Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Energy unit cost assessment of six photovoltaic-battery configurations

Ioannis E. Kosmadakis a, Costas Elmasides a, *, Georgios Koulinas b,
Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis a
a
Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
b
Department of Production & Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Demand for electricity is expected to increase significantly in the coming decades, one reason being the
Received 7 December 2020 ongoing decarbonization process of the power and the transportation sectors, in an effort to reduce
Received in revised form greenhouse gas emissions and thus alleviate climate change. Photovoltaics that harvest solar energy,
12 February 2021
coupled with energy storage systems are addressing these challenges effectively. In the current study, the
Accepted 2 March 2021
Available online 12 March 2021
simulated energy winnings from typical photovoltaic-battery (PV-BAT) configurations were economi-
cally evaluated, under equal technical and site-specific meteorological conditions. Furthermore, their
capital, replacement, operation, and maintenance costs were inquired and the average unit cost of
Keywords:
Circular economy
electricity per kWh was estimated based on specific energy cost estimation methods and a Monte-Carlo
Distributed energy resource analysis addressing uncertain meteorological risk factors. The cost of electrical energy production in
Hybrid power system Greece was examined for six scenarios with varying battery technologies and module topologies.
LCOE Calculated costs ranged from 0.17 to 0.24 V/kWh indicating a significant downward trend in the unit cost
Photovoltaic battery system of electricity generated by PV-BAT systems. These findings indicate the need for further investigation into
Total annual economic cost how the integration and utilization of such systems can be optimized. The proposed methodology is
developed in line with the circular economy action plan which requires increased system efficiency,
storage and renewable energy use.
© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In the present study, the energy generation performance and

Economic growth increases in line with energy consumption
[1,2]. Electrical energy use, in specific, is going to increase globally
by approximately 60% over the coming 20 years, mainly due to an
increase in demand from developing countries [1,3] and to the fact
that, the demand from the transportation sector is expected to
almost quadruple, alongside an ongoing decarbonization process of
the power industry [3]. To address those challenges, it is essential to
efficiently integrate an assortment of distributed power generation
systems based on renewable energy sources, into the existing en-
ergy mix [4]. This will compensate for the sharp decline in coal-
fired power generation in the coming years, while at the same
time reduce GHG emissions. Moreover, accelerated efforts on re-
newables and related technologies, primarily due to a bidirectional
causality between renewable energy consumption and economic
growth [5,6], are expected to alleviate climate change.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kelmasid@env.duth.gr (C. Elmasides).
cost estimations of six different PV-BAT configurations were
simulated, under identical operational and meteorological condi-
tions, varying only in the applied battery technology and module
topology. Meteorological probability distributions were derived
from onsite measurements, and hourly time-series of the Plane of
Array (POA) irradiance incident generated, leading to hourly PV
power generation with improved accuracy. Using the stochastic
Monte Carlo method to simulate uncertainty of global horizontal
irradiance, atmospheric temperature and wind speed, the current
LCOE of the distinct PV-Battery systems were established. This
approach is in line with the circular economy principles [7] as it
enters into the efficiency of the systems the use of renewable en-
ergy sources [8] and electrical energy storage [9] while reducing
carbon dioxide emissions [10,11].
Following this introduction, the recent literature review of this
subject is presented in Section 2. In Section 3, the specifications of
each PV-BAT system scenario are presented and the site-specific
meteorological conditions of the study region in Greece are
described, followed by energy generation estimation and energy
cost estimation methodologies. Simulation and sensitivity analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.010
0960-1481/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Nomenclature DOD Depth Of Discharge

GHI Global Horizontal Irradiance
PV-BAT Photovoltaic - Battery System DNI Direct Normal Irradiance
GHG Greenhouse Gases DHI Diffused Horizontal Irradiance
POA Plane of Array Kt Clearness Index
LCOE Levelized Cost Of Electricity Have Monthly average radiation on the horizontal surface
RES Renewable Energy Sources Ho,ave Monthly average extraterrestrial horizontal radiation
EES Electrical Energy Storage Ho Daily average extraterrestrial horizontal radiation for
SOC State Of Charge a given latitude
HRES Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems D Number of days in each a month
EMS Energy Management Strategies Go Extraterrestrial horizontal solar intensity
TAEC Total Annual Economic Cost qz Zenith angle
LCOS Levelized Cost of Storage d The day of the year {1, …, 365}
WEEE Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment Gon The normal daily extraterrestrial solar intensity
HCPV High Concentrator Photovoltaics hitting the top of the atmosphere
BMS Battery Management System Gsc The solar constant, 1367kW/m2
DC Direct Current AOI The solar angle of incidence
AC Alternating Current TMY Typical Meteorological Year
TC PV Cell temperature TM PV Module Temperature
Epoa Total Solar Irradiance IL Photocurrent
Rs Series resistance I0 Diode reverse saturation current
Rsh Shunt resistance nNsVth Modified diode ideality factor
WS Wind Speed T Atmospheric Temperature
NPV Net Present Value P Atmospheric Pressure
Io total investment expenditure in V At total annual cost in V
t Year {1; …; ng n Economic Lifetime in years
Mt, el Annual amount of electricity generated in kWh/yr r real interest rate
CRF Capital Recovery Factor O&M Operation and Maintenance

results are presented in Section 4, followed by a discussion about
the circularity impact on the energy unit cost and its variations, in
Section 5. Concluding remarks and suggestions for future work are
given in the last section.
2. Literature review
Estimations based on data concerning Germany [12], showed
that in order to meet roughly 50%e80% of the electricity demand
with renewable energy sources (RES), without any curtailment,
small and highly efficient Electrical Energy Storage (EES) systems
are needed. They should also be preferred over large but less effi-
cient (seasonal) storage systems, hinting to a compromise between
installations of overcapacities of RES and EES capacities. To date, the
area of small storage media is covered, at least partially, by elec-
trochemical accumulators, exhibiting significant room for
improvement in efficiency. Important properties for adequate EES
should include a) high efficiency in charging and discharging, b)
minimal self-discharge and c) longevity of the storage medium
under cyclic charge and discharge [13]. Until recently lead-acid
batteries were the first choice for supporting renewable energy
deployment, especially in stand-alone systems. However, conven-
tional lead-acid batteries experience various technical problems.
For example, they have a relatively low depth of discharge, a
maximum lifespan of 3e4 years and a longer charging time. In
contrast to lead-acid batteries, lithium-ion batteries excel in those
areas and therefore prevail as the most popular form of EES in the
world despite being a more expensive alternative [14], as demon-
strated in Table 1. In 2015, lithium-ion based EES represented 85.6%
of the energy storage systems deployed worldwide [13].
Electrochemical energy storage systems in renewable applica-
tions have very irregular cycling schemes. Charging and discharg-
ing take place at various temperatures and are often unexpectedly
interposed, subsequently, full charging is rarely achieved. Thus,
accurately predicting battery lifetime and cycle life is a complex
task. Furthermore, it was shown by Waag et al. [15] that lithium-ion
battery dependency on electric current and the State of Charge
(SOC), changes considerably over the battery lifetime and that
battery and energy flow management must adjust to the ageing
state of the storage medium. Accordingly, lead-acid battery lifetime
models intended for energy system designers and operators have
been presented [16,17]. Electricity demand in individual domestic
dwellings is subject to random and often indefinable occupant
activities. In a study by Richardson et al. [18] daily activity profiles
and patterns in consumption were summarized and a model of
domestic electricity use was presented. Optimal sizing methods for
batteries in microgrids were presented by Fossati et al. [19].
Hybrid renewable energy systems (HRES) are extremely popular
stand-alone power generation alternatives, especially in remote
locations without grid access. Batteries are used in such systems to
facilitate power deficits and to operate as short-term storage me-
diums. Bajpai and Dash [20] provide a review of the different sizing
methods, modelling of system components and optimal energy
flow management strategies.
Dhundhara et al. [21] report that batteries facilitate a reliable
power supply together with PV and Wind generators, thereby
covering the total energy demand of microgrid systems. The utili-
zation of batteries in grid-connected microgrids is lower than the
utilization of batteries in off-grid microgrids. Although battery
technology can be used both in off-grid and grid-connected power
supply systems [22,23], Li-ion batteries are not cost-competitive for
grid-connected use until a specific purchasing cost of around 200
V/kWh and a lifetime above 2500 cycles are reached [23]. That is
however without considering various beneficial aspects for the
electricity grid, such as the reduction in energy use during on-peak
hours and the mitigation of grid congestion. Similar research

