Comparison of Different Cooling Options for

Photovoltaic Applications
Feyzullah Behlül ÖZKUL
Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering/Karabuk
University
Iron and Steel Institute
Dynamics Labratory,
Karabuk University
Karabuk, Turkey,
febehlul@karabuk.edu.tr
Erhan KAYABASI
Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering
Karabuk University
Karabuk, Turkey.
erhankayabasi@karabuk.edu.tr
Huseyin KURT
Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering
Necmettin Erbakan University
Konya, Turkey.
huseyinkurt@konya.edu.tr
Erdal ÇELİK
Council of Higher Education,
Ankara/Center for Production
and Application of Electronic
Materials (EMUM)
Dokuz Eylul University
Izmir, Turkey.
ercelik2000@gmail.com
Erol ARCAKLIOĞLU
Faculty of Engineering,
Department of Mechanical
Engineering,
Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt
University,
Ankara, Turkey.
arcakli@ybu.edu.tr

Abstract—A temperature increase plays a negative role on
photovoltaic (PV) panel conversion efficiency by increasing
recombination rates. In this study, air- and water-cooling
options were simulated to investigate the efficiency behavior of
a specific PV panel made of heterojunction Silicon (Si) whilst PV
panel was cooling in operation by using ANSYS-FLUENT. For
air cooling, two different options were suggested: air cooling
with four different flow speeds and air cooling with a heat sink
addition with three different flow speeds. As for water-cooling
three flowrates were considered. Temperature distributions of
PV panels for the all cooling options were demonstrated as a
function of flow velocity of air and flowrate of water for
different cooling conditions and compared with each other. The
influence of temperature difference on panel conversion
efficiency were also discussed. As a result, heat sink with a
proper flow arrangement cooling option showed the best
performance in terms of minimum material, minimum cost and
minimum complexity with the 42 °C, 38.4 °C, 35.9°C average
surface temperatures and 20.9%, 21.3%, 21.5% panel
efficiencies.
Keywords—PV panel efficiency, CFD simulation, cooling types.
I. INTRODUCTION
Energy is an intensively used fundamental requirement
for humankind. Due to the increasing energy demand and
decreasing fuel resources, converting the resources into
energy efficiently become more significant in recent years.
Renewables are the most promising energy resources with
clean and efficient energy conversion mechanisms [1]–[4].
Photovoltaic energy conversion is the most popular direct
energy conversion type through the renewable energy
conversion methods [5]. Nevertheless, the energy from the
sun is not converted to electric energy entirely [6]. The
remaining energy that is not converted to electric energy,
causes a significant increase in temperature of PV panels [6]–
[8]. Increasing temperature always reduce energy conversion
efficiency by decreasing the open circuit voltage and fill
factor [9], [10]. Cooling the PV panel with heat sinks, ribs,
air channels, porous plates or thin plates within channels that
provide heat transfer with natural convection (passive) and
methods using electrical input provide heat transfer with
forced convection (active) are employed intensively to keep
the efficiencies at higher levels [11], [12].
PV panels are required to be simulated under different
flow and solar load conditions to preview the decrease in PV
panel conversion efficiency caused by temperature increase.
However, there are limited successful studies on this issue.
For instance, Popovici et al. [9] studied on a detailed cooling
simulation with 0.5mx0.5m sized sample PV panel. The
sample PV panel cooled with a heat sink placed at the rear
side of the PV panel formed from ribs having holes. The ribs
on the heat sink were placed perpendicular to air flow
direction. Air flow was selected 1.5 m/s and applied with
different tilt angles of the ribs such as 45°, 90°, 135°. Also,
they studied different rib dimensions to optimize heat transfer
rate and determined optimum geometry for minimum PV
panel surface temperature. They observed that, 45° tilt angle,
and 0.05 m rib height provided the minimum temperature on
rear side of PV panel. Baloch et al. [7], discussed another type
of PV panel cooling method both experimentally and
numerically: converging channel heat exchanger. They used
a heat exchanger at the rear side of PV panel with a constant
water flow rate but different inlet and outlet cross-section
areas to provide a uniform temperature distribution on PV
panel surface. They determined that two degrees converging
angle provides the best temperature distribution on PV panel
surface. Teo et al. [5] studied on an active cooling system for
PV panels. They designed a hybrid PV panel such as
photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T). They used an active air-cooling
system at the back side of PV panel. The system provided 6-
8% efficiency improvement for the PV/T system. Bahaidarah
et al. [13] studied a water cooling system for PV panels
experimentally and by using Engineering Equation Solver
(EES) software. They reached a 20 °C average temperature
decrease, and 9% efficiency increase by using an active
water-cooling system.

