TEMPERATURE EFFECT ON PV PERFORMANCE

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS FROM A 2.18 KWP THIN FILM PV SYSTEM

Theocharis Tsoutsos, Associate Professor, Head, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Lab, Environmental Engineering
Department, Technical University of Crete, GR 73100 Kounoupidiana Chania. tel.: +302821037825. fax:
+302821037861. theocharis.tsoutsos@enveng.tuc.gr
Nikolaοs Savvakis, Researcher, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Lab, Environmental Engineering dpt. Technical
University of Crete, GR 73100 Kounoupidiana Chania. tel.: +302821037778. nsavvakis@isc.tuc.gr
Ioannis Kanakis, Technical Expert. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Lab. Environmental Engineering dpt.. Technical
University of Crete, GR 73100, Kounoupidiana Chania. tel.: +302821037778. ikanakis@isc.tuc.gr
George Papadakis, Professor, Department of Natural Resources & Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of
Athens. Greece. gpap@aua.gr
George Kyriakarakos, Researcher Department of Natural Resources & Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University
of Athens. Greece. gk@aua.gr
Bernd Schwartz. Sharp Energy Solution Europe. SHARP Electronics (Europe) GmbH. Sonninstrasse 3. DE-20097
Hamburg. Phone: +49 40 2376 2809 Fax: +49 40 2376-152809. Bernd.Schwartz@sharp.eu

ABSTRACT: The performance of PV modules is usually specified under standard test conditions (STC); however the
performance of the modules under real field conditions differs from the expectations derived from the results under
STC due to variety of continuously changing conditions. Therefore it is important to monitor the behavior of PV
modules under real field conditions, so automated computer-controlled monitoring systems are used to measure the
solar irradiance, module temperature and other meteorological parameters.
Additionally it is very important for the market development of PV systems to get accurate data for their operation
under high-temperature conditions. The output will provide safe estimations about improvements to be taken in order
to create large scale installations in the Mediterranean countries in Northern Africa and Middle East. The aim of this
paper is to present a general overview of the performance analysis of the 2.18 kWp PV system during their first phase
of operation.
Keywords: PV system; Energy performance; thin film

1 INTRODUCTION

There are many reasons an array could have poor

performance such as shading periods of downtime,
incorrect rating or setup, faulty or mismatched balance
of systems components. None of these system effects
can be differentiated from poor module characteristics
such as degradation or fall off at low light levels, high
temperatures or diffuse light unless there is a much
more detailed analysis of the performance. Although
exist numerous simulations, is missing adequate
published research information on the performance of
thin film systems under high-temperature Mediterranean
conditions especially taking into account the climate
changes in the area.
The aim of this paper is to present results obtained
from field performance monitoring of a 2.18 kW roof Figure 1: The PV system installation
mounted PV system in Chania, Crete. Data collected
between June 2010 and May 2011 was analyzed. The PV The installation consists of two strings with nine Silicon
system is described while different performance based tandem thin-film modules NA-F121G5, covering a
evaluation parameters are presented, based on collected total area of 26 m2 with an installed capacity of 2.18
data. The performance parameters calculated include: kWp. The SHARP NA-F121G5 modules were each of
annual energy generated, array yield, final yield, 121Wp capacity and had an efficiency of 8.5% under
reference yield, PV module, system efficiency, inverter standard test conditions (STC).[1] The modules were
efficiency, performance ratio, array capture losses, fixed, inclined at an angle of 30o, facing southeast at an
system losses and cell temperature losses. Results azimuth angle of -50o (130o from North). The roof was
obtained give an indication of system performance. approximately 3 m high and the modules were mounted
on metal frames that were about 1 m high.
2 PV SYSTEM DESCRIPTION Modules are connected to a SB2500 inverter in order
to convert DC to AC which was fed directly into the
The PV system was installed on the roof of the building. The inverter had a rated maximum efficiency of
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Systems Laboratory 94.1 % and maximum AC power of 2,500 W. [2]
(ReSEL), Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece.
 radiation levels between 600 and 999 W/m2, as result of
3 MONITORING AND DATA COLLECTION lower average wind speeds at these levels. However,
higher average wind speeds at solar radiation levels
3.1 General between 1,000 and 1,099 W/m2 caused a decrease on PV
Data collection system consisted of a Sunny Boy modules temperature,moving away the negative effects of
2500 inverter, a Pyranometer CMP11, a WXT 250 PV module overheating on their efficiency.
Weatherstation, a crystalline and an amorphous
irradiation sensor from the ISET institute. The
Pyranometer was used to measure in-plane total solar
radiation on the PV modules. In Addition, there were
sensors for measuring ambient temperature, temperature
on PV modules and at the backside of one of them. Data
recorded on every single minute time step and can be
read directly into a computer.
Because of the different tilted surface’s orientation
where the pyranometer was installed, the proposed from
Klein method [3] for the calculation of monthly average
insolation on tilted surfaces of a wide range of
orientations, was used in order to estimate the real solar
insolation on our PV system. This method based on solar
geometry and has been verified with experimental
measurements.