25
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al.
Table 1
Electrical energy storage capital cost and technical features [14].
System Capital Cost (US$/kWh) Energy Density (Wh/lt)
Lead - Acid Battery 200e400 50e80
Lithium - Ion Battery 600e2500 200e400
considered the use of EES in scenarios of simultaneous PV self-
consumption and demand-load shifting according to varying
price tariffs [24].
Zakeri and Syri [25] estimated life cycle costs of large grid-scale
EES technologies individually and the imperatives of each one. They
concluded that EES must: (i) meet demand reliably at peak hours,
(ii) offset intermittent renewable energy supply, (iii) contribute to
the distribution of power generation and hence to the liberalization
of electricity markets, and (iv) induce smart grid initiatives. A smart
grid supports the direct two-way energy information exchange,
between energy producer and consumer by employing numerous
intelligent sensors and smart metering devices. Distributed HRES,
microgrids and smart grids in general, usually exploit multiple
energy supply and storage systems. The coordination of energy
flows between them requires the implementation of Energy Man-
agement Strategies (EMS). The main objectives of EMS are a) to
achieve high system reliability so as to minimize electricity in-
terruptions and increase operational efficiency, b) to reduce the
cost of energy generated, and c) to extend the lifetime of compo-
nents which in turn will further reduce energy cost [26].
Yang et al. [27] investigated optimal battery sizing as an
approach for balancing battery advantages and overall cost, by
reviewing sizing criteria and methods in different renewable en-
ergy systems. Optimization criteria were classified into (i) financial,
(ii) technical and (iii) hybrid financial and technical criteria. Ibrahim
et al. [28] carried out a comparative analysis between different
clean energy solutions such as Wind, Hydro and PV, and ranked
them according to economic and environmental criteria. Further-
more, researchers modelled and evaluated an HRES with hydrogen
storage [29] for an Aegean island based on an economic perspec-
tive, considering similar scenarios and calculating the total annual
economic cost (TAEC) of the systems. Additionally, the levelized
cost of electricity (LCOE) has been employed for the economic
assessment of a solar thermal plant in Egypt by Abdelhady [30].
In the recent past, several studies have also calculated the lev-
elized cost of electrical energy storage (LCOS), for different storage
technologies with respect to their system applications [31,32]. LCOS
is the total lifetime cost of a storage medium divided by the cu-
mulative discharged electricity and mirrors the average value at
which electricity can be traded. It is therefore analogous and
comparable to the LCOE. These studies also acknowledge the
dominance of lithium-ion batteries in residential and commercial
applications of bill management and power supply reliability.
Battery usage can reduce electricity bills by exploiting different
tariff structures in electricity consumption. The projected estima-
tion of the LCOS for stationary lithium-ion batteries is 0.35 $/kWh
in 2030 indicating a declining price trend [31].
Installed PV capacity is expanding progressively and is accom-
panied by numerous challenges concerning grid stability. In a
thorough review of the impacts of high PV penetration [33] various
measures have been proposed to reinforce PV integration (e.g. EES,
Supply and Demand Forecasting, etc.). The number of photovoltaic
plants in Greece, increased significantly between 2006 and 2013,
mainly due to the favorable market environment that ensured
simple licensing procedures and generous electricity feed-in tariffs,
as defined by the legal framework of that period. Due to later
regulations, in 2012 and then again in 2014, photovoltaic
26
Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41
Efficiency (%) Self-discharge per day (%) Lifetime (cycles)
75e90 0.1e0.3 250e1500
65e75 0.1e0.3 600e1200
penetration has proceeded quite slowly since then, even though in
2015 a new legislation was introduced that promoted net metering
applications but it did not include energy storage. According to the
archive of the Hellenic Electricity Distribution Network Operator
(HEDNO), the installed PV net metering capacity in March 2019, in
mainland Greece and the interconnected islands, reached
46.22 MWp. However, recent ministerial decisions [34], set terms
and conditions for the development of PV plants including EES,
with the application of energy net metering by self-producers and
energy communities, as well as auctioned renewable energy sta-
tions, which have given new impetus to the penetration of PV
systems in the domestic market. More specifically, since March
2019, PV energy net metering applications with EES are possible for
storage systems with power converters of up to 30 kV A. Following
this, in March 2020 the total installed photovoltaic capacity in
Greece amounted to 2685.2 MWp, of which 351.5 MWp was on
rooftops [35]. Furthermore, only 2.2% of the PV plants in Greece are
connected to the high (150 kV) and ultrahigh (400 kV) electricity
transmission system. The rest is connected to the distribution
system, namely 52.2% to the low voltage electricity system (400 V)
and 45.6% to the medium voltage electricity system (20 kV). This
combined Greek PV energy output covered more than 7% of the
total annual electricity demand in 2017, having a share of at least
38% of the total electrical energy generated from renewables, for six
months [36].
Another issue is the additional PV waste which will be gener-
ated as a result of the global increase in PV penetration. It is esti-
mated that between 60 and 78 million tons of cumulative PV
module waste will be generated by 2050 [37]. In a comprehensive
review by Farrell et al. [38], open and closed-loop recycling routes
of PV modules after 25 years of operation were examined. More
specifically, recycling methodologies such as mechanical, chemical
and thermal material recovery from first-generation crystal silicon
PV modules were reviewed and the corresponding energy flows
were analysed, pointing towards a circular model. In addition, as of
2014, PV modules are regarded as electronic waste by all EU
members according to the Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment
(WEEE) Directive 2012/19/EU. This makes PV manufacturers
responsible for the end-of-life management of their products,
which includes the recovery of high-value material from disposed
PV modules. This can be viewed as an additional economic and
environmental incentive for PV panel recycling.
Chul-Yong et al. [39] distinguished between the deterministic
and stochastic methodologies of LCOE calculation and pointed to
three weaknesses concerning the deterministic methods, which are
the exclusion of alternative outcomes, the hindering of the sensi-
tivity analysis caused by using all variables and the limitations due
to correlation between variables. Darling et al. [40] calculated the
LCOE, in 2011, for three PV plants in the U.S.A. using the Monte Carlo
method for simulating uncertain irradiance and financial parame-
ters. Ryan et al. [41] estimated the LCOE of various renewable en-
ergy technologies applying a local sensitivity analysis based on the
capacity factor model without considering EES options. In another
study, Aishwarya et al. [42] included Lead-Acid Batteries, using
however the capacity factor model for energy calculations. Chun
et al. [43] reported that the capacity factor is frequently used for
power generation estimations but lacks variability and leads to a
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al.
less accurate study. Recently, simulation has been used for risk
analysis in energy production systems. More specifically, Rocha
et al. [44] applied a stochastic economic analysis for small PV
production systems and employed a Monte Carlo simulation to
assess financial and environmental uncertainty. Gu et al. [45] per-
formed a techno-economic evaluation of a solar PV/T concentrator
for building application and applied a Monte Carlo simulation to
illustrate the risks of various factors. Also, Yin et al. [46] applied the
Monte Carlo simulation for generating uncertain wind, sky and dust
condition instances and then, proposed several risk-aware opti-
mization models providing metrics for production benefit, cost, and
risk assessments. Khosa et al. [47] also used Monte-Carlo simula-
tion in order to analyze the performance of a PV system. The Total
Annual Economic Cost (TAEC) and the cost per unit of energy were
calculated by Kosmadakis et al. [48] for a conventional rooftop PV-
Battery System (PV-BAT) in Greece, consisting of a combination of
multicrystalline photovoltaic modules and lead-acid batteries. The
study revealed that, due to limited storage capacity, surplus energy
remained unused, thereby increasing the price of the kilowatt-hour
of the system. Moreover, optimal PVBAT sizing heightens overall
system efficiency and minimizes power losses [49]. It may well be
argued that by applying an appropriate control algorithm [50] to a
PV-BAT system, excess renewable energy will not be wasted and
therefore the unit cost of energy harvested from such a system will
decrease. The cost can be reduced further when solar energy is fully
exploited, and the battery cycle life maximized. For example, add-
ing cost-effective solar trackers to a PV-BAT system and utilizing
different storage technologies like lithium-ion batteries can push
the LCOE, the TAEC in this case, even further down.
3. Materials and methods
In this section, the specifications of six distinctive PV-BAT sys-
tems are provided followed by a presentation of the local clearness
index calculation, based on site-specific meteorological conditions.
Then, methods for estimating the PV-BAT energy generation and
the energy cost estimation are assessed.
3.1. Specifications of the PV-BAT systems
Our aim in this research was to investigate configurations that
could reduce the cost of the kilowatt-hour produced by PV-BAT
systems. This practically means maximizing the energy harvest
and minimizing overall economic costs. The latter is achieved
mainly with economies of scale in manufacturing. It is known that
by applying efficient control algorithms to an autonomous HRES,
excess renewable energy will not be left unused but can be fully
utilized, and battery life can be maximized, reducing therefore
again the energy cost. However, in order to further reduce costs,
one must also investigate the economically efficient increase of the
photovoltaic energy output. In summary, this is achieved by the use
of different PV cell technologies (Multijunction or Perovskite cells,
etc.), by the application of cooling to PV modules (Passive or Active
Cooling, etc.), by the use of concentrator optics that minimize the
surface of PV cells (Concentrator PV or HCPV, etc.), by the use of
solar tracking systems (Single or Dual Axis), and by applying a
combination of the above.
Besides investigating south-facing fixed PV systems, we exam-
ined the application of trackers, as so far, in Greece, only tracking
systems have found wide commercial application. Indeed, they are
accompanied by technical challenges and increased costs and for
the most part, they are located on land. However, there are appli-
cations for solar trackers on commercial and industrial roofs, on
residential rooftops and terraces (provided that they do not exceed
a regulated urban height) and in charging stations for electric
27
Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41
vehicles. Relevant literature concerning the weighted operating
costs of PV with trackers, is scarce at similar latitudes, especially in
combination with EES systems. Nevertheless, emphasis was placed
on DC-coupled photovoltaics and battery combinations, due to
their practicality and their ever-increasing application, mainly in
the residential sector.
The specifications of every individual PV-BAT system investi-
gated in this study is listed in Table 2. The first system consists of a
single-axis solar tracking PV system backed by lithium-ion batte-
ries. The second system is a fixed tilt, south-oriented PV system
utilizing lithium-ion batteries. The third system is a fixed tilt, east-
west oriented PV system also utilizing lithium-ion storage. Systems
4 to 6 are identical to Systems 1 to 3, except that they are backed by
Lead-Acid accumulators without a separate Battery Management
System (BMS). All systems use the same PV panels and the same
power electronics.
Furthermore, a scenario in which oversupply of PV energy
during the midday hours may lead to a temporal collapse of the
marginal electricity price of the power system was considered [36].
This was addressed by examining the performance of a PV-BAT
system with rearranged PV module set up. More precisely, in sys-
tems 3 and 6, a fixed PV installation in which half of the modules
were facing east and the other half facing west, was considered as
an action to mitigate the aforementioned situation.
In any case, the energy output of 24 monocrystalline PV modules
with an installed capacity of 7440 Wp, are handled by two MPPT
solar charge controllers and a single-phase Inverter-Charger. En-
ergy flows are monitored by proprietary equipment of the power
electronics manufacturers. Variations in energy production as a
result of intermittent solar energy are addressed, by the use of 4
LiFePO4 batteries with a total nominal energy capacity of approxi-
mately 10.2 kWh, in Systems 1e3, or 24 SOPzV lead-acid batteries
with a total nominal energy capacity of 18.7 kWh, in Systems 4e6.
The depth of discharge (DOD) for lead-acid batteries was set to 45%,
whereas that of lithium-ion batteries was set to 80%. It should be
clarified that in both cases, the useful energy capacity which is the
product of the DOD and the energy capacity is about 8 kWh.
Furthermore, this study examines the case where excess renewable
energy does not remain untapped. This is possible on inter-
connected systems since the grid can also act as a large scale EES. In
such a case, the load on the consumption side, as well as possible
changes in consumption, are considered equal in all systems,
therefore simplifying the comparison without directly affecting the
calculation of the LCOE. Fig. 1 illustrates the general layout of the
PV-BAT combinations compared in this study, very much like the
setup employed in previous works [48,50].
3.2. Meteorological conditions of PV-site and local clearness index
estimation
The simulation of solar energy systems requires the generation
of an hourly sequenced meteorological time-series for a given po-
sition, to accurately estimate the yearly photovoltaic output. The
synthesis of a typical meteorological year from successive Global
Horizontal Irradiance (GHI) values with similar statistical charac-
teristics observed in nature, is facilitated by stochastic models
based on monthly local clearness indexes. These models were
created in the past by several research teams [51e53] and are still in
use today via implementations in various solar modelling and
simulation software packages (e.g. Homer Pro, PVSyst).
Have
Kt ¼ (1)
Ho;ave
The clearness index Kt, in Eq. (1) is the ratio of the average
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Table 2
A comparison of the equipment used in each energy system.