978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 The findings at the literature given above we can observe
considerable efficiency improvements depending on
temperature decrease in PV panel applications. Nonethless,
cooling options must be considered with total profit. Active
cooling options also include an electric consumption
circulating the fluid in the system continuously. Hence,
researchers have to consider the electric consumption versus
efficiency improvement. Therefore, the most efficiency
cooling type have to be selected with minimum initial costs
and operating costs. For this purpose, passive cooling options
are the most convenient methods for cooling of PV panels
with less investment and operating costs.
In this study, CFD simulations were performed by using
ANSYS-FLUENT to investigate the efficiency change while
heterojunction Si PV panel was cooling with air-cooling and
water-cooling methods. For air cooling process, two different
option was suggested: air cooling without heat sink and air
cooling with heat sink under various flow speeds. For water-
cooling process, three flowrates were considered. The
obtained results of temperature distributions of PV panels for
the all cooling options were demonstrated as a function of
flow velocity and flow rate of water for different cooling
conditions and compared with each other. The influence of
temperature difference on panel efficiency was also
investigated in detail.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PV panel with 0.5mx0.5m dimensions were
considered in this study. In simulation of air-cooling option,
PV panel was exposed to 26.5°C (300°K) wind with and
without a heat sink geometry. In addition, four wind speeds
such as 1 m/s, 1.5 m/s, 2.0 m/s and 2.5 m/s air flows were
considered to obtain temperature distribution on the PV panel
surface. As in the case of water-cooling process, a water
domain was assumed with 20°C temperature passing through
the rear side of the PV panel. In addition to this, the water
flowrates with 0.01 kg/s, 0.02 kg/s and 0.03 kg/s were
considered to obtain temperature distribution on the PV panel
surface. Geometries were designed in SpaceClaim that is a
sub 3D design software in ANSYS. Then, the geometries
were meshed by the aid of ANSYS program and material
identifications were completed here. The options applied in
meshing step were summarized in Table 1. Mesh view of the
three geometries were demonstrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Mesh view of geometries: a) air cooling, b) heat sink, c) water

cooling.

Statistics of the meshing step for the three cooling option

geometries were listed in Table 2. Furthermore, air domain,
inlet and outlet cross-sections on the fluids were defined in
this stage.

978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

TABLE I. MESH OPTIONS APPLIED FOR THE GEOMETRIES. kg/m3 and 1.846x10-5 Ns/m2 were assumed. Therefore, for the
laminar flow, Reynolds number was arranged to be lower
Physics CFD
than 5x105. For these velocities Reynolds numbers of the
Reference
flows remained between 3.27x104 and 9.81x104. Hence the
Sizing flow characteristics were laminar flow for the first cooling
Size Function Proximity and option.
curvature
Relevance Center Fine
Initial Size Seed Active assembly
Smoothing Medium
Transition Slow
Span Angle Fine
Center
Min. Size 2.0 mm
Proximity Min. 2.0 mm
Size
Max. Face Size 10.0 mm
Max. Tet Size 10.0 mm
Defeature Size 1.0 mm
Inflation
Inflation Option Smooth
transition
Transition Ratio 0.272
Maximum Layers 5
Growth Rate 1.2

TABLE II. MESH STATISTICS.

Property Air Cooling Heat Sink Water Cooling
Nodes 976 344 2 241 196 1 601 183
Elements 2 101 668 5 372 646 3 089 117
Metrics Skewness Skewness Skewness
Min. 1.305e-10 1.305e-10 1.305e-10
Max. 0.8482 0.855 0.849
Average 0.1686 0.2609 0.158
Std. Dev. 0.175 0.175 0.180