3.2 Weather Data

Table I summarizes the basic weather indicators used Figure 2: Average wind speed, ambient air and PV
in this study during the monitored period. The average module temperature against different levels of solar
monthly ambient temperature varied between 12.9 oC in radiation during a typical summer day (from 5:00 a.m. to
January and 27.6 oC July while the PV module 1:00 p.m., 21/6/2010).
temperature takes average maximum value 54.4 oC in
August and minimum 10.7 oC in January. 4 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Table I: Monthly average ambient air temperature and The PV system is fully monitored to assess its
solar radiation, variation of PV module temperature performance with the local power grid. To evaluate the
Month Solar radiation PV module Ambient PV system performance, the final yield (YF), the
Max Min reference yield (YR), the performance ratio (PR) as
defined by the IEC Standard 61724 [4].
2 o o
W/m C C Marion et al [5] present three parameters that can
June 2010 934.3 49.5 21.1 25.8 define the total performance of a PV System with respect
to the same way.
July 2010 880.2 49.5 23.3 27.6
Aug 2010 833.7 54.4 25.5 27.3 4.1 Parameters for performance analysis of PV systems
The final yield is defined as the annual, monthly or
Sep 2010 664.3 45.2 19.5 24.6 daily net AC energy output divided by the peak power of
Oct 2010 515.8 50.3 17 20.7 the installed PV system at standard test conditions (STC)
of 1,000 W/m2 solar irradiance and 25 oC cell
Nov 2010 419.5 48.8 14.9 17.5 temperature. The value YF is calculated by the equation
Dec 2010 333.2 33.8 13.4 14.5 (1):
Jan 2011 368.3 43.7 10.7 12.9
Feb 2010 413.1 41.6 11.3 13.2
(1)
Mar 2011 550.3 49.1 13.9 14.6
Apr 2011 750.4 42.4 11.3 17.7 The reference yield is the total in-plane solar
insolation HT (kW h/m2) divided by the array reference
May 2011 865.9 50.2 12.6 21.5
irradiance (1 kW/m2). It is a function of the location,
orientation and inclination of the PV array, and the time
weather variability, and is given as:
3.3 PV module temperature
Temperature sensors were used to measure the
temperature at the surface of PV modules. In Fig. 2 is
shown the variation of average wind speed, ambient air
and PV module temperature from 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m, (2)
against the different levels of solar radiation at a typical
summer day (21/6/2010) in Chania. The ambient air and Performance ratio (dimensionless quantity) indicates the
PV module temperatures are seen to generally increase as total effect of losses (due to inverter and cell temperature,
the level of solar radiation increases. Specifically, the PV losses in wiring and protection diodes, poor module at
module presented higher temperature increase at solar low irradiance, partial shading, module mismatch. etc.)
on the rated output. It is defined as the ratio of AC energy
(EAC) delivered to the grid to the energy production of an
ideal PV system with no-losses at 25 oC cell temperature
and the same solar irradiation. It is given by:
(3)
Ingeniuersschule Burgdorf (ISB) has introduced new
additional parameters (especially for the grid connected
PV system) relative to the capture losses (Lc=Lct+Lcm).
which are divided into two types: Thermal capture losses
(Lct) and Miscellaneous capture losses (Lcm). The
thermal capture losses (Lct) are due to generator
operation at temperatures higher than (25oC). While, the
miscellaneous capture losses (Lcm) are associated with
multiple causes such as: joule effect in the wiring, diodes
losses, shading effect, mismatch losses, losses due to the
non ideal maximum power point tracking, etc.
In this study, miscellaneous capture losses (Lcm)
were considered negligible in order to focus on the effect
of high temperature conditions on the PV system. Table 2
summarizes the performance indicators used in this
study.
5. OPERATIONAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Annual datasets of half-hourly data have been used
for this in depth analysis. By using annual datasets of
half-hourly monitored data, it was possible to determine
the rise in module temperature with the irradiation and
also quantify the energy losses due to elevated module
temperature for specific type of mounting.
The evaluation has been carried out calculating the
parameters for the PV system (YF: final yield, PR:
performance ratio, Ls: system losses, and Lc: captures
losses). Operational results are presented and discussed.
5.1. Analysis of PV system
According to monitored data recorded during the
first year of the operation of PV system , the energy
generated and fed into the grid has been 3,625 kWh.
Specifically, in Table II we can observe that the average
value of the final yield, for PV system 1kWp of 2.178
kWp, ranges from 2.49 h/d in December to 6.85 h/d in
June. We can also see that the performance ratio occurred
stable in the most of the cases, with little variation.
However, a minimum of 88.9% occurred in February,
mainly as the effect of low PV module temperature on
the PV system and a maximum of 93.4 in January. The
Staebler-Wronsky effect will also have an impact.
The average value of the final yield and the
performance ratio, were 4.62 (h/d) (1,663 kWh/kWp per
year).As for energy losses, Fig. 3 and Table 2 present the
monthly values of system and capture losses during all
the period analyzed. The effect of temperature on PV
modules quantified by the value of thermal capture
losses. In August observed maximum thermal losses
values 0.24 h/d and in December the minimum (h/d) of
them.