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6

PV modules 24 SolarCall SCM 310 W Mono

PV array mounting Single-Axis Solar Tracking Fixed Tilt Mounting Fixed Tilt Mounting Single-Axis Solar Tracking Fixed Tilt Mounting Fixed Tilt Mounting
System Deger S60H-CF System facing South System facing East- System Deger S60H-CF system facing South system facing East-
West West
Inverter/Charger 1x Victron Energy MultiPlus 48/3000/35-16
Charge Controller 2x Victron Energy SmartSolar MPPT 150/70-Tr
Monitoring Victron VE.Bus BMS & Victron Color Control GX Victron Color Control GX
System & BMS*
EES 4x LiFePO4 Victron Energy Battery 12.8 V/200 A h 24x Lead-Acid Sunlight 2 V/390 A h (c24) RES3 SOPzV
Electrical and Miniature circuit breakers for AC/DC circuits, PV Circuit breakers for DC circuits, Din rail enclosure (40 W  60 H x 18D cm), AC indoor installation
installation cable, DC Cable (4 mm2, 10 mm2, 35 mm2), miscellaneous.
materials

(*) Due to safety reasons, lithium-ion accumulators must operate in a strictly defined voltage and temperature window. Safe and efficient charging and discharging of lithium-
ion accumulators is facilitated using a Battery Management System.

Fig. 1. General energy system layout, consisting of PV arrays as the main power source, electrochemical batteries as a storage medium, power electronics for handling energy flows
and grid connection as backup.

monthly solar radiation that falls onto a horizontal surface on earth,
p 

to the corresponding average monthly solar radiation that reaches Go ¼ Gon *cos * qz (3)
the atmosphere, that is the extraterrestrial radiation. It’s a dimen- 180
sionless number between 0 and 1, which gives an estimate of the
  
clearness of the atmosphere in the specified latitudes. 360*d
Gon ¼ GSC * 1 þ 0:033 * cos (4)
The numerator in Eq. (1) Have, is the monthly average radiation 365
on the horizontal surface, in units of kWh/m2/day. In this study Have
derived from irradiance measurements over a three-year period. .
Fig. 2 illustrates variations of global horizontal irradiance mea- GSC ¼ 1367kW m2 (5)
surements, shown in yellow, together with temperature and wind
speed measurements, shown in blue and grey respectively, for PN
three consecutive years acquired in Xanthi, a city in northern n¼1 Ho
Ho;ave ¼ (6)
Greece. The denominator Ho,ave is the monthly average extrater- D
restrial horizontal radiation, also in units of kWh/m2/day, and was
where Ho is the daily average extraterrestrial horizontal radiation
calculated from the following equations [10].
for a given latitude Eq. (2), and D is the number of days in each
month. Go is the extraterrestrial horizontal solar intensity given the
zenith angle qz Eq. (3) of a specified latitude, and d is the day of the
year, that is a number between 1 and 365. Gon is the normal daily
24
Ho ¼ *Go (2) extraterrestrial solar intensity hitting the top of the atmosphere Eq.
p (4), and Gsc is the solar constant Eq. (5).
The mean monthly clearness indices, Ktm, shown in Table 3, were
28
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al.
Fig. 2. Meteorological measurements illustrating the periodical variations of irradiance, atmospheric temperature and horizontal wind speed over a time span of three years in the
study region.
calculated accordingly for the study region, with latitude 4114’ N
degrees. Furthermore, based on these monthly mean clearness
indices, and through a combination of freely available open-source
software libraries (PVLib, synthetic-solar), annual sequences of
synthetic hourly irradiance values on a horizontal plane were
generated [51,53].
3.3. Energy generation estimation method (EGEM)
To simulate a typical meteorological year, synthesized hourly
GHI data were generated, employing the aforementioned algo-
rithms of Section 2.2. These algorithms produce realistic hourly
irradiance data, as a function of latitude and the corresponding
twelve-month average clearness indexes, as can be seen from
Fig. 3a.
Besides GHI, onsite temperature and wind speed measurements
were taken every 2 min for a 3-year period. Consequently, rolling
hourly mean values were created smoothing out those measure-
ments. These values formed distinct monthly temperature and
wind speed distributions, from which random samples were taken
to generate hourly sequences for one year. These synthetic times-
eries were used as inputs to the energy generation estimation al-
gorithm. Fig. 3b and c, illustrate their realistic nature, when
compared to a typical meteorological year (TMY) downloaded from
PVGIS [54] for the specific location (yellow curve).
From the simulated GHI sequence, analogous estimations of
direct normal irradiance (DNI) and diffuse horizontal irradiance
(DHI) were calculated utilizing the DISC model from Refs. [55,56].
Given PV-surface and PV-azimuth angles, it is possible to calculate
the angle of incidence (AOI) as a function of solar position with
respect to latitude, longitude, and altitude. An acceptable constant
ground reflectivity (Albedo) of 0.3 was chosen for all systems under
Table 3
Mean monthly clearness indexes for the study region, based on local irradiance measurements over a 3-year period.
Jan Feb Mar Apr
Ktm 0.47 0.38 0.46 0.56
Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41
investigation and eventually, the total solar irradiance (Epoa) on
the PV-module was calculated. Subsequently, the simulated tem-
perature and wind speed hourly sequences, together with the Epoa
computed in the previous step, were fed as input to the Sandia Cell
and Module Temperature Model [57], in order to compute PV-cell
(TC) and PV-module temperatures (TM). Supplying afterwards the
Five-Parameter Model [58] with the Epoa, TC, TM, and PV-
datasheet inputs led to the five corresponding outputs of the
model which are (i) the Photocurrent (IL), (ii) Diode reverse satu-
ration current (I0), (iii) Series resistance (Rs), (iv) Shunt resistance
(Rsh) and (v) Modified diode ideality factor (nNsVth). These out-
puts constitute the inputs for the well-established Single Diode
Model [59,60] for photovoltaic modules from which power esti-
mations are obtained. The above-mentioned methodology was
followed to estimate the energy output of the systems under study
(Fig. 3d, e and f). Losses due to PV-module reflectivity and soiling
were taken into account. According to most PV manufacturers, PV
modules are guaranteed to deliver 80% of the rated power output at
the end of their lifetime. Hence, we additionally corrected the
annual PV production with a factor of 0.9, optimizing further power
output estimations over a typical 25-year period. The charge
controller and inverter efficiencies were considered according to
the manufacturer datasheet. A flow diagram that shows the entire
procedure is depicted in Fig. 4. Data processing and model imple-
mentation were done with the Python programming language and
the use of the PVLIB solar simulation library for PV energy systems
[61e65].
3.4. Energy cost estimation methods
The details for the calculation of the LCOE and the unit cost of
energy as derived from the TAEC are presented in this section.
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0.60 0.57 0.44 0.59 0.69 0.52 0.39 0.45
29
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Fig. 3. a. A randomly generated GHI hourly sequence for a year based on monthly clearness indexes and a specified latitude. b. A randomly generated hourly sequence of tem-
peratures for a year based on local atmospheric temperature measurements. c. A randomly generated hourly sequence of wind speeds for a year based on local horizontal wind
speed measurements. d. The energy winnings estimation from the single-axis PV array of Systems 1 and 4. e. The energy winnings estimation from the south-oriented fixed PV
array of Systems 2 and 5. f. The energy winnings estimation from the east & west-oriented fixed PV array of Systems 3 and 6.

3.4.1. Calculation of the LCOE based on the net present value (NPV)
method
There are several cost evaluation criteria for PV systems [66].
One method to compare different technologies in electricity gen-
eration is by calculating the LCOE. This is a measure which con-
siders all the costs incurred during the lifetime of a power plant
with reference to the power plant’s total energy output throughout
its complete lifecycle. The calculation is done either based on the
net present value method (NPV) or based on the annuity method
(AM). In the NPV method, the capital cost, as well as the life-cycle
cost (Operation, Maintenance and Replacement expenditures
minus revenues) during the power plant lifetime, are calculated
considering an estimated discount factor.
 
P given by Eq. (9)
Io þ nt¼1 At
ð1 þ rÞt
LCOE ¼ Pn
Mt;el
t¼1 ð1 þ rÞt
Here the levelized cost of electricity is calculated in V/kWh, where
Io is the total investment expenditure in V, At is the total annual cost
in V of year t2½1; …; n, n is the economic lifetime in years, Mt, el is
the annual amount of electricity generated in kWh/yr, and r is the
real interest rate.
Thus, the LCOE is the ratio of the total discounted lifetime cost of
a power plant divided by the energy production [67] and can be
calculated according to Eq. (7). From a physical perspective, the
discounting of energy production initially may seem incorrect.
However, it makes financial sense to consider it in this way as it
relates to future revenues from the potential sale of electricity [66].
3.4.2. Calculation of the LCOE based on the annuity method
For the calculation of the LCOE based on the annuity method
[67,68], construction, operation, and maintenance costs are critical
inputs. Reliable estimations of the life expectancy of the installed
equipment and the applicable interest rates of the coming years are
needed to calculate the real cost of electricity generation. It can be
defined as the total annual economic cost (TAEC) [69], that is the
sum of the annuitized capital costs and annual operation and
maintenance costs, divided by the energy produced annually,
which results in the cost per unit of energy [70e72]. This method
has the benefit of a lower calculation effort as can be observed in
Eq. (8) which shows the corresponding LCOE formula using the
capital recovery (or annuity) factor Eq. (9). Furthermore, the am-
biguity of discounting future electrical energy production is avoi-
ded by simply dividing the TAEC with the average annual energy
output. In both methods, the cost of land is excluded since the
equipment can be placed on a building rooftop.
X
TAEC ¼ ðCRFt * Capital Costt Þ þ Annual O&M Cost (8)
where CRF is the Capital Recovery Factor for the specified year t
(7)
rð1 þ rÞt
CRF ¼ (9)
ð1 þ rÞt  1
And finally, the LCOE is calculated by Eq. (10)
TAEC
LCOE ¼ Pn (10)
Mt;el
t¼1
n
4. Results
In this section, the energy unit cost of the examined systems is
calculated based on the NPV method and confirmed with the An-
nuity method. Moreover, the results of a sensitivity analysis
employing the annuity method are presented.
4.1. Cost of systems
As described in section 3.4.1 the calculation of the annual cost of
energy systems, presented in Table 2, initially requires, the
knowledge of capital cost as well as operation, maintenance and
30
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al.
Fig. 4. Illustrating the steps of the energy generation estimation algorithm.
replacement expenses. These costs, will be used afterwards to
prepare the necessary cash flow over a period of 25 years (AP-
PENDIX A). Each component or service cost necessary for the
implementation of the six (6) individual PV-BAT system combina-
tions were inquired online and proforma invoices were collected
from selected distributors and installers of the relevant products
and services. Table 4 shows the detailed purchasing cost for all
energy systems considered in Table 2. Value Added Tax was not
included, and cost figures refer to the beginning of 2020. Shipping
costs for system components were included in this study since they
depend on the distance between the installation point and the
location of suppliers. This is a particularly important consideration
for off-grid PV-BAT systems in remote locations far from urban
centers.
Each system is considered to have an overall economic life of 25
years since this is the guaranteed power output of PVs. Premium
inverters and solar charge controllers were preferred in the design
process and are conservatively expected to be replaced every 10
years. To avoid underestimated costs, and be on the safe side, 9
years for lithium-ion batteries and 3 years for lead-acid batteries
lifetimes were selected.
31
Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41
4.2. Assessment of the unit cost of energy
The assessment of the unit cost of energy is employed in this
section using both the NPV and the annuity approaches.
4.2.1. The LCOE based on NPV method
The assessments of energy cost and energy output for a period
of 25 years, as presented in the Appendix, are the necessary data for
the calculation of the LCOE with the methodology presented in
Section 3.4.1. Results are illustrated in Fig. 5 and summarized in
Table 5.
The LCOE ranges from 17 euro cents per kWh, for a south-facing
fixed PV system, facilitated by lithium-ion batteries, to approxi-
mately 24 cents per kWh, for an east & west oriented fixed PV
system, facilitated by lead-acid batteries. In Ref. [73] researchers
assessed the impact of varying roof-integrated PV orientation. The
systems with east & west oriented PV layouts, namely systems 3
and 6, constitute similar configuration techniques which can
reduce the likelihood of grid congestion at midday for grid-
connected PV, and marginally prolong battery life due to less bat-
tery usage. But as expected, they exhibited greater LCOE, 21 to 24
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Table 4
Capital (component), replacement and O&M cost of PV-BAT systems.