For boundary layer, an additional mesh sizing was defined

between the interface of the fluids and the surfaces in touch
with the fluids. The surfaces looking to surroundings were
defined as an insulation. Physical properties of the geometry
components were defined in Fluent Module. All the layers
such as glass cover, silicon domain, Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
(EVA), rear Al back contact, PVF, heat sink material, Al rear
plates were matched with the relevant geometries. Physical
properties of the layers were listed in Table 3.
Fig. 2. 3D view of cooling options: a) air cooling, b) heat sink c) water
TABLE III. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF THE PV PANEL cooling
LAYERS.
Specific Fig. 2b demonstrates 3D view of cooling option for PV
Layer Thermal
Layer
Thickness Conductivity
Density Heat panel with an aluminum (Al) heat sink at the rear side. The
Name (kg/m3) Capacity thickness of aluminum heat sink was selected 3 mm and the
(m) (W/mK)
(J/kgK)
distances between the ribs were selected 30 mm, height of
Glass 0.003 1.8 3000 500
PV cell 300x10-6 148 2330 677 ribs was selected 30 mm. Thermophysical properties of Al
EVA 500x10-6 0.35 960 2090 were defined in Ansys-Fluent.
Rear
10x10-6 237 2700 900 Fig. 2c shows 3D view of water-cooling option for PV
Contact
PVF 0.0001 0.2 1200 1250 panel. In this case, water passes through the rear side of the
PV panel with different mass flowrates. In addition, in order
In Fig. 2a, 3D view of PV panel exposed to different wind to keep the water in the channel, a supporter plate was placed
speeds was represented. As in Fig. 2, air passes through the under the water domain. Reynolds numbers were remained
rear side of the PV panel and provides cooling without any between 4.1x102 and 1.2x103 in laminar flow zone. Sun
heat sink addition. Here, “parallel flow over plate” principle direction vectors were defined vertically to the PV panel
was applied. For air density and dynamic viscosity, 1.204 surface in the Solar Load Model’s Ray Tracer algorithm. The
tracing algorithm is very successful to estimate the radiation

978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

energy source incoming from the Sun. The algorithm color: 114 °C. Maximum temperature of 114 °C and
considers a beam with sun position vectors and illumination minimum temperature of 48.5 °C were observed at the upper
parameters. In addition, solar ray tracing model considers side of PV panel exposed to irradiation. Temperature
solely boundary regions that are connected to fluid domains. distribution was observed between 26.5 °C and 114 °C with
That is to say, it ignores the boundary regions having edges an 88 °C temperature difference. Note that the temperature
to solid domains [14]. In this study, sun direction vectors difference can be seen at the adjacent zone of the fluid outlet
were selected 0, 0, -1 for x, y, z coordinates respectively in a up to 45 °C between the fluid and the PV panel.
constant illumination of 1000 W/m2. Thermophysical
properties of air, water and heat sink were defined in Fluent
Module as given in Table 5. In addition, boundary layers were
developed in meshing stage for the surfaces in touch with
fluids.

TABLE IV. THERMOPHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF AIR, WATER

AND HEAT SINK
Specific
Thermal Dynamic
Density Heat
Material Conductivity Viscosity
(kg/m3) Capacity
(W/mK) (Ns/m2)
(J/kgK)
Air - 1.204 1006 1.846x10-5
Water - 1000 4187 1.0518x10-3 Fig. 3. Profile view of temperature contour distribution of air cooling for 1
Heat Sink 205 2700 - - m/s air speed.

Temperature increase is one of the most significant
parameter affecting the conversion efficiency of solar cells
negatively. While the efficiency of solar cell measured in
standard test conditions (STC) was so high, the operation
efficiency is generally measured much more below due to the
efficiency drop because of the temperature increase. In that,
efficiency decreases linearly by the increase of internal
carrier recombination. In this study, PV panel efficiency
depending on the temperature difference was calculated with
(1) [15], [16].
Once looking at the Fig. 4, it can be seen that the better
temperature distribution is between 39 °C to 87.5 °C on the
surface of PV panel at 1.5 m/s air flow speed. Temperature
contours were distributed from inlet cross-section of air to
outlet cross-section from hotter to colder respectively. PV
panel temperature distribution was observed in the range of
26.5 °C and 87.5 °C with a 61 °C temperature difference.
Furthermore, the temperature increase can be noticed at the
adjacent zone of the fluid outlet up to 35.9 °C between the
fluid and the PV panel.

1
(1)

Where, neff is measured or calculated efficiency of PV panel,

β is temperature coefficient given as in (2). However, it
depends on material properties and usually takes 0.0045 K-1
for Si crystals. Tc is operating temperature, Treff is reference
temperature that the reference efficiency is obtained [15],
[17].