Table II: Average monthly values of the parameters: energies, yields, losses, performance ratio for PV system 1kWp of
2.178 kWp during the monitored period
Month EG TA EAC EDC YR YA YF Lct Lc Ls PR

kWh/m2/d o
C kWh/d kWh/d h/d h/d h/d h/d h/d h/d %

June 7.5 25.8 6.85 7.32 7.5 7.31 6.85 0.19 0.19 0.47 91.3
July 7.1 27.6 6.46 6.88 7.1 6.87 6.45 0.23 0.23 0.42 91.3
August 6.7 27.3 6.17 6.46 6.7 6.45 6.16 0.25 0.25 0.29 92.1
September 5.3 24.6 4.80 5.24 5.3 5.24 4.80 0.06 0.06 0.44 90.1
October 4.1 20.7 3.85 4.06 4.1 4.05 3.85 0.05 0.05 0.21 93.1
November 3.4 17.5 3.12 3.31 3.4 3.31 3.11 0.09 0.09 0.20 92.5
December 2.7 14.5 2.49 2.70 2.7 2.70 2.49 0 0 0.21 92.2
January 2.9 12.9 2.76 2.94 2.9 2.94 2.76 -0.04 -0.04 0.17 93.4
February 3.3 13.2 2.94 3.3 3.3 3.30 2.94 0.01 0.01 0.36 88.9
March 4.4 14.6 4.01 4.35 4.4 4.35 4.00 0.05 0.05 0.34 90.6
April 6.1 17.7 5.51 6.00 6.1 6.00 5.52 0.1 0.1 0.48 91.5
May 6.9 21.5 6.43 6.85 6.9 6.84 6.43 0.06 0.06 0.42 92.5
Average daily
5.1 19.83 4.62 4.95 5.1 4.95 4.62 0.09 0.09 0.33 91.7
annual value
Figure 3: Monthly values of normalized energy yield, Figure 4: Monthly average daily PV module, system and
YF (h/d), system losses, Ls (h/d), miscellaneous capture inverter efficiency over the monitored period
losses, Lcm (h/d) and thermal capture losses, Lct (h/d) for
PV system Fig. 5 shows daily variation of PV system efficiency
during a typical summer day in Chania, characterized by
5.2 Inverter, PV module and PV system efficiency clear sky. During the clear sky day, the efficiency peak
The efficiency of a PV module depends on the during the early hours after sunrise and late hours during
operation temperature and the power density of the solar sunset. The lowest efficiency occurs at the peak of solar
radiation. As the temperature of the PV panels increases, radiation showing the effect of PV cell temperature
the efficiency decreases linearly, since the peak power of increase on cell efficiency.
the PV panels refers to STC conditions. In different
temperatures, the output power of the PV panels depends
on the difference of the panel temperature and the STC
temperature (TC - TSTC) and the power density (G) of the
incident solar radiation. [6]
The temperature losses coefficient (nTEM) can be
calculated as

nTEM =1-[γ*(TC-25)] (4)

where γ is the temperature coefficient of the PV module.