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6

Components Tracker PV & South oriented fixed East-West oriented fixed Tracker PV & South oriented fixed PV East-West oriented fixed
LiFePO PV & LiFePO PV & LiFePO Lead-Acid & Lead-Acid PV & Lead-Acid

PV modules 2616 V 2616 V 2616 V 2616 V 2616 V 2616 V

PV array mounting 5240 V 1200 V 1200 V 5240 V 1200 V 1200 V
Inverter/Charger 887 V 887 V 887 V 887 V 887 V 887 V
Charge Controller 901 V 901 V 901 V 901 V 901 V 901 V
Monitoring System 406 V 406 V 406 V 406 V 406 V 406 V
Battery Management System 90 V 90 V 90 V 0V 0V 0V
EES 5564 V 5564 V 5564 V 2988 V 2988 V 2988 V
Electrical and installation 450 V 450 V 450 V 450 V 450 V 450 V
materials
Solar roof installation & Indoor 2150 V 800 V 800 V 2150 V 800 V 800 V
electrical installation
Shipping Cost 1100 V 100 V 100 V 1100 V 100 V 100 V
Capital Cost 19,403 V 13,013 V 13,013 V 16,737 V 10,347 V 10,347 V
Replacement Cost Battery: 5654 V (every 9 years) Power Electronics: 2193 V Battery: 2988 V (every 3 years) Power Electronics: 2193 V (every
(every 10 years) 10 years)
O & M Cost 1st year: 100 V 24 years: 270 V/year

Fig. 5. Cost of energy for Systems 1e6, obtained by dividing the energy cost by the discounted energy output (NPV method).

Table 5
The calculated levelized cost of electricity for every system based on the NPV method.

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6

Energy Output, (kWh) 180,510 153,097 134,347 180,510 153,097 134,347

Energy Cost (NPV), (V) 32,759 26,369 26,369 38,030 31,640 31,640
LCOE, (V/kWh) 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.24

cents per kWh. Systems 1 and 4, had the highest energy output
because of the implementation of solar trackers. However, due to
the increased capital cost and elevated operation and maintenance
costs, these configurations only presented the second-lowest LCOE.
With the 2nd system exhibiting the lowest LCOE, it becomes clear
that lithium-ion batteries are performing better than lead-acid
batteries, mainly because lead-acid batteries have a far shorter
life expectancy than their lithium-ion counterpart. Despite their
higher capital costs, lithium-ion batteries are therefore the most
profitable EES option.
32
4.2.2. The LCOE based on the annuity method
Using Equations (8)e(10) the unit cost of each kWh has been
estimated as detailed in the Annex, the summary is presented in
Table 6 and illustrated in Fig. 6. However, since this estimation was
based on economic and site-specific assumptions, we follow up
with a sensitivity analysis.
4.3. Sensitivity analysis
In the present study, we performed an extended sensitivity
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al.
Table 6
The calculated unit cost of electricity for every system based on the annuity method.
System 1 System 2
Energy Output (kWh) 11,110 9423
TAEC (V) 2159 1640
LCOE (V/kWh) 0.19 0.17
Fig. 6. Cost of energy for Systems 1e6, obtained by dividing the TAEC by the average energy output (annuity method).
analysis in order to investigate the suitability of each system setup
and to embody uncertainty into our model. To perform the analysis,
the Monte Carlo simulation is used while the distributions
described in Section 3.2 are used as input to describe the uncertain
GHI hourly sequence, temperatures and wind speeds, which are the
main factors which generate risk that affects the total energy
output. This uncertainty is transferred to the LCOE for each PV-BAT
system. The Monte Carlo Simulation is a mathematical technique
that is widely used for performing sensitivity analysis and, gener-
ally, uncertainty management. This technique consists of building a
model that represents the problem under study. Then, a statistical
distribution for each uncertain factor is considered, and numerous
recalculations of the different scenarios are realized. Note that,
different scenarios include calculations with different random
values belonging to the considered probability functions for each
risky factor of the model. Monte Carlo simulation results are dis-
tributions of possible outcome values for every output of the
problem under study. The descriptive statistics of the output
probability distributions are very useful when drawing conclusions
and can be used as an effective tool for making predictions and
supporting decision making. A pictorial presentation of the pro-
posed approach is illustrated in Fig. 7.
Initially, the measured values for GHI hourly sequence, tem-
peratures and wind speeds are used to construct data distributions.
Next, these distributions are used as input in the Monte Carlo
simulation process which outputs descriptive statistics tables and
histograms. Fig. 8aei illustrate the energy output and energy cost
under uncertainty. The descriptive summary statistics of Fig. 8aec
output histograms are included in Table 7. More specifically, after
running 5000 simulation iterations, it is found that the maximum
mean energy production value is 11110.4 kWh/yr for the “Single-
Axis Solar Tracking Systems”, next to 9423.1 kWh/yr for the “South-
33
Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41
System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6
8269 11,110 9423 8269
1640 2475 1956 1956
0.20 0.21 0.21 0.24
Facing Fixed Tilt Solar Systems”, and finally 8269.0 kWh/yr for the
“East-West-Facing Fixed Tilt Solar Systems”.
Also, it is clear that the “Single-Axis Solar Tracking Systems” lead
to better performance since the minimum production value
observed is greater than the maximum of both the other two PV
systems with fixed-tilt mounting installations. In that manner, the
“South-Facing Fixed Tilt Solar Systems” apparently outperform
their counterpart fixed systems. The different PV module topology
of Systems 3 and 6 has only a minor impact on energy winnings,
since the minimum energy production values of Systems 2 and 5,
are just 120.7 kWh lower than the maximum observed values from
the “East-West-Facing Fixed Tilt Solar Systems”. Based on the per-
formed simulations (5000 interactions for each system), there is a
probability of 90% for the energy outputs of Systems 1 and 4 to be in
the range of 10726.5 and 11485.8 kWh/yr utilizing the single-axis
solar tracker, and between 9109.4 and 9735.5 kWh/yr for Systems
2 and 5 with south-facing fixed tilt installations. The energy win-
nings from the “East-West-Facing Fixed Tilt Solar Systems” range
from 8024.4 to 8505.8 kWh/yr with a 90% probability.
Besides the energy unit cost histograms of Fig. 8dei, descriptive
statistics are included in Table 8. For all systems 5000 interactions
were run. System 2 found to be the set up with the smaller mean cost
among the six systems of the present analysis. It clearly performed
better than Systems 3, 4, 5, and 6 since its maximum value is lower
than the minimum value of those systems. Also, System 2 in contrast
to System 1, exhibits a smaller mean, and lower minimum,
maximum and percentile values, despite lower energy winnings.
5. Discussion
A comparative presentation was performed between different
systems that combine PV units for electricity generation, solar
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Fig. 7. Flowchart of the proposed approach.

Fig. 8. LCOE for the different PV-BAT systems considered.

34
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Table 7
Descriptive statistics for energy output.

Fixed-SOUTH (kWh/year) Single Axis (kWh/year) Fixed-East-West (kWh/year)

Iterations 5000 5000 5000

Mean 9423.1 11110.4 8269.0
Standard deviation 191.7 236.6 147.2
Minimum 8631.1 10284.9 7734.7
25% Percentile 9296.6 10952.2 8172.8
50% Percentile 9425.8 11110.0 8271.1
75% Percentile 9554.5 11273.1 8372.1
Maximum 10130.6 11870.9 8751.8

Table 8
Descriptive statistics for the systems’ energy costs in V/kWh.