(2)
Fig. 4. Profile view of temperature contour distribution of air cooling for
1.5 m/s air speed.
In which, To is the high temperature that makes the solar cell
efficiency zero. For crystalline Si solar cell, To is 270 °C [16]. In Fig. 5, the better temperature distribution can be seen
in the range of 39 °C to 73.3 °C on the surface of PV panel at
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 2 m/s air flow speed. It is important to recognize at this point
CFD simulation is a very effective method to preview that temperature contours were distributed from inlet cross-
many results before production steps. By this way, results of section of air to outlet cross-section from hotter to colder
many options can be viewed, and most proper design can be respectively. Similarly, PV panel temperature distribution
selected. In this part, CFD simulation results were compared was observed between 26.5 °C and 73.3 °C with a 46.8 °C
belong to three cooling options with different fluids and temperature difference.
different fluid flowrates. First of all, cooling operation of
0.5mx0.5m sized PV panel was simulated at four air flow
speeds from 1 m/s to 2.5 m/s. Fig. 3 depicts the temperature
distribution of the PV panel surface at 1m/s air flow speed.
Temperature values and corresponding colors were given in
the left-hand side on the figure such as blue color 26.8 °C, red

978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

Fig. 5. Profile view of temperature contour distribution of air cooling for 2
m/s air speed. Fig. 7. PV panel surface temperatures of air-cooling options.

Additionally, temperature increase can be seen at the
adjacent zone of the fluid outlet up to 33.8 °C between the
fluid and the PV panel. Nonetheless, contours became
narrower in this cooling option than the lower flow speeds at
the rear side of the PV panel.
As clearly seen in Fig. 6, it can be noticed that much better
temperature distribution is between 34 °C to 64.2 °C on the
surface of PV panel at 2.5 m/s air flow speed. It should be
noted that temperature contours were distributed from inlet
cross-section of air to outlet cross-section from hotter to
colder respectively. Generally speaking, PV panel top side
temperature distribution was observed between 26.5 °C and
64.2 °C with a 37.7 °C temperature difference.
In brief, Fig. 7 gives a critical information for the PV
panel cooling system designers such as; in areas where the
wind speed is as low as 1 m/s, it is impossible for the PV
panels to be cooled without any work input under
atmospheric conditions. Otherwise, PV panels will be
operated much more below the STC efficiency values. Hence,
an additional proper cooling method is required to operate the
PV panel around the STC with highest efficiency. For this
this purpose, another air-cooling option was considered with
a heat sink with the dimensions mentioned before.

Fig. 6. Profile view of temperature contour distribution of air cooling for

2.5 m/s air speed.

In addition to these, temperature increase can be seen at

the adjacent zone of the fluid outlet up to 30.6 °C between the
fluid and the PV panel. However, contours became narrower
in this cooling option than the lower flow speeds at the rear
side of the PV panel.
When all these options are taken into account, we can see
a nonlinear curve versus the air flow velocity from the upper
side of the PV panel as obviously seen in Fig. 7. This means
that increasing flow rates will not have a positive effect after
a certain level. From Fig. 7, it can be pointed out that that the
best cooling option is the flow rate of 2.5 m/s. However, since
this flow rate cannot be provided in the atmospheric
conditions, an electric work input will become mandatory.
Therefore, the cooling alternatives attempted at high flow
rates will be contrary to the purpose of the cooling operation
for higher electric energy output.
Fig. 8. Temperature distribution of air cooling with heat sink: a) 1 m/s, b)
1.5 m/s, c) 2 m/s

