic M, Babic S. Data mining with
various optimization methods. Expert Syst Appl 2014;41:3993–9.
[57] Vapnik V. Statistical learning theory. New York: Wiley; 1998.
[58] Tang D, Feng Y, Gong D, Hao W, Cui N. Evaluation of artificial intelligence models
for actual crop evapotranspiration modeling in mulched and non-mulched maize
croplands. Comput Electron Agric 2018;152:375–84.
[59] Specht DF. A general regression neural network. IEEE Trans Neural Netw
1991;2(6):568–76.
[60] Sanikhani H, Deo RC, Yaseen ZM, Eray O, Kisi O. Non-tuned data intelligent model
for soil temperature estimations: a new approach. Geoderma 2018;330:52–64.
[61] Liu T, Xu C, Guo Y, Chen H. A novel deep reinforcement learning based metho-
dology for short-term HVAC system energy consumption prediction. Int J Refrig
2019;107:39–51.
[62] Bai Y, Li Y, Zeng B, Li C, Zhang J. Hourly PM2. 5 concentration forecast using
stacked autoencoder model with emphasis on seasonality. J Clean Prod
2019;224:739–50.
[63] Liu H, Chen C, Lv X, Wu X, Liu M. Deterministic wind energy forecasting: a review
of intelligent predictors and auxiliary methods. Energy Convers Manag
2019;195:328–45.
[64] Keshtegar B, Mert C, Kisi O. Comparison of four heuristic regression techniques in
solar radiation modeling: kriging method vs RSM, MARS and M5 model tree. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:330–41.
[65] Feng Y, Jia Y, Cui N, Zhao L, Li C, Gong D. Calibration of Hargreaves model for
reference evapotranspiration estimations in Sichuan basin of southwest China.
Agric Water Manag 2017;181:1–9.
[66] Feng Y, Cui N, Gong D, Zhang Q, Zhao L. Evaluation of random forests and gen-
eralized regression neural networks for daily reference evapotranspiration model-
ling. Agric Water Manag 2017;193:163–73.
[67] Skoplaki E, Palyvos JA. On the temperature dependence of photovoltaic module
electrical performance: a review of efficiency/power correlations. Sol Energy
2009;83(5):614–24.
[68] Crook JA, Jones LA, Forster PM, Crook R. Climate change impacts on future pho-
tovoltaic and concentrated solar power energy output. Energy Environ Sci
2011;4(9):3101–9.
[69] Feng Y, Cui N, Zhao L, Gong D, Zhang K. Spatiotemporal variation of reference
evapotranspiration during 1954–2013 in Southwest China. Quat Int
2017;441:129–39.
[70] Wild M, Gilgen H, Roesch A, Ohmura A, Long CN, Dutton EG, Forgan B, Kallis A,
Russak V, Tsvetkov A. From dimming to brightening: decadal changes in solar ra-
diation at Earth's surface. Science 2005;308(5723):847–50.
[71] Piotrowski AP, Napiorkowski JJ. A comparison of methods to avoid overfitting in
neural networks training in the case of catchment runoff modelling. J Hydrol
2013;476:97–111.