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6

Mean 0.185 0.174 0.198 0.214 0.208 0.237

Maximum 0.200 0.190 0.212 0.231 0.227 0.253
75% Percentile 0.188 0.176 0.201 0.217 0.210 0.239
50% Percentile 0.185 0.174 0.198 0.214 0.208 0.236
25% Percentile 0.183 0.172 0.196 0.211 0.205 0.234
Minimum 0.173 0.162 0.187 0.200 0.193 0.223

trackers for augmenting energy winnings, and electrochemical
batteries for the transient storing of electricity. The results showed
that, with the proviso of optimal system sizing and energy man-
agement, the LCOE in different configurations varies with respect to
system component selection and circularity principles. A con-
trasting view of details regarding the deterministic and stochastic
methodologies for the LCOE calculation from recent literature are
listed in Table 9.
5.1. On the variation of the energy unit cost as a result of system
component selection
This study demonstrated that, the LCOE of the typical PV-BAT
system is already lower than that of the Frauenhofer study from
2018 [66] and significantly lower than the study of Kosmadakis
et al. [50], indicating a fairly downward trend in prices. There are
two main reasons for that; on the one hand, improved photovoltaic
module efficiency due to technology advances, and on the other
hand lower battery costs as well as significantly lower photovoltaic
module costs.
More specifically, in this study the PV module used was a rela-
tively new and efficient monocrystalline module of higher nominal
power. This module has a nominal peak power output of 190.65
Wp/m2, with a module efficiency of 19.05% in standard test con-
ditions (STC). Whereas for instance, the PV module used in the
study of Kosmadakis et al. [50] was an older multicristalline module
with a nominal peak power output of 159.35 Wp/m2 and a module
efficiency of 16.1% in STC. This leads to an increased annual power
output of the former under similar meteorological conditions,
thereby decreasing further the LCOE. In this study, the PV retail
price was 0.35 V/kWp. This is in contrast to the PV wholesale prices
in Germany [66], which ranged from 0.44 to 0.34 V/kWp (for 2018)
and to the study [50] where the retail price in 2016 was 0.75
V/kWp. Moreover, prices for electrochemical accumulators also
dropped. For instance, the retail price for stationary lead-acid
batteries dropped by approximately 10%, from 0.18 V/Wh to 0.16
V/Wh since 2016, subsequently leading to a decreased TAEC which
is the nominator in the LCOE ratio.
This study also revealed that in stationary RES applications,
lithium-ion batteries are more cost-effective than lead-acid batte-
ries, although this does not take into account end of life manage-
ment. To objectively evaluate batteries of different technology, one
needs to compare the cost of batteries according to the amount of
35
useful energy they can store. Lithium-ion batteries can support a
much higher Depth of Discharge (DoD), therefore less energy ca-
pacity is needed compared to lead-acid batteries. Moreover, the
lifetime of the lithium-ion battery is almost three times greater
than lead-acid, thus overall it performs better in spite of its higher
initial capital cost. Although solar trackers are a well-established
option for enhancing the photovoltaic output, they are not always
the most cost-effective solution. In addition to greater capital costs
they require more care than fixed systems, hence have higher
operating and maintenance costs as well as considerable shipping
costs. Nevertheless, if there is regular maintenance and mainte-
nance costs are kept reasonable, solar trackers can be a profitable
solution. Especially in cases where there is no ideal orientation for
fixed installations, a solar tracker may be preferred. This is high-
lighted in System 1 of this study, where solar trackers achieve the
second-best LCOE when combined with lithium-ion batteries.
5.2. On the impacts of circularity to the levelized cost of electricity
generated by PV-Battery systems
Transitioning to a circular economy requires improvement in
environmental and economic performance of renewable energy
systems [74], within the context of sustainable energy and climate
change mitigation [75]. The comprehensive adaptation of distrib-
uted PV-BAT systems to beneficial circular-economy strategies can
further stimulate energy security and reduce GHG emissions [11].
However, the end of life management should also be considered
and applied under the circular economy principles [38,76].
Accepted circularity principles addressed in this work include (i)
recycling and reuse of materials, (ii) carbon emission reduction, (iii)
retrofitting and refurbishment practices, (iv) energy efficiency, and
(v) lifetime extension of systems components [11,77].
Sica et al. [10] specified a high recycling rate of PV modules and
indicated considerable environmental benefits, like carbon emis-
sions reduction, associated with recycling of PV modules. In
particular, crystalline silicon PV module recycling is a vital element
to consider. It is expected that by 2030 the cumulative mass of PV
modules that reach the end of life, will amount to 8 million tons,
and that by 2050 it will exceed 10% of the total annual electronic
waste globally. The main components recycled currently from sil-
icon PV modules are glass, aluminum, and polymers, constituting
approximately 75%, 8% and 10% of the module weight, respectively.
Primarily in Europe, new business models are being investigated,
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Table 9
Comparison of energy unit cost assessments found in recent literature.

Article Title Stochastic Assumptions Applied Levelized cost Photovoltaic Techno-economic Risk-aware Performance Energy Unit
Modelling of and the levelized cost of of electricity electricity analysis of a solar optimal analysis Cost
the Levelized levelized cost electricity for for solar production in photovoltaic & planning for a based on Assessment of
Cost of of energy for energy photovoltaic, Brazil: A stochastic thermal (PV/T) hybrid wind- probabilistic Six
Electricity for photovoltaics technologies in battery and economic viability concentrator for solar farm [46] modelling of Photovoltaic-
Solar PV [39] [40] a small island cogen hybrid analysis for small building application Quaid-e- Battery
developing systems [42] systems in the face in Sweden using Azam Solar Configurations
state: A case of net metering and Monte Carlo method Park (QASP) [This study]
study in tax incentives [44] [45] Pakistan [47]
Mauritius [41]

Energy PV PV PV, Onshore PV & CHP PV PV & Solar Thermal PV & Wind PV PV
Generation WT, Offshore
Technology WT, Wave
Energy,
Municipal
Waste, Biofuels
EES No No No Lead-Acid No No No No Lead-Acid &
Batteries Lithium-Ion
Installed 100 kW & 20 MW 5e15 MW & 1 8.133 kW & 1 Very Small Very Small 4.1 MW & 100 MW Very Small
Capacity 3 kW e3.5 kW kWe 2 MW
Energy Capacity SAM Model Capacity Factor Capacity Monthly Mean 365 x Irradiance x Translucence Irradiance x Translucence x
Generation Factor Model Model Factor Model Irradiance x Module Area x x S(Hourly Module Area S(Hourly
Estimation (Capacity (Capacity (Capacity Insolation Time x (Electrical Direct & x Module Direct, Diffuse,
Method Factor x Factor x Factor x Module Area x Efficiency þ Thermal Diffuse Efficiency x and Reflected
PVCapacity x PVCapacity x PVCapacity x Module Efficiency x Efficiency) Irradiance Module Irradiance
8760 h) 8760 h) 8760 h) Module Quantity x Incident) x Quantity x Incident) x
Performance Module Area x 8760 h Module Area x
Efficiency Module Module
Efficiency x Efficiency x
Module Module
Quantity x Quantity x
8760 h 8760 h
Input Data Probability Normal Capacity Factor Capacity Monthly Mean Daily Mean Probability Probability Probability
distribution Probability Estimations Factor Irradiance, Irradiance, Distribution of Distribution Distributions of
of Capacity Distributions of derived from Estimations Insolation Time Sky of Irradiance Irradiance,
Factor Irradiance, and interpolation of Translucence generated Temperature
derived form power power Rate with Beta and Wind
goodness-of- conversion Measurements generated Probability Speed, derived
fit test of efficiency, and from site- Density from onsite
capacity Gamma knowledgeable specific Function measurements
factor Probability experts. Probability
samples. distribution of Density
degradation Function
rate PV
Type of Stochastic Stochastic Deterministic Deterministic Stochastic Stochastic Stochastic Stochastic Stochastic
Method
Financial Probability Real Discount Capex ranges Capex, Capex, Equipment O&M Cost, PV/T Capex Energy, Mean values of
Input Data distributions Rate, O&M for large and for Interest Rate, useful life, O&M Capex, Debt to Equity Capex, O&M Capex and O&M
(Solar of O&M Cost, Cost, small PV, Discount Rate, Cost, Degradation Ratio, Interest rate, Cost, Cost derived
Systems) Capex, derived from CHP fuel cost, Rate, tax on Discount rate, and Insurance, from cost
System cost inquiries derived from circulation of goods inflation rate. Return on inquiries and
Degradation and estimations cost inquiries and services Equity, Debt literature
Rate, of and literature. Servicing,
Corporate knowledgeable Total Tariff
Tax derived experts
from cost
inquiries and
literature.
Sensitivity Monte Carlo Monte Carlo Local sensitivity Local Monte Carlo Monte Carlo method Monte Carlo Monte Carlo Monte Carlo
Analysis method for method for analysis, sensitivity method for for simulating method for method for method for
simulating simulating against to the analysis, simulating uncertain average simulating simulating simulating
uncertain uncertain Capacity Factor, against to the uncertain average daily solar irradiance, uncertain uncertain uncertain
Capacity irradiance and Discount Rate, Capex, monthly irradiance, electrical & thermal wind, sky and Energy irradiance,
Factor, financial O&M Costs, Efficiency of insolation time, efficiency, O&M Cost, dust generation temperature
Discount parameters. CAPEX, CHP, Capacity Capex, Equipment PV/T Capex, debt to conditions and wind speed
Rate, System Factor, useful life, O&M equity ratio, interest
O&M Costs, Degradation Interest Rate, Cost, Degradation rate, discount rate,
CAPEX, Rate, Discount Rate, Rate, tax on and inflation rate
System Corporate Tax CHP fuel cost circulation of goods
Degradation and services
Rate,
Corporate
Tax
LCOE 0.12e0.17 0.069e0.097 0.102e0.161 0.22e0.32 Not Specified 0.127 V/kWh Not Specified 0.0795 0.17 to 0.24
$/kWh $/kWh $/kWh $/kWh $/kWh V/kWh

36
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Table 9 (continued )

Article Title Stochastic Assumptions Applied Levelized cost Photovoltaic Techno-economic Risk-aware Performance Energy Unit
Modelling of and the levelized cost of of electricity electricity analysis of a solar optimal analysis Cost
the Levelized levelized cost electricity for for solar production in photovoltaic & planning for a based on Assessment of
Cost of of energy for energy photovoltaic, Brazil: A stochastic thermal (PV/T) hybrid wind- probabilistic Six
Electricity for photovoltaics technologies in battery and economic viability concentrator for solar farm [46] modelling of Photovoltaic-
Solar PV [39] [40] a small island cogen hybrid analysis for small building application Quaid-e- Battery
developing systems [42] systems in the face in Sweden using Azam Solar Configurations
state: A case of net metering and Monte Carlo method Park (QASP) [This study]
study in tax incentives [44] [45] Pakistan [47]
Mauritius [41]