978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 In Fig. 8, airflow is passing through the ribs of heat sink
in a parallel direction to prevent the decrease in flow velocity
and heat transfer unlike the previous studies. Because the
direction of the air flow has significant effects on heat
transfer. In addition, air flow must pass through the all
surfaces of the heat sink to get more uniform temperature
distribution. Note that some regions exposed to slower air
flow or zero air flow speeds will cause thermal buildup
regions in undesired higher temperatures. In this cooling
option, these issues were aimed to be eliminated.
In Fig.’s 8a, 8b and 8c we can observe the temperature
distribution of the PV panel with a heat sink at 1m/s, 1.5 m/s,
2 m/s air flow respectively through the ribs in parallel Fig. 9. PV panel surface temperatures of air-cooling options with heat sink.
direction through the rear side. It’s easy to understand that
In brief, Fig. 9, denotes a critical information for the PV
more successful heat transfer was performed by the heat sink
panel cooling system designers such as; in areas where the
in parallel air flow than the cooling option without heat sink.
wind speed is as low as between 1.0-2.0 m/s, it is possible to
Additionally, from Fig. 8a maximum 46.8 °C temperature
cool the PV panels without any work input under atmospheric
was observed, and more uniform temperature distribution
conditions with a simple modification. Hence, PV panels will
was achieved from minimum 38.8 °C to maximum 46.8 °C
be operated around STC efficiency values. In order to
on surface of the PV panel with an 8 °C temperature
investigate additional proper cooling methods, water cooling
difference for 1 m/s air flow.
options were simulated to operate the PV panel around STC
When the dominant wind speed is around 1.5 m/s, we can with highest efficiency.
observe the temperature distribution of the PV panel with a
Fig.’s 10a, 10b, 10c clarify the temperature distributions
heat sink can be observed from Fig. 8b. It’s seen that, a much
of the PV panel at 0.01 kg/s, 0.02 kg/s, 0.03 kg/s water
more successful heat transfer was performed by the heat sink
flowrates respectively. In Fig. 10a maximum 49.1 °C
in parallel air flow from the temperature distribution in the
temperature was observed, and minimum 25.8 °C and
legend. Maximum 41.4 °C temperature was observed, and
maximum 49.1 °C temperatures were observed on the surface
more uniform temperature distribution was achieved from
of the PV panel with a 23.3 °C temperature difference.
minimum 34.8 °C to maximum 41.4 °C on the surface of the
PV panel with a 6.6 °C difference. It can be pointed out in
this option, temperature difference on the PV panel surface
was improved according to 1 m/s air flow cooling option.
Furthermore, this result illustrates the fact that surface
temperature distribution became more uniform with 6.6 °C
temperature difference according to 8 °C.
Once the dominant wind speed is around 2.0 m/s, the
temperature distribution of the PV panel with a heat sink can
be observed from Fig. 8c. Similarly, it is seen that a much
more successful heat transfer was performed by the heat sink
in parallel air flow from the temperature distribution.
Maximum 38.6 °C temperature was determined, and more
uniform temperature distribution was acquired from
minimum 32.7 °C to maximum 38.6 °C on the surface of the
PV panel with a 5.9 °C difference. In this option, temperature
difference on the PV panel surface was improved compared
to 1.5 m/s air flow cooling option. Furthermore, surface
temperature distribution became more uniform with 5.9 °C
temperature difference according to 6.6 °C.
When all these options are taken into account, we can see
a nonlinear curve versus air flow velocity at the surface of PV
panel can be shown in Fig. 9. This means that increasing
velocities will not have a positive effect after a certain level.
Furthermore, the best cooling option is velocity of 2.0 m/s as
seen in Fig. 9. Nevertheless, if this flow velocity cannot be
provided, an electric work input will be required. Therefore,
the cooling alternatives attempted at higher flow velocities
will be contrary to the purpose of the cooling operation for
higher electric energy output.