The PV cell temperature (TC) is given as:

(5)

There NOCT is the nominal temperature operational cell

temperature and G is the power density at the particular
time. The temperature losses coefficients were calculated
with a 1 min frequency and the annual losses were
summed
Fig. 4 shows the monthly average daily PV module,
system and inverter efficiency over the monitored period.
The PV module efficiency varied between 8.19% in
August and 8.5% in December because of the zero
thermal capture losses, when the nominal efficiency of
those PV modules measured under STC was 8.5%.The
efficiency decrease in August caused mainly by the
increase of temperature.
The monthly average daily inverter efficiency varied
between 89.1% in February and 95.45 % in August. The
annual average daily PV module, system and inverter
efficiencies were 8.36 %, 7.8 % and 93.1% respectively.
Figure 5: Daily variation of PV system efficiency against
solar radiation and module temperature for a typical
summer day
6 CONCLUSION - DISCUSSION
The PV system has worked reliably and well during
its first year of operation. The cumulative energy 3,625
kWh, during the first year of operation was higher than
expected. The efficiency of the PV system ranges from
7.55 to 7.95%. Normalised parameters YF, LS, and LC, as
defined in IEC 61724, are shown for each month. System
losses (LS) are due to losses in DC-to-AC energy
conversion, Capture losses (LC) are due to PV array
losses. The annual performance ratio is 91.7%, Capture
Losses are 6.4% and system losses are 6.7% in the total
energy balance of the PV system. In June, when the
energy production was the largest (447 kWh), the
performance ratio was 91.3%, capture losses (LC) were
5.5% , system losses (LS) were 6.42 %, but in December,
a month when the energy (163 kWh), the performance
ratio was 92.2%, capture losses (LC) were 0% and system
losses (LS) were 7.8%. Over the first year, the system has
demonstrated successfully the potential of grid connected
photovoltaic for Crete. In this project, we also focused on
temperature effect, which, in the future, may help the
extension of building PV systems integrating in Greece
and also provide safe estimations about improvements to
be taken in order to create large scale installations in the
Mediterranean countries in Northern Africa and Middle
East.
Comparison of results from this study with those
obtained from other studies internationally revealed that
the PV system’s annual average daily final yield of 4.62
kWh/kWp/day is higher than those reported in Germany,
Denmark, Sweden, Poland and Northern Ireland. It is
comparable to results from some parts of Spain, Egypt,
Cyprus Italy and Greece but it is higher than the reported
yields in most parts of them[6,7,8]. The PV system
presented high PV module and system efficiency and
compared to the other reported systems. Despite, low
average wind speeds and high ambient air temperature,
the high average insolation levels improve Greece’s
suitability.

References

[1] Sharp Energy Solution Europe, SHARP NA-F121G5,

technical specifications, (2011).
[2] SMA,SMA SB 2500,technical specifications,(2011).
[3] S.A. Klein, Calculation of monthly average
insolation on tilted surfaces,Solar Energy, vol 19
(1976), pp. 325-329,.
[4] IEC Standard 61724, Photovoltaic system
performance monitoring-Guidelines for
measurement, data exchange and analysis, (1993).
[5] B. Marion, J. Adelstein, K. Boyle, H. Hayden, B.
Hammond, T. Fletcher et al. Performance parameters
for grid-connected PV systems, Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference, Conference record of the
thirty-first IEEE; 3-7 Jan, 2005.
[6] E. Kymakis, S. Kalykakis, T.M. Papazoglou.
Performance analysis of a grid connected
photovoltaic park on the island of Crete. Energy
Conversion and Management vol. 50(2009) :433–8.
[7] M. Drif et al. A grid connected photovoltaic system of
at Jaen University. Overview and performance
analysis. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells,
vol. 91(2007) (8):670–83.
[8] L.M.Ayompe et al. Measured performance of a 1.72
kW rooftop grid connected PV system in Ireland,
Energy Conversion and Management vol. 52 (2011)
(3):816-825.