Circular Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Not Specified Carbon
Economy emissions
Principles reduction, and
addressed lifetime
extension of
systems
components, by
using batteries

focusing on PV circularity, subsequently intensifying the research
effort in silicon purification for high-grade silicon reuse [78].
Batteries play a role of increasing importance as EES systems.
Production of batteries requires cost- and GHG intensive efforts
with battery cycle life being a key aspect. Two main battery tech-
nologies stand out as stationary storage mediums, namely lead-
acid and lithium-ion, with the latter currently having the greater
global share. The recyclability of lead-acid batteries is nearly 90%,
according to the US EPA Office of Solid Waste. The main materials
recovered are lead and plastic, with the recovery rate of lead being
99.8% via leaching, carbonization, and thermal decomposition
processes [79]. In contrast to lead-acid batteries, material recovery
from lithium-ion batteries is more complicated, requiring pre-
treatment processes, hydrometallurgical recycling, and direct
regeneration of the cathode materials [80]. Nevertheless, the esti-
mated life cycle costs in PV self-consumption applications, for lead-
acid and lithium-ion batteries are 86 and 46 Vct/kWh, respectively.
The estimated carbon footprints for lead-acid and lithium-ion
batteries in PV self-consumption applications are 0.24 and 0.15
kgCO2/kWh, respectively [81].
The amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere
during electricity generation is calculated by multiplying the
kilowatt-hours generated with the Greek conversion factor of
electricity (0.973 kgCO2/kWh) [82], in kilos of produced Carbon
Dioxide (CO2). Table 10 shows the retained carbon emissions of
systems considered in this study.
The dematerialization concept can curtail consumption by
increasing material efficiency and recycling of products [8]. It is
well-known that PV panels maintain significant power output over
an increased lifespan, which in many cases exceeds 30 years [78].
By extending the operating time of renewable power systems, the
present value replacement cost of its various structural subsystems
is reduced, contributing consequently to a lower LCOE. For the
system of balance components and in particular, for inverters,
manufacturer warranties range from 5 to 15 years, with various
studies indicating an inverter lifetime of up to 20 years when power
and temperature cycling conditions are met [83e85]. The inverter
lifetime depends on careful system sizing and compliance with the
conditions of operation since the disproportionately reduced
power processing of the inverter leads to a reduced lifecycle.
The utilization of EES in RES increases system efficiency, that is
batteries make PV systems more efficient since renewable energy is
retained in the system and not rejected. The authors of this article
estimate that the usage of EES in form of electrochemical batteries
in a PV system enables the inverter to operate at more efficient
power levels which maximises the lifetime of the battery and thus
it only requires replacing every 25 years. Such exemplifications
favor circularity and contribute to an improved environmental
footprint, by extending the power generation time while keeping
the investment in energy and material for the individual compo-
nents of the power system unchanged. An additional aftereffect is
the further reduction of the LCOE by about 10%, since power elec-
tronic converters constitute a critical percentage of total capital
cost, as can be seen in Fig. 9.
6. Conclusions
In this work, we presented methods and configurations to
reduce the unit cost of energy produced by PV-BAT systems. This
practically signifies the maximization of the energy harvest
alongside the minimization of the overall economic cost in line
with the circular economy principles. Emphasis was given to
monocrystalline photovoltaics, DC-coupled with lithium-ion and
lead-acid batteries. Ceteris paribus, the energy generation of six
different PV-Battery scenarios were simulated, considering site-
specific meteorological conditions. Further consideration of vary-
ing technical aspects of the different technologies investigated, led
to the determination of capital costs, the replacement costs, and the
operation and maintenance costs. Based initially on the NPV
method and additionally, on the TAEC method, the cost of energy
for each PV-Battery system was calculated and compared. In order
to extend the model to uncertain circumstances, we performed a
sensitivity analysis and examined the suitability of each system
setup. Real values regarding GHI sequences together with wind
speed and temperature variations were measured from the area
under study and considered as the main risk factors that have an
impact on the total energy output. Distributions extracted from
these real values were used as inputs in the Monte-Carlo simulation

Table 10
Retained carbon emissions of each PV-BAT system, in tons of CO2 per year.

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6

Retained Carbon Emissions (Tn/year) 10.810 9.169 8.046 10.810 9.169 8.046

37
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

include the mapping of energy production cost with geographical

information systems.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing

financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix

In Tables A1 and A2 the assessment of energy cost and output,

Fig. 9. Component proportion of PV-BAT systems investigated in this work.
process which validated a better price-performance ratio for a fixed
south-facing PV system backed by lithium-ion batteries, despite its
initially higher capital cost. The cost per kilowatt-hour for all the
examined scenarios in our case study ranged from 0.17 to 0.24
V/kWh indicating a significant downward trend in prices.
Furthermore, this work examined cases where excess solar en-
ergy was not wasted. In such instances, all the photovoltaic output
can be absorbed by the load or stored in a battery. This is possible
on interconnected systems since the grid can also act as a large
scale EES. Nevertheless, time periods in which excess solar energy
gets discarded are inevitable in non-interconnected autonomous
systems. In these applications, it would be necessary to use some
form of backup. In future work, it would be worth studying the
LCOE variation by addressing the uncertainties of useful solar en-
ergy and backup energy. Also by applying the methodology
employed in this work a recommendation for future work will
over 25 years, is presented based on the methodology described in
section 2.4.1. In Table A3 the details of the energy unit cost are
presented based on the methodology described in 2.4.2. More
specifically, in the former assessment of energy cost which is the
numerator of Eq. (8) is calculated in table A1 while the assessment
of energy output as the denominator of Eq. (8) is calculated in table
A2 for the six systems under study. The parameters appeared in this
equation received the following values:
Io The capital cost shown in Table 3 which was calculated for
t¼0
At The replacement and O&M cost shown in Table 3, calculated
from t ¼ 1 up to 25
i The interest rate equal to 4%
n 25 years as the economic lifetime
Mt, el Produced amount of electricity calculated according to the
method described in section 2.3

Table A1
Assessment of energy cost for 25 years.

Net Present Cost (NPC), V

Year System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6

0 19503.25 13113.25 13113.25 16837.15 10447.15 10447.15

1 259.61 259.61 259.61 259.61 259.61 259.61
2 249.63 249.63 249.63 249.63 249.63 249.63
3 240.02 240.029 240.02 2896.26 2896.26 2896.26
4 230.79 230.79 230.79 230.79 230.79 230.79
5 221.92 221.92 221.92 221.92 221.92 221.92
6 213.38 213.38 213.38 2574.76 2574.76 2574.76
7 205.17 205.17 205.17 205.17 205.17 205.17
8 197.28 197.28 197.28 197.28 197.28 197.28
9 4162.12 4162.12 4162.12 2288.95 2288.95 2288.95
10 1664.08 1664.08 1664.08 1664.08 1664.08 1664.08
11 175.38 175.38 175.38 175.38 175.38 175.38
12 168.64 168.64 168.64 2034.87 2034.87 2034.87
13 162.15 162.15 162.15 162.15 162.15 162.15
14 155.91 155.91 155.91 155.91 155.91 155.91
15 149.92 149.92 149.92 1808.99 1808.99 1808.99
16 144.15 144.15 144.15 144.15 144.15 144.15
17 138.61 138.61 138.61 138.61 138.61 138.61
18 133.27 133.27 133.27 1608.19 1608.19 1608.19
19 2811.78 2811.78 2811.78 128.15 128.15 128.15
20 1124.19 1124.19 1124.19 1124.19 1124.19 1124.19
21 118.48 118.48 118.48 1429.67 1429.67 1429.67
22 113.92 113.92 113.92 113.92 113.92 113.92
23 109.54 109.54 109.54 109.54 109.54 109.54
24 105.33 105.33 105.33 1270.97 1270.97 1270.97
Total 32758.64 26368.63 26368.63 38030.40 31640.41 31640.40

38
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al. Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41

Table A2
Assessment of energy output over a period of 25 years.

Annual Energy Output, kWh

Year System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6

0 11110.38 9423.14 8269.03 11110.38 9423.14 8269.03

1 10683.05 9060.71 7950.99 10683.05 9060.71 7950.99
2 10272.17 8712.22 7645.18 10272.17 8712.22 7645.18
3 9877.08 8377.13 7351.13 9877.08 8377.13 7351.13
4 9497.19 8054.94 7068.40 9497.19 8054.94 7068.40
5 9131.92 7745.13 6796.53 9131.92 7745.13 6796.53
6 8780.69 7447.24 6535.13 8780.69 7447.24 6535.13
7 8442.97 7160.81 6283.78 8442.97 7160.81 6283.78
8 8118.24 6885.39 6042.09 8118.24 6885.39 6042.09
9 7806.00 6620.57 5809.71 7806.00 6620.57 5809.71
10 7505.77 6365.93 5586.26 7505.77 6365.93 5586.26
11 7217.09 6121.09 5371.40 7217.09 6121.09 5371.40
12 6939.51 5885.66 5164.81 6939.51 5885.66 5164.81
13 6672.60 5659.29 4966.16 6672.60 5659.29 4966.16
14 6415.96 5441.62 4775.15 6415.96 5441.62 4775.15
15 6169.19 5232.33 4591.49 6169.19 5232.33 4591.49
16 5931.92 5031.09 4414.90 5931.92 5031.09 4414.90
17 5703.77 4837.58 4245.09 5703.77 4837.58 4245.09
18 5484.39 4651.52 4081.82 5484.39 4651.52 4081.82
19 5273.45 4472.62 3924.83 5273.45 4472.62 3924.83
20 5070.63 4300.59 3773.87 5070.63 4300.59 3773.87
21 4875.60 4135.1 3628.72 4875.60 4135.19 3628.72
22 4688.08 3976.14 3489.16 4688.08 3976.14 3489.16
23 4507.77 3823.21 3354.96 4507.77 3823.21 3354.96
24 4334.39 3676.16 3225.92 4334.39 3676.16 3225.92
Total kWh 180,509.93 153097.4 134,346.63 180,509.93 153097.4 134,346.63

Table A3
Details of energy unit cost based on the annuity method (TAEC)

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4 System 5 System 6

(Tracker (South oriented (East-West oriented (Tracker PV & (South oriented fixed (East-West oriented
PV fixed PV & LiFePO) fixed PV & LiFePO) Lead-Acid) PV & Lead-Acid) fixed PV & Lead-Acid)
& LiFePO)

Component CRFi Capital Capital Cost i Capital Cost i CRFi Capital Cost i Capital Cost i Capital Cost i
Cost i

PV Modules 0.066 V 171.58 V 171.58 V 171.58 0.066 V 171.58 V 171.58 V 171.58

Power 0.123 V 109.30 V 109.30 V 109.30 0.123 V 109.30 V 109.30 V 109.30
Electronics 0.123 V 111.09 V 111.09 V 111.09 0.123 V 111.09 V 111.09 V 111.09
0.123 V 50.03 V 50.03 V 50.03 0.123 V 50.03 V 50.03 V 50.03
EES 0.134 V 748.32 V 748.32 V 748.32 0.360 V 1076.69 V 1076.69 V 1076.69
0.134 V 12.10 V 12.10 V 12.10 0.360 V - V - V -
Mounting System 0.066 V 343.67 V 78.70 V 78.70 0.066 V 343.67 V 78.70 V 78.70
Materials, 0.066 V 141.01 V 52.47 V 52.47 0.066 V 141.01 V 52.47 V 52.47
Installation, 0.066 V 29.51 V 29.51 V 29.51 0.066 V 29.51 V 29.51 V 29.51
Shipping 0.066 V 72.15 V 6.56 V 6.56 0.066 V 72.15 V 6.56 V 6.56
Sum V V 1369.65 V 1369.65 Sum V 2105.01 V 1685.91 V 1685.91
1788.75
O&M V 370.00 V 270.00 V 270.00 O&M V 370.00 V 270.00 V 270.00
TAEC V V 1639.65 V 1639.65 TAEC V 2475.01 V 1955.91 V 1955.91
2158.75
Annual Mean 11,110.38 9423.14 8269.03 Annual Mean 11,110.38 9423.14 8269.03
Energy kWh/yr Energy kWh/yr
LCOE Eur/kWh V 0.19 V 0.17 V 0.20 Eur/kWh V 0.21 V 0.21 V 0.24

References evidence from a panel of OECD countries, Energy Pol. 38 (1) (2010) 656e660,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.002.
[6] S.Z. Tsani, Energy consumption and economic growth: a causality analysis for
[1] J. Conti, P. Holtberg, J. Diefenderfer, A. LaRose, J.T. Turnure, L. Westfall, In-
Greece, Energy Econ. 32 (3) (2010) 582e590, https://doi.org/10.1016/
ternational Energy Outlook 2016 with Projections to 2040, USDOE Energy
j.eneco.2009.09.007.
Information Administration (EIA), Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
[7] K.S. Ng, L.S. To, A systems thinking approach to stimulating and enhancing
[2] P. Sadorsky, The impact of financial development on energy consumption in
resource efficiency and circularity in households, J. Clean. Prod. (2020)
emerging economies, Energy Pol. 38 (5) (2010) 2528e2535, https://doi.org/
123038, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123038.
10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.048.
[8] J. Gallagher, B. Basu, M. Browne, A. Kenna, S. McCormack, F. Pilla, D. Styles,
[3] Iea, World Energy Outlook 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2019, https://doi.org/
Adapting stand-alone renewable energy technologies for the circular econ-
10.1787/caf32f3b-en.
omy through eco-design and recycling, J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (1) (2019) 133e140,
[4] I. Dincer, Renewable energy and sustainable development: a crucial review,
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12703.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 4 (2) (2000) 157e175, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[9] M. Pagliaro, F. Meneguzzo, Lithium battery reusing and recycling: a circular
S1364-0321(99)00011-8.
economy insight, Heliyon 5 (6) (2019), e01866, https://doi.org/10.1016/
[5] N. Apergis, J.E. Payne, Renewable energy consumption and economic growth:

39
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al.
j.heliyon.2019.e01866.
[10] D. Sica, O. Malandrino, S. Supino, M. Testa, M.C. Lucchetti, Management of
end-of-life photovoltaic panels as a step towards a circular economy, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 2934e2945, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.10.039. June 2017.
[11] J.J. Kleme
s, P.S. Varbanov, T.G. Walmsley, A. Foley, Process integration and
circular economy for renewable and sustainable energy systems, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 116 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109435.
[12] Stefan Weitemeyer, David Kleinhans, Thomas Vogt, Carsten agert, integration
of renewable energy sources in future power systems: the role of storage,
Renew. Energy 75 (2015) 14e20, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2014.09.028. ISSN 0960-1481.
[13] S. Ould Amrouche, D. Rekioua, T. Rekioua, S. Bacha, Overview of energy
storage in renewable energy systems, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 41 (45) (2016)
20914e20927, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.06.243.
[14] H. Zhao, Q. Wu, S. Hu, H. Xu, C.N. Rasmussen, Review of energy storage system
for wind power integration support, Appl. Energy 137 (2015) 545e553,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.103.
[15] W. Waag, S. K€ abitz, D.U. Sauer, Experimental investigation of the lithium-ion
battery impedance characteristic at various conditions and aging states and its
influence on the application, Appl. Energy 102 (2013) 885e897, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.030.
[16] J. Schiffer, D.U. Sauer, H. Bindner, T. Cronin, P. Lundsager, R. Kaiser, Model
prediction for ranking lead-acid batteries according to expected lifetime in
renewable energy systems and autonomous power-supply systems, J. Power
Sources 168 (2007) 66e78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.11.092, 1
SPEC. ISS.
[17] D.U. Sauer, H. Wenzl, Comparison of different approaches for lifetime pre-
diction of electrochemical systems-Using lead-acid batteries as example,
J. Power Sources 176 (2) (2008) 534e546, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2007.08.057.
[18] I. Richardson, M. Thomson, D. Infield, C. Clifford, Domestic electricity use: a
high-resolution energy demand model, Energy Build. 42 (10) (2010)
1878e1887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.023.
n, A method for optimal sizing
[19] J.P. Fossati, A. Galarza, A. Martín-Villate, L. Fonta
energy storage systems for microgrids, Renew. Energy 77 (2015) 539e549,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.039.
[20] P. Bajpai, V. Dash, Hybrid renewable energy systems for power generation in
stand-alone applications: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (5) (2012)
2926e2939, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.009.
[21] S. Dhundhara, Y.P. Verma, A. Williams, Techno-economic analysis of the
lithium-ion and lead-acid battery in microgrid systems, Energy Convers.
Manag. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.09.030.
[22] J.M. Lujano-Rojas, R. Dufo-Lo pez, J.L. Atencio-Guerra, E.M.G. Rodrigues,
~o, Operating conditions of lead-acid batteries in
J.L. Bernal-Agustín, J.P.S. Catala
the optimization of hybrid energy systems and microgrids, Appl. Energy 179
(2016) 590e600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.018.
[23] G. Zubi, R. Dufo-Lo pez, M. Carvalho, G. Pasaoglu, The lithium-ion battery: state
of the art and future perspectives, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 89 (April 2017)
(2018) 292e308, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.002.
[24] A. Pena-Bello, M. Burer, M.K. Patel, D. Parra, Optimizing PV and grid charging
in combined applications to improve the profitability of residential batteries,
Journal of Energy Storage 13 (2017) 58e72, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.est.2017.06.002.
[25] B. Zakeri, S. Syri, Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle
cost analysis, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015) 569e596, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.011.
[26] L. Olatomiwa, S. Mekhilef, M.S. Ismail, M. Moghavvemi, Energy management
strategies in hybrid renewable energy systems: a review, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 62 (2016) 821e835, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.040.
[27] Y. Yang, S. Bremner, C. Menictas, M. Kay, Battery energy storage system size
determination in renewable energy systems: a review, Renew. Sustain. En-
ergy Rev. 91 (2018) 109e125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.047. June
2017.
[28] Ibrahim Dincer, Canan Acar, A review on clean energy solutions for better
sustainability, Int. J. Energy Res. 39 (2015) 585e606, https://doi.org/10.1002/
er.3329, 2015.
[29] Y. Kalinci, A. Hepbasli, I. Dincer, Techno-economic analysis of a stand-alone
hybrid renewable energy system with hydrogen production and storage op-
tions, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 40 (24) (2015) 7652e7664, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.10.147.
[30] Suzan Abdelhady, Performance and cost evaluation of solar dish power plant:
sensitivity analysis of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and net present value
(NPV), Renew. Energy 168 (2021) 332e342, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2020.12.074. ISSN 0960-1481.
[31] O. Schmidt, S. Melchior, A. Hawkes, I. Staffell, Projecting the future levelized
cost of electricity storage technologies, Joule 3 (1) (2019) 81e100, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.12.008.
[32] “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Storage Analysis e Version 5.0”, 2019. https://
www.lazard.com/media/451087/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-
50-vf.pdf (accessed on 7/31/2020).
[33] Dhivya Sampath Kumar, Oktoviano Gandhi, D. Carlos, Rodríguez-Gallegos,
Dipti Srinivasan, Review of power system impacts at high PV penetration Part
II: potential solutions and the way forward, Sol. Energy 210 (2020) 202e221,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.08.047. ISSN 0038-092X.
40
Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41
[34] i) YPЕN/DАPЕЕΚ/15084/382 (FЕΚ В’ 759), ii) YPЕN/DАPЕЕΚ/34495/
1107(FЕΚ В’ 1341). https://helapco.gr/wp-content/uploads/FEK759B_Net-
metering_Storage_Mar2019.pdf (accessed on 7/31/2020).
[35] Energy exchange group DAS monthly report, Available online: http://www.
enexgroup.gr/fileadmin/groups/EDRETH/DAS_Monthly_Reports/202003_
DAS_Monthly_Report_en.pdf, March 2020 (accessed on 7/31/2020).
[36] A. Kyritsis, D. Voglitsis, N. Papanikolaou, S. Tselepis, C. Christodoulou, I. Gonos,
S.A. Kalogirou, Evolution of PV systems in Greece and review of applicable
solutions for higher penetration levels, Renew. Energy 109 (2017) 487e499,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.066.
[37] Stephanie Weckend, Andreas Wade, , Garvin Heath, Irena, Iea-Pvps, End-of-
Life management: solar photovoltaic panels, International Renewable Energy
Agency and International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power System (2016),
978-92-95111-99-8, https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/
Publication/2016/IRENA_IEAPVPS_End-of-Life_Solar_PV_Panels_2016.pdf.
[38] C.C. Farrell, A.I. Osman, R. Doherty, M. Saad, X. Zhang, A. Murphy, J. Harrison,
A.S.M. Vennard, V. Kumaravel, A.H. Al-Muhtaseb, D.W. Rooney, Technical
challenges and opportunities in realising a circular economy for waste
photovoltaic modules, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 128 (2020) 109911,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109911. ISSN 1364-0321.
[39] C.-Y. Lee, J. Ahn, Stochastic modeling of the levelized cost of electricity for
solar PV, Energies 13 (2020) 3017, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13113017.
[40] S.B. Darling, F. You, T. Veselka, A. Velosa, Assumptions and the levelized cost of
energy for photovoltaics, Energy Environ. Sci. 4 (9) (2011) 3133e3139,
https://doi.org/10.1039/c0ee00698j.
[41] Ryan P. Shea, Yatindra Kumar Ramgolam, Applied levelized cost of electricity
for energy technologies in a small island developing state: a case study in
Mauritius, Renew. Energy 132 (2019) 1415e1424, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.renene.2018.09.021. ISSN 0960-1481.
[42] Aishwarya S. Mundada, Kunal K. Shah, J.M. Pearce, Levelized cost of electricity
for solar photovoltaic, battery and cogen hybrid systems, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 57 (2016) 692e703, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.084.
ISSN 1364-0321.
[43] Chun Sing Lai, Malcolm D. McCulloch, Levelized cost of electricity for solar
photovoltaic and electrical energy storage, Appl. Energy 190 (2017) 191e203,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.153. ISSN 0306-2619.
[44] L.C.S. Rocha, G. Aquila, E.D.O. Pamplona, A.P. de Paiva, B.G. Chieregatti,
J.D.S.B. Lima, Photovoltaic electricity production in Brazil: a stochastic eco-
nomic viability analysis for small systems in the face of net metering and tax
incentives, J. Clean. Prod. 168 (2017) 1448e1462, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2017.09.018.
[45] Y. Gu, X. Zhang, J. Are Myhren, M. Han, X. Chen, Y. Yuan, Techno-economic
analysis of a solar photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) concentrator for building
application in Sweden using Monte Carlo method, Energy Convers. Manag.
165 (2018) 8e24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.03.043.
[46] P.-Y. Yin, C.-Y. Cheng, H.-M. Chen, T.-H. Wu, Risk-aware optimal planning for a
hybrid wind-solar farm, Renew. Energy 157 (2020) 290e302, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.003.
[47] A.A. Khosa, T.-U. Rashid, N.-U.-H. Shah, M. Usman, M.S. Khalil, Performance
analysis based on probabilistic modelling of Quaid-e-Azam Solar Park (QASP)
Pakistan, Energy Strateg. Rev. (2020) 29.
[48] I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, D. Eleftheriou, K.P. Tsagarakis, A techno-eco-
nomic analysis of a pv-battery system in Greece, Energies 12 (7) (2019),
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12071357.
[49] K. Bai, A. Yildizbasi, Optimal siting and sizing of battery energy storage system
for distribution loss reduction based on meta-heuristics, J Control Autom
Electr Syst 31 (2020) 1469e1480, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40313-020-00616-
6.
[50] I. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, Towards performance enhancement of hybrid
power supply systems based on renewable energy sources, Energy Procedia
157 (2019) 977e991, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.265, 2018.
[51] R. Aguiar, M. Collares-Pereira, A simple procedure for the generation of se-
quences of daily radiation values using Markov transition matrices, Sol. En-
ergy 40 (1988) 269e279.
[52] R. Aguiar, M. Collares-Pereira, TAG: a time-dependent, autoregressive
Gaussian model for generating synthetic hourly radiation, Sol. Energy 49
(1992) 167e174.
[53] V.A. Graham, K.G.T. Hollands, T.E. Unny, A time series model for Kt with
application to global synthetic weather generation, Sol. Energy 40 (2) (1988)
83e92, https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(88)90075-8.
[54] https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/#MR (accessed on 7/31/2020).
[55] E.L.A. Maxwell, Quasi-Physical Model for Converting Hourly Global to Direct
Normal Insolation (SERI/TR-215-3087), Aug. 1987, pp. 35e46. Available on-
line: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/PDFs/TR-215-3087.pdf (accessed on 21
August 2018).
[56] P.G. Loutzenhiser, H. Manz, C. Felsmann, P.A. Strachan, T. Frank, G.M. Maxwell,
Empirical validation of models to compute solar irradiance on inclined sur-
faces for building energy simulation, Sol. Energy 81 (2007) 254e267.
[57] D.L. King, W.E. Boyson, J.A. Kratochvil, Photovoltaic array performance model.
Sandia report 2004 (SAND2004-3535), Available online: http://www.osti.gov/
servlets/purl/919131-sca5ep/ (accessed on 17 August 2018).
[58] W. De Soto, S.A. Klein, W.A. Beckman, Improvement and validation of a model
for photovoltaic array performance, Sol. Energy 80 (2006) 78e88.
[59] T. Hongmei, F. Mancilla-David, K. Ellis, E. Muljadi, P. Jenkins, A cell-to-module-
to-array detailed model for photovoltaic panels, Sol. Energy 86 (2012)
I.E. Kosmadakis, C. Elmasides, G. Koulinas et al.
2695e2706. Energies 2019, 12, 1357 13 of 14.
[60] J.L. Gray, The Physics of the Solar Cell (Chapter 3), JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.,
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003, pp. 62e112, https://doi.org/10.1002/
9780470974704.ch3, 0-471-49196-9 2003. Available online:.
[61] William F. Holmgren, Clifford W. Hansen, Mark A. Mikofski, Pvlib python: a
python package for modeling solar energy systems, Journal of Open Source
Software 3 (29) (2018) 884, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00884.
[62] J.S. Stein, W.F. Holmgren, J. Forbess, C.W.H. Hansen, PVLIB: open source
photovoltaic performance modeling functions for matlab and Python, in:
Proceedings of the IEEE 44th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference, Portland, OR,
USA, 5e10 June 2017, pp. 3425e3430.
[63] R.W. Andrews, J.S. Stein, C.W.H. Hansen, D. Riley, Introduction to the open
source PV LIB for Python photovoltaic system modelling package, in: Pro-
ceedings of the IEEE 40th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference, Denver, CO, USA,
8e13 June 2014, pp. 170e174.
[64] W.F. Holmgren, D.G. Groenendyk, An open source solar power forecasting tool
using PVLIB-Python, in: Proceedings of the IEEE 43rd Photovoltaic Specialists
Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 5e10 June 2016, pp. 972e975.
[65] J.S. Stein, The photovoltaic performance modeling collaborative (PVPMC), in:
Proceedings of the 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Austin,
TX, USA, 3e8 June 2012, pp. 3048e3052.
[66] Christoph Kost, Shivenes Shammugam, Verena Juelch, Huyen-Tran Nguyen,
Thomas Schlegl, Study: Levelized Cost of Electricity- Renewable Energy
Technologies" Fraunhofer ISE, March 2018.
[67] W. Short, D. Packey, T. Holt, A Manual for the Economic Evaluation of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory - March, 1995. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/5173.pdf
(accessed on 7/31/2020).
[68] C.S. Lai, M.D. McCulloch, Levelized cost of energy for PV and grid scale energy
storage systems, Computing Research Repository (2016). Accessible Online at,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06000 (accessed on 7/31/2020).
[69] K.P. Tsagarakis, Shallow geothermal energy under the microscope: social,
economic, and institutional aspects, Renew. Energy 147 (2019) 2801e2808,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.004.
[70] J. Creedy, H. Passi, Public sector discount rates: a comparison of alternative
approaches, Aust. Econ. Rev. 51 (2018) 139e157.
[71] K.P. Tsagarakis, C. Papadogiannis, Technical and economic evaluation of the
biogas utilization for energy production at Iraklio municipality, Greece, En-
ergy Convers. Manag. 47 (2006) 844e857.
[72] K.P. Tsagarakis, Optimal number of energy generators for biogas utilization in
wastewater treatment facility, Energy Convers. Manag. 48 (2007) 2694e2698.
[73] S.B. Sadineni, F. Atallah, R.F. Boehm, Impact of roof integrated PV orientation
on the residential electricity peak demand, Appl. Energy 92 (2012) 204e210,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.10.026.
[74] Idiano D’Adamo, Pasquale Marcello Falcone, Donald Huisingh,
41
Renewable Energy 173 (2021) 24e41
Piergiuseppe Morone, A circular economy model based on biomethane: what
are the opportunities for the municipality of Rome and beyond? Renew. En-
ergy 163 (2021) 1660e1672, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.10.072.
ISSN 0960-1481.
[75] Federica Cucchiella, Idiano D’Adamo, S.C. Lenny Koh, Environmental and
economic analysis of building integrated photovoltaic systems in Italian re-
gions, J. Clean. Prod. 98 (2015) 241e252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2013.10.043. ISSN 0959-6526.
[76] C. Farrell, A.I. Osman, X. Zhang, et al., Assessment of the energy recovery
potential of waste Photovoltaic (PV) modules, Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 5267, https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41762-5.
[77] J. Gallagher, B. Basu, M. Browne, A. Kenna, S. McCormack, F. Pilla, D. Styles,
Adapting stand-alone renewable energy technologies for the circular econ-
omy through eco-design and recycling, J. Ind. Ecol. 23 (2019) 133e140,
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12703.
[78] G.A. Heath, T.J. Silverman, M. Kempe, et al., Research and development pri-
orities for silicon photovoltaic module recycling to support a circular econ-
omy, Nat Energy 5 (2020) 502e510, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-
0645-2.
[79] Nana Liu, Raja Arumugam Senthil, Xuan Zhang, Junqing Pan, Yanzhi Sun,
Xiaoguang Liu, A green and cost-effective process for recovery of high purity
a-PbO from spent lead-acid batteries, J. Clean. Prod. 267 (2020) 122107,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122107. ISSN 0959-6526.
[80] Yuqing Wang, An Ning, Lei Wen, Lei Wang, Xiaotong Jiang, Feng Hou,
Yuxin Yin, Ji Liang, Recent progress on the recycling technology of Li-ion
batteries, Journal of Energy Chemistry 55 (2021) 391e419, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jechem.2020.05.008. ISSN 2095-4956.
[81] M. Baumann, J.F. Peters, M. Weil, A. Grunwald, CO2 footprint and life-cycle
costs of electrochemical energy storage for stationary grid applications, En-
ergy Technol. 5 (7) (2017) 1071e1083, https://doi.org/10.1002/
ente.201600622.
[82] S.A. Hellenic Gas Transmission System Operator, Carbon Footprint & Sus-
tainability Report 2018, 2018. https://www.desfa.gr/userfiles/brochurepdf/
Carbon_footprint_2018.pdf (accessed on 7/31/2020).
[83] A. Sangwongwanich, Y. Yang, D. Sera, F. Blaabjerg, D. Zhou, On the impacts of
PV array sizing on the inverter reliability and lifetime, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 54
(4) (July-Aug. 2018) 3656e3667, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2018.2825955.
[84] S. Huang, J.S. Jao, K.L. Yen, C.T. Tsai, ‘‘Performance and availability analyses of
PV generation systems in Taiwan, ’World Acad.Sci. Eng. Technol. 54 (6) (2011)
731e735, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1333004.
[85] A. Sangwongwanich, Y. Yang, D. Sera, F. Blaabjerg, Lifetime evaluation of grid-
connected PV inverters considering panel degradation rates and installation
sites, IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 33 (2) (Feb. 2018) 1225e1236, https://
doi.org/10.1109/TPEL.2017.2678169.