978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE


Fig. 10. Profile view of temperature contour distribution of water cooling:
a) 0.01 kg/s, b) 0.02 kg/s, c) 0.03 kg/s
Besides, it can be observed that 24.4 °C temperature is at the
lower side plate in Fig. 10a. However, there was not a
considerable temperature difference at the water domain
between the PV panel and lower side plate. As for Fig. 10b,
the temperature distribution of the PV panel can be observed
at 0.02 kg/s water flowrate. It is seen that a more successful
heat transfer was performed than the water cooling at 0.01
kg/s. In this case, maximum 39.7 °C temperature was
observed, and minimum 22.9 °C and maximum 39.7 °C
temperatures were found on surface of the PV panel with a
16.8 °C temperature difference. It also should be noted that
21.0 °C temperature was determined at the lower side plate in
Fig. 10b. However, there was not a considerable temperature
difference at the water domain between the PV panel and
lower side plate. Fig. 10c shows the temperature distribution
of the PV panel at 0.03 kg/s water flowrate. It’s seen that a
more successful heat transfer was performed than the water
cooling at 0.02 kg/s. In this case, maximum 35.6 °C
temperature was observed, and minimum 20 °C and
maximum 35.6 °C temperatures were observed on the surface
of the PV panel with a 15.6 °C temperature difference.
Furthermore, we can observe 20.8 °C at the lower side plate
in Fig. 10c. It can be noted that, there was not a considerable
temperature difference at the water domain between the PV
panel and lower side plate. Furthermore, all the simulation
978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
results showed that any significant temperature differences
were not observed in the depth wise temperature gradient.
Fig. 11 presents nonlinear curve versus the water flowrate
from the rear side of the PV panel for all options. This figure
clarifies that increasing flow rates will not have a positive
effect after a certain level. As we see from the Fig. 11, the
best cooling option is flow rate of 0.03 kg/s. Nonetheless, the
cooling alternatives attempted with water will be contrary to
the purpose of the cooling operation for higher electric energy
output. Owing to the results, an additional amount of
electricity will be consumed to achieve high electricity
output. Depending on these, some additional equipment such
as heat pipes, water channels, parallel plates will be required.
Hence, size and investment cost of the whole system will
increase. Thus, PV system will be consisted of two separate
system: electricity generation PV panels and PV panel
cooling system. First one generates electricity and second one
consumes electricity. Also, second system will cause a
periodic maintenance cost.
Fig. 11. Surface temperatures of water-cooling options.
Let us focus the attention on the PV cooling system, there
are intensively researches in the literature. However, many of
them have some omissions in terms of thermodynamics,
energy and fluid dynamics. While designing a PV panel and
PV panel cooling system, researchers have to consider all
these three engineering branches. In conclusion, when all the
cooling options were considered, air cooling with heat sink
option seems the best choice for maximum temperature
decrease, with minimum investment and minimum place
required for establishment.
Fig. 12 depicts the panel efficiencies versus average
temperatures of PV panel for the heterojunction silicon solar
cell with maximum efficiency of 22.4%, which is electrically
simulated in our previous studies under 1000 w/m2 radiation
intensity and constant 25 °C. For air cooling option, CFD
simulations gave the highest PV panel surface temperatures.
Accordingly, PV panel efficiencies in these options were
observed 17.8%, 19.2%, 19.9%, 20.5% at 76°C, 61 °C, 53 °C,
47 °C average surface temperatures respectively. For CFD
simulations of heat sink option, PV panel efficiencies were
observed 21.3%, 21.9%, 22.2%, at 37.4 °C, 31.3 °C, 28.6 °C
average surface temperatures respectively. For CFD
simulations of air cooling with heat sink option, PV panel
efficiencies were observed 20.9%, 21.3%, 21.5%, at 42 °C,
38.4 °C, 35.9 °C average surface temperatures respectively.
The efficiency values given in Fig. 12 were obtained with (1)
and (2) that defining the relation between the temperature of
PV panel surface and panel efficiency for Si solar cells. In
addition, the surface temperature values were demonstrated
in previous figures considering the maximum surface
temperature of PV panels. Because the upper limits of the
panels were determined by the maximum temperatures on the
PV panels. Thus, the efficiencies give the minimum
efficiency values for the maximum surface temperatures.
Fig. 12. Panel efficiencies versus average panel temperatures.
Efficiency values of PV panel under different cooling
conditions showed in Fig. 12 obviously indicate the air
cooling with heat sink option with maximum 1.1% efficiency
drop and minimum 0.9% efficiency drop. On the other hand,
air cooling option without heat sink shows maximum 4.6%
efficiency drop at 76 °C and minimum 1.9% efficiency drop
at 47 °C average panel temperature. In addition, water
cooling option shows maximum 1.1% efficiency drop at 37.4
°C and minimum 0.2% efficiency drop at 28.6 °C. Panel
efficiency without any cooling application was determined
14.3%. Hence, air cooling, heat sink, and water-cooling
options provide maximum 6.2%, 7.2% and 7.8% efficiency
increase respectively. Disadvantages of water-cooling
option were mentioned before beforehand. These significant
findings open up the interesting application possibilities for
PV panel applications and the related Silicon technologies.
IV. CONCLUSION
Different cooling options were scrutinized with different
parameters to discover the more suitable and profitable
cooling option. For this purpose, CFD simulations were
conducted to investigate the efficiency behavior of a specific
Si PV panel, by using air cooling with two options and water
cooling. According to results of simulations, heat sink with a
proper flow arrangement cooling option showed the best
performance in terms of minimum material, minimum cost
and minimum complexity with the 42 °C, 38.4 °C, 35.9°C
average surface temperatures and 20.9%, 21.3%, 21.5% panel
efficiencies. With novel design, optimum operating
conditions were reached without using extra energy in the
system. In other words, energy efficient, optimum system
was created by a passive cooling method. For the future plan,
978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
to enhance the heat transfer, compact heat sink geometries
will be studied to reach the optimum operating conditions.
REFERENCES
[1] T. S. Ge et al., “Solar heating and cooling: Present and
future development,” Renew. Energy, vol. 126, pp.
1126–1140, 2017.
[2] R. Nasrin, N. A. Rahim, H. Fayaz, and M. Hasanuzzaman,
“Water/MWCNT nanofluid based cooling system of
PVT: Experimental and numerical research,” Renew.
Energy, vol. 121, pp. 286–300, 2018.
[3] E. Bellos and C. Tzivanidis, “Yearly performance of a
hybrid PV operating with nanofluid,” Renew.
Energy, vol. 113, pp. 867–884, 2017.
[4] E. Kayabasi and H. Kurt, “Simulation of heat exchangers
and heat exchanger networks with an economic
aspect,” Eng. Sci. Technol. an Int. J., vol. 21, no. 1,
pp. 70–76, 2018.
[5] H. G. Teo, P. S. Lee, and M. N. A. Hawlader, “An active
cooling system for photovoltaic modules,” Appl.
Energy, vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 309–315, 2012.
[6] R. Stropnik and U. Stritih, “Increasing the efficiency of
PV panel with the use of PCM,” Renew. Energy, vol.
97, pp. 671–679, 2016.
[7] A. A. B. Baloch, H. M. S. Bahaidarah, P. Gandhidasan,
and F. A. Al-Sulaiman, “Experimental and numerical
performance analysis of a converging channel heat
exchanger for PV cooling,” Energy Convers.
Manag., vol. 103, pp. 14–27, 2015.
[8] N. Gökmen, W. Hu, P. Hou, Z. Chen, D. Sera, and S.
Spataru, “Investigation of wind speed cooling effect
on PV panels in windy locations,” Renew. Energy,
vol. 90, pp. 283–290, 2016.
[9] C. G. Popovici, S. V. Hudişteanu, T. D. Mateescu, and N.
C. Cherecheş, “Efficiency Improvement of
Photovoltaic Panels by Using Air Cooled Heat
Sinks,” Energy Procedia, vol. 85, no. November
2015, pp. 425–432, 2016.
[10] Z. Syafiqah, N. A. M. Amin, Y. M. Irwan, M. S. A.
Majid, and N. A. Aziz, “Simulation study of air and
water cooled photovoltaic panel using ANSYS,” J.
Phys. Conf. Ser., vol. 908, p. 012074, 2017.
[11] U. J. Rajput and J. Yang, “Comparison of heat sink
and water type PV/T collector for polycrystalline
photovoltaic panel cooling,” Renew. Energy, vol.
116, pp. 479–491, 2018.
[12] S. Golzari, A. Kasaeian, M. Amidpour, S.
Nasirivatan, and S. Mousavi, “Experimental
investigation of the effects of corona wind on the
performance of an air-cooled PV/T,” Renew. Energy,
vol. 127, pp. 284–297, 2018.
[13] H. Bahaidarah, A. Subhan, P. Gandhidasan, and S.
Rehman, “Performance evaluation of a PV
(photovoltaic) module by back surface water cooling
for hot climatic conditions,” Energy, vol. 59, pp.
445–453, 2013.
[14] “ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 Theory Guide 13.3.18. Solar
Load Model,” pp. 1–24, 2016.
[15] E. Skoplaki and J. A. Palyvos, “On the temperature
 dependence of photovoltaic module electrical 1402, 2008.
performance: A review of efficiency/power [17] S. Dubey, J. N. Sarvaiya, and B. Seshadri,
correlations,” Sol. Energy, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 614– “Temperature dependent photovoltaic (PV)
624, 2009. efficiency and its effect on PV production in the
[16] E. Skoplaki, A. G. Boudouvis, and J. A. Palyvos, “A world - A review,” Energy Procedia, vol. 33, pp.
simple correlation for the operating temperature of 311–321, 2013.
photovoltaic modules of arbitrary mounting,” Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 92, no. 11, pp. 1393–

978-1-5386-7538-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE