Received: 1 July 2019 Revised: 20 August 2019 Accepted: 3 September 2019

DOI: 10.1002/er.4889

TECHNICAL NOTE

A new production cost effectiveness factor for assessing

photovoltaic module cooling techniques

Sakhr M. Sultan | Chih Ping Tso | Efzan M.N. Ervina

Faculty of Engineering and Technology,

Multimedia University (MMU), Jalan
Ayer Keroh Lama, Melaka, 75450,
Malaysia
Correspondence
Sakhr M. Sultan, Faculty of Engineering
and Technology, Multimedia University
(MMU), Jalan Ayer Keroh Lama, 75450
Melaka, Malaysia.
Email: mas2007_eng@yahoo.com
Summary
Numerous cooling techniques are available to reduce photovoltaic module
(PV) temperature and thus improve PV efficiency. Sometimes, the manufactur-
ing cost of some PV cooling techniques is higher as compared with their power
productivity, and thus the cost parameter is needed to be taken into consider-
ation to justify producing certain PV cooling techniques. This paper is intended
to link the manufacturing cost of the PV cooler with its output power by provid-
ing an economic analysis as there is a research gap in previous studies related to
the economic aspect of these products. It proposes a new method by defining
and deriving a new parameter called the PV cooling technique production cost
effectiveness factor whose value is affected by the PV efficiency gained of a PV
with and without a cooler, the manufacturing cost of the PV cooling technique,
and the cost of one watt of PV power. Based on the value of this new factor,
three possible classifications are suggested. They are production/not production
cost effective or neutral. To determine the optimum PV cooler, the minimum
value of the PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness factor is defined.
The applicability conditions and limitations of the proposed method are illus-
trated. It is shown that the PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness
factor and its minimum value are helpful in classifying the PV cooling tech-
niques based on their power productivity and manufacturing cost. This parame-
ter may have a potential to be used by PV cooling technique designers and
manufacturers on making their design decisions.

KEYWORDS
manufacturing cost, photovoltaic efficiency, photovoltaic module, PV cooling technique, PV
cooling technique production cost effectiveness evaluation

Nomenclature: A, area (m2); C0, total initial investment costs (USD); CO&Mtotal, total operation and maintenance costs for the duration of the invest-
ment (USD); CFtotal, total cash flow (not discounted) in USD; Ct, discounted (net) cash inflow for the duration of investment (USD); DPP, discounted
payback period (years); Ed, ionization energy (Joule); Etotal, total PV energy output for the duration of the investment (kWh); F, factor, dimensionless;
FF, fill factor, dimensionless; FiTtotal, total feed-in-tariff for the duration of the investment (USD/kWh); G, solar radiation (W/m2); I, electric current
(A); IRR, internal rate of return (%); K, Boltzmann constant; NPV, net present value (USD); n, number of electrons; nD, density of donor electrons
(cm−3); NL, effective state density (cm−3); P, power (W); PCM, phase change material; PHP, pulsating heat pipe; PI, profit index; PVT, photovoltaic
thermal collector; R, resistance (Ohm); r, discount rate (%); S, sales of photovoltaic modules and inverters; Y, cost of one watt of PV power; Z, cost of
the cooling technique Subscripts; CE, photovoltaic module cooling technique production cost effective; CE, min, minimum photovoltaic module
cooling technique production cost effective; L, load; MPP, maximum power point; oc, open circuit; out, output; outmax, maximum output power; PV,
photovoltaic module; PVCT, photovoltaic module with a cooler; ref, reference; sc, short circuit; Geek letters; η, efficiency.

574 © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/er Int J Energy Res. 2020;44:574–583.
SULTAN ET AL.
1 | INTRODUCTION
Energy can be considered to be the most significant agent
in the capital's generation and economy developments.1
The relationship between the importance of energy and
the economy development has been recognized globally
and verified by the historical data taken. It is shown that
there is a proportional relationship between energy and
economy development. However, environmental prob-
lems due to the conventional energy resources such as
fossil fuels have become a serious problem that needs our
attention.2-5 Renewable energy is considered to be as an
alternative and green source. Among a variety of the
renewable energy sources, photovoltaic technology has
no supply limits and is expected to become the main con-
tributor to the generation of electrical current among all
renewable energy candidates by 2040.6
Photovoltaic module (PV) is used to transform the
energy from the sun to electrical current by means of the
photovoltaic effect which can be defined as a potential
generation when the area in or near the built-in potential
barrier of a semiconductor gets ionized by radiation. It is
considered to be a self-generated current and electromag-
netic field that can transfer power to a load.7,8 There are
several types of photovoltaic solar cells. Mono and poly-
crystalline silicon, cadmium telluride (CdTe), gallium
arse-nide (GaAs), and triple-junction photovoltaic solar
cells composed of indium gallium phosphide (InGaP) are
among the most common materials used for photovoltaic
solar cells.9,10 A PV is used as a power source for many
applications.7 The PV industry production is continu-
ously increasing every year as shown in Figure 1.11
The PV performance is described by its corresponding
I-V characteristics curve, which is the relationship
between the electric current, I, from the PV versus the
potential difference, V, across it, in case of a solar radia-
tion of 1000 W/m2 and at a reference PV temperature of
25
C. An example of I-V characteristic curve is depicted
in Figure 2. There are three points on the I-V characteris-
tic curve. These points are important to define the PV
FIGURE 1 PV industry production. Adapted online11
575
F I G U R E 2 I-V characteristic curve for a PV. Isc is the short-
circuit current, Voc is the open-circuit voltage, and MPP is the
maximum power point. PMPP, VMPP, and IMPP are the power,
voltage, and current at the maximum power point, respectively.
Adapted from Quaschning12
performance: (a) the short-circuit current, Isc, which is
the maximum electric current produced by the PV, and it
occurs when the load resistance, RLoad, is zero, ie, V = 0;
(b) the open-circuit voltage, Voc, which is the maximum
voltage at which the PV can operate, and it occurs when
RLoad is infinite such that I = 0; and (c) the maximum
power point, MPP, which is the point on the I-V charac-
teristic curve at which the maximum possible electrical
power is generated from the PV. The output power from
PV is depicted on the I-V characteristic curve as shown in
Figure 2. It can be clearly seen from the I-V characteristic
curve that the PV cell has a limited output current even if
the load resistance is zero. The PV cell has a limited
number of free electrons, n, which can be calculated from
the following equation12
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
nD N L ð − 2kT ED
Þ,
n= e ð1:1Þ
2
where nD is the density of the donor atoms, i.e, the
dopant, and in case of phosphorus atoms as donors in a
silicon cell, the concentration of the donor nD is about
2×1016 cm-3.12 NL is the effective state density in the
conduction band, ED is the ionization energy necessary
to release electrons from the donor atoms, k is the
Boltzmann's constant, and T is the silicon crystals
temperature.
There are many PV coolers including natural or forced
convection cooling, using water,13-25 air26-28 or nano-
fluids,29 heat pipes,30 or phase change materials
(PCM).31Figure 3 shows an illustration of a PV with and
without a cooler. Generally, the cooling technique with
convection is divided into two types (Figure 3B), a water
or air-based convection cooling. The main components of
a water-based convection cooling are a photovoltaic
panel, a solar collector (to circulate the water using water
pump or air using fan, to cool the PV panel). The
576
convection cooling utilizes the absorber plate to collect
the heat and transferring it to the circulated fluid. There-
fore, the fluid will be heated and excessive heat with-
drawn from the PV, enhancing the PV performance.32,33
Extensive research has been conducted in recent years
(see Table 1), in order to decrease the PV cell tempera-
ture by implementing various cooling techniques, and
thus enhanced PV performance can be achieved. Table 1
shows a list of previous studies on PV cooling techniques.
It describes different systems being used to cool the PV,
the method of study (numerical and/or experimental
work), and the PV efficiency achieved.
1.1 | The existing economic studies on PV
coolers
Few economic models were presented to evaluate the
economic profitability of a PV with and without a cooling
technique34-42 as shown in Table 2. From Table 2, the
equations of the net present value of the PV (NPVPV),
internal rate of return (IRR), discounted payback period,
profit index for a PV (PIPV), and total cash flow are pres-
ented. The NPV is a method for assessing and comparing
financial products or capital projects with cash flows
spread over time, whereas IRR is a measure used in the
capital budgeting to predict the project's profitability.
Another economical parameter is the discounted payback
period which is a capital budgeting process used to evalu-
ate the project's profitability. PI is the ratio of payoff to
potential project investment. Total cash flow is the net
amount of cash flowing in and out of the project.
However, the relation between the gained PV effi-
ciency and the manufacturing cost of the cooling tech-
nique being utilized is not analyzed in previous studies, if
the PV performance alone is desirable, and the thermal
output is not to be considered. For example, in hot areas,
for a PV with a cooler, the PV performance with higher
efficiency is needed more than the thermal efficiency. As
a result, the design decision on the PV cooler becomes
difficult. Table 3 illustrates the problem. Let us say there
SULTAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 3 (A) A PV without a cooler;
(B) A PV with a cooler (convection cooling)
are five PV cooler types (Type A produces 95 W, Type B
produces 102 W, Type C produces 105 W, Type D pro-
duces 120 W, and Type E produces 140 W), and all PV
coolers have the same PV type, for example, the same PV
characteristics such as maximum power, current temper-
ature, operating voltage, open-circuit voltage, maximum
system voltage, short-circuit current, dimensions, module
efficiency, temperature coefficient short-circuit current,
temperature coefficient open-circuit voltage, temperature
coefficient maximum power, and nominal module oper-
ating temperature. For instance, if the cost of one watt of
PV power is, say, 2 United States Dollars (USD) and the
manufacturing cost for each PV cooler type, that is,
20 USD is the manufacturing cost for Type A, 24 USD for
Type B, 25 USD for Type C, 30 USD for Type D, and
35 USD for Type E.
The question is, which PV cooler type is production
cost effective? In other words, which PV cooler can pro-
duce more power as compared with its manufacturing
cost? Because of no available guidance in the literature, a
new approach is proposed by defining and deriving a
new term called the PV cooling technique production
cost effectiveness factor. This factor is mainly created to
establish a relation between the manufacturing cost of
the PV cooler and its power productivity, for the purpose
of classifying the different types of PV cooler. Based on
the value of the new parameter, three possible classifica-
tions are given which are production/not production cost
effective or neutral. This new factor can be utilized as a
reference for designers during product design stage and
manufacturers of the PV coolers to make decisions on the
production of such products.
2 | THE P V EFFICIENCY FOR A PV
W I TH A N D WI T H O U T A PP L Y I N G A
COOLER
The PV efficiency for a PV with a cooler can be
denoted as,31
TABLE 1 Previous studies on PV coolers and ranked based on PV efficiency

Reference PV Cooling Technique PV Efficiency with a

and Year Types PV Cooling System Description Method of Study Cooler, ηPVCT, %
SULTAN ET AL.

13
(2018) Parallel tubes A commercial PVT was tested to study the real Experiment 18.20
performance over a full day span.
14
(2018) Plate heat exchanger A forced circulation with a refrigerant pump was adopted Experiment 16
to cool the PVT.
15
(2016) Ellipse flow design The collector was attached underneath the PV, and water Numerical analysis 13.78
was used as a coolant.
16
(2016) Roll-bond aluminum The performance of series connected water-based PVT in Numerical analysis and experiment 13.5
absorber terms of electrical efficiency was studied.
30
(2018) Heat pipe PV cooler A copper fin with the pulsating heat pipe (PHP) for Numerical analysis 12.8
cooling the PV panel was simulated to compare the
performance of the PHP with a solid metal like copper.
29
(2018) Rectangular tubes in The optimal design of sheet and tube absorber was Numerical analysis and experiment 12.70
series determined using water as a coolant fluid.
17,18
(2017) Direct flow design A novel design of thermal collector was attached to the Numerical analysis and experiment 12.69
PV.
19
(2018) Multiple serpentine flow An aluminum collector was introduced to enhance the PV Numerical analysis and experiment 12.25
design performance.
20,21
(2014) Spiral flow design A new PVT configuration was proposed and was Numerical analysis 12.13
theoretically evaluated.
22
(2019) Parallel plate channels A thermal collector with mathematical model was Numerical analysis 11.9
developed.
23
(2016) Rectangular tubes design The rectangular tube absorber was attached at the back Numerical analysis 11.4
side of a PV.
24
(2017) Serpentine flow design A retrofitted PVT collector assembled and installed Numerical analysis and experiment 10.72
together with a PV.
25
(2015) Water heater A new detailed transient model for water-based PVT was Numerical analysis and experiment 9.8
presented.
31
(2018) PCM PV cooler Experiments were conducted to evaluate the PVT-PCM Experiment 8.16
efficiency.
31
(2018) Copper parallel pipes Experiments were conducted to evaluate the PVT Experiment 6.98
efficiency.
26
(2018) Fin cooling method Aluminum fins were mounted with epoxy conductive glue Experiment 2% increment
on the PV's backside.
577
578 SULTAN ET AL.

TABLE 2 Existing economical methods for a PV with and without a cooling technique

Description Equation References

Net present value of the PV (NPVPV) in USD P
n
Ct
34,35
NPV=-Co + ð1jr Þt
t=1

Internal rate of return (IRR) P

n
Ct
34,35
0=-Co + ð1 + IRRÞt
t=1

Discounted payback period (USD) P

DPP 34,35
Co + Ct = 0
t=1
36
Profit index for a PV (PIPV) PIPV = NPV
Co
37-42
Total cash flow (USD) CFtotal = [(EtotalFiTtotal)+S]−
(Co|Co & Mtotal|Demolition fee )

T A B L E 3 Examples to illustrate different PV cooler types with the cooling technique to the cost of power produced by
different power productivity and manufacturing cost the PV with the cooling method used. In equation form,
Output Power PV Cooler's
The total cost of PV power from a PV without a cooler and the cooling technique
PV from a PV with a Manufacturing FCE = :
The total cost of PV power from a PV with a cooler
Cooler Type Cooler, W Cost, USD
ð3:1Þ
Type A 95 20
Type B 102 24 Equation (3.1) can be denoted as
Type C 105 25
Type D 120 30 YPPV,out + Z
FCE = , ð3:2Þ
Type E 140 35 YPPVCT,out

PPVCT,out where Y is the cost of one watt of PV power and Z is the

ηPVCT = , ð2:1Þ
G × APV cost of the cooling technique.
Equation (3.2) can be simplified and expressed as
where PPVCT,out is the output power of the PV with a
cooling technique, G is the incident solar radiation in PPV,out + YZ
W/m2, and APV is the area of the PV in m2. FCE = : ð3:3Þ
PPVCT,out
The PV efficiency for a PV without a cooler can be
written as,43

PPV,out 3.1 | Significance of the value of FCE

ηPV = , ð2:2Þ
G × APV Based on Equation (3.1), (3.2), or (3.3), FCE has three pos-
sible conditions:
where PPV,out is the output power of the PV without a
cooler.
1. If FCE > 1, it is implying that the PV cooler is not pro-
As example for the PV efficiency of a PV with a cooler.
duction cost effective.
Grubišic-Čabo et al26 obtained 2% PV efficiency improve-
2. If FCE = 1, it is implying that the PV cooler is neutral
ment when applying a fin cooling method to a PV. and it is the threshold value.
3. If FCE < 1, it is implying that the PV cooler is produc-
3 | T H E PR O P O S E D NE W P V tion cost effective.
COOLING TECHNIQUE
PRODUCTION COST The conditions of the FCE are explained in details in the
EFFECTIVENESS F ACTOR, F C E application and discussion part, Section 5.1, that is the
effect of the PV cooling technique production cost effective-
The PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness ness factor and its minimum value on different PV coolers.
factor is defined as the ratio of the cost of PV power pro- Figure 4 summarizes the FCE analysis based on these
duced by a PV without a cooler in addition to the cost of conditions.
SULTAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 4 Analysis on the PV cooling technique production
cost effectiveness factor, FCE
3.2 | The minimum value of the PV
cooling technique production cost
effectiveness factor
Based on the second condition from Section 4.1, the
threshold value of the PV cooling technique production
cost effectiveness factor, FCE, happens when it is equal to
unity. Exceeding this value, the PV cooling technique will
be not production cost effective. Therefore, the minimum
value of PV cooling technique production cost effective-
ness factor FCE,min happens when the output power of a
PV with a cooler is equal to the maximum output power
of a PV under PV's standard testing conditions (solar
radiation of 1000 W/m2, cell temperature of 25
C, and air
mass 1.5 spectra), and the manufacturing cost of the
cooling technique is zero. In equation form,
PPV,out
FCE,min = : ð3:4Þ
PPVCT,outmax
More explanation about FCE,min is given in the appli-
cation and discussion part, Section 5.1.
3.3 | The production cost effective and not
production cost effective areas
The production and not production cost effective areas
are used to classify the value of the PV cooling technique
production cost effectiveness factor. For the production
cost effective area, the value of FCE should be greater
or equals to the FCE,min and less than unity (FCE,
min ≤ FCE < 1). On the other hand, for the not production
cost effective area, the value of FCE should be greater
than unity and lesser than infinity (1<FCE < ∞ ).
3.4 | Applicability conditions and
limitations of the proposed method
To apply the PV cooling technique production cost effec-
tiveness factor and its minimum value, some additional
conditions should be considered as the following:
579
1. The testing conditions such as the amount of solar
radiation, ambient temperature, and air mass when
comparing the PV performance for a PV with and
without a cooler should be the same. For an instance,
1000 W/m2 is the amount of solar radiation, ambient
temperature of 25
C, and air mass of 1.5 spectra are
applied as testing conditions for both PV with and
without a cooling technique.
2. The same PV type should be applied for both PV with
and without a cooler.
On the other hand, there are limitations associated
with the proposed method. These limitations are
1. The fabrication cost of the PV cooler or/and the cost
of one watt of PV power could be different from one
country to another depending on the availability of
the raw materials, making the value of the PV cooling
technique production cost effectiveness factor
different.
2. The production quantity of PV cooler may have an
influence on the value of the PV cooling technique
production cost effectiveness factor.
3. Most of the time, the production quantity of products
can affect their costs. For example, the price of
10 units of PV cooler will be different if the produc-
tion quantity is increased to 100 units. This will have
an effect on the PV cooling technique production cost
effectiveness factor value.
4 | APPLIC ATION A ND
DISCUSSION
4.1 | The effect of the PV cooling
technique production cost effectiveness
factor and its minimum value on different
PV coolers
To illustrate the conditions of FCE and its minimum
value, Table 4 is compiled by recalling the example given
in the introduction section. By assuming the same PV
type used for a PV with and without a cooler, let us say
that there are five PV cooler types (Type A, Type B,
Type C, Type D, and Type E). By assuming that all of the
PV coolers are giving different output power. Type A,
Type B, and Type C produce 95, 102, and 105 W, respec-
tively. While, Type D and Type E produce 120 and
140 W, respectively. Therefore, all the PV coolers are hav-
ing different manufacturing costs (the manufacturing
costs for Type A, Type B, Type C, Type D, and Type E PV
cooler are 20, 24, 25, 30, and 35 USD, respectively), and
the cost of one watt of PV power is 2 USD.
580 SULTAN ET AL.

T A B L E 4 Examples to compare different PV cooling techniques in terms of PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness factor
and its minimum value

PV Cooler PPV, PPV, PPVCT, Cost of One Watt of Cost of PV Cooling Production Cost
Types outmax, W out, W out, W PV Power, USD Technique, USD FCE FCE,min Effectiveness

A 150 90 95 2 20 1.05 0.6 Not production cost effective

B 150 90 102 2 24 1 0.6 Neutral
C 150 90 105 2 25 0.98 0.6 Production cost effective
D 150 90 120 2 30 0.88 0.6 Production cost effective
E 150 90 140 2 35 0.77 0.6 Production cost effective

By using the PV cooling technique production cost
effectiveness factor and applying Equation (3.1), (3.2), or
(3.3), PV cooler Type A, Type B, Type C, Type D, and
Type E are having PV cooling technique production cost
effectiveness factors of 1.05, 1, 0.98, 0.88, and 0.77,
respectively. For Type A, if its manufacturing cost is
converted to PV power, by dividing the manufacturing
cost of the PV cooler by the cost of one watt of PV power,
and is added to PPV,out (the output power from a PV with-
out a cooler), the outcome will be more than that of
the PPVCT,out (the output power from a PV with a cooler),
and as a result, it is not production cost effective and falls
into the not production cost effective area (1<FCE < ∞ ).
While for Type B, it is neutral because the addition of the
PPV,out to its converted manufacturing cost to a PV power
is equivalent to the output power from a PV with Type B
PV cooler. For Type C, Type D, and Type E PV coolers,
they show that if the manufacturing cost is converted to
PV power, and then this power is added to the PPV,out, it
will be lesser than the output power of the PV with
Type C, Type D, or Type E PV cooler and that is why they
are production cost effective and falling into the produc-
tion cost effective area (FCE,min ≤ FCE < 1).
Now the question is, which PV cooler among Type C,
Type D, and Type E can produce more power as com-
pared with its manufacturing cost? To answer this ques-
tion, first the calculation of the minimum value of the PV
cooling technique production cost effectiveness factor is
needed. By applying Equation (3.4), the minimum value
of the PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness
factor, FCE,min, is 0.6. Now, any PV cooler with a PV
cooling technique production cost effectiveness factor
that is nearer to 0.6 implies that the PV cooler is produc-
ing more power as compared with its manufacturing cost.
In other words, it is the best PV cooler type. From
Table 4, it is shown that Type E PV cooler has a PV
cooling technique production cost effectiveness factor of
0.77 which is the nearest value to the minimum value of
the PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness
factor, that is 0.6. Therefore, Type E PV cooler is the best
design to be taken for production. It is noted that the
classification and the decision on the different types of
PV cooling technique can be possible with the help of the
PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness factor
and its minimum value.
4.2 | The effect of the raw materials costs
on the PV cooling technique production
cost effectiveness factor of the PV cooler
The cost of the raw materials plays a vital role in control-
ling the price of the goods worldwide. Depending on the
availability, the cost of the raw materials could be high or
low. In our case, the cost of one watt of PV power and
the manufacturing cost of the PV cooler can have an
influence on the PV cooling technique production cost
effectiveness factor. Sections 5.2.1 and 4.2.2 illustrate the
influence of the cost of one watt of PV power and the
manufacturing cost of the PV cooler on FCE in details.
4.2.1 | The effect of changing the cost of
one watt of PV power on the PV cooling
technique production cost effectiveness
factor
Let us assume the cost to produce one watt of PV power
is reduced from 2 to 1 USD; the decision on the PV
cooling production cost effectiveness of Table 4 will be
changed according to the new value of the PV cooling
technique production cost effectiveness factor. Table 5 is
compiled to have the same entries as Table 4 such as PV
cooler types, PPV,outmax, PPV,out, PPVCT,out, and the cost of
PV cooling technique except that the cost of one watt of
PV power is changed from 2 to 1 USD. The FCE,min value
will remain unchanged, that is 0.6, because it depends on
the values of PPV,outmax and PPV,out as stated in Equa-
tion (3.4). From Table 5, it is noticed that the PV coolers
Type A, Type B, and Type C are now not production cost
effective and are falling into the not production cost
effective area (1<FCE < ∞ ), because they have FCE
SULTAN ET AL. 581

T A B L E 5 Examples to compare different PV cooling techniques in terms of the PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness
factor, illustrating the effect of changing the cost of one watt of PV power

PV Cooler PPV, PPV, PPVCT, Cost of One Watt of Cost of PV Cooling FCE, Production Cost
Types outmax, W out, W out, W PV Power, USD Technique, USD FCE min Effectiveness

A 150 90 95 1 20 1.16 0.6 Not production cost effective

B 150 90 102 1 24 1.12 0.6 Not production cost effective
C 150 90 105 1 25 1.1 0.6 Not production cost effective
D 150 90 120 1 30 1 0.6 Neutral
E 150 90 140 1 35 0.89 0.6 Production cost effective

values of 1.16, 1.12, and 1.1, respectively. The FCE value
for Type D is unity, and it is neutral. For Type E, it is pro-
duction cost effective and falls into the production cost
effective area (FCE,min ≤ FCE < 1), because its FCE value is
0.89. It is noted that PV cooler Type E is the best
design because it is the only PV cooler that is production
cost effective. It is concluded that the cost of the raw
materials is a very important parameter that can be used
to control the value of FCE and thus to classify the PV
cooler types.
4.2.2 | The effect of changing the
manufacturing cost of the PV cooler on the
PV cooling technique production cost
effectiveness factor
Suppose that the manufacturing costs of the PV coolers
in Table 4 have been reduced while the values of the
other parameters such as PPV,outmax, PPV,out, and PPVCT,out
and the cost of one watt of PV power remain the same as
shown in Table 6. The new manufacturing costs are
10, 15, and 20 USD for PV coolers Type A, Type B, and
Type C, respectively, while they are 25 and 30 USD for
Type D and Type E, respectively. Now, FCE is unity for
PV cooler Type A, and it is neutral. On the other hand,
the other PV coolers (Type B, Type C, Type D, and Type
E) are production cost effective and are falling into the
production cost effective area (FCE,min ≤ FCE < 1),
because their FCE values are less than unity. FCE values
are 0.96, 0.95, 0.85, and 0.75 for Type B, Type C, Type D,
and Type E, respectively. It is noticed that the PV cooler
Type E is the best type as compared with others, because
its FCE value is closer to FCE,min value, that is 0.6. From
Table 6, it is shown that when the manufacturing cost of
the PV cooler is reduced, the values of FCE are getting
closer to FCE,min value. As a consequence, some PV
coolers tend to be neutral (Type A) or production cost
effective (Type B) as compared with their previous classi-
fication, stated in Table 4. It can be concluded that the
manufacturing cost is one of the essential parameters
that have a direct influence on the value of FCE.
4.3 | The effect of changing the output
power value of a PV without a cooler on
the PV cooling technique production cost
effectiveness factor and its minimum value
Now, if the value of PPV,out, in Table 4, is reduced from
90 to 80 W as shown in Table 7, whereas the values of the
PPV,outmax, PPVCT,out, and the cost of one watt of PV power
are unchanged. The values of FCE and FCE,min will be
changed accordingly. FCE values, based on Equation (3.1),

T A B L E 6 Examples to compare different PV cooling techniques in terms of PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness factor
when their manufacturing costs are changed

PV Cooler PPV, PPV, PPVCT, Cost of One Watt of Cost of PV Cooling FCE, Production Cost
Types outmax, W out, W out,
W PV Power, USD Technique, USD FCE min Effectiveness
A 150 90 95 2 10 1 0.6 Neutral
B 150 90 102 2 15 0.96 0.6 Production cost effective
C 150 90 105 2 20 0.95 0.6 Production cost effective
D 150 90 120 2 25 0.85 0.6 Production cost effective
E 150 90 140 2 30 0.75 0.6 Production cost effective
582
T A B L E 7 Examples to compare different PV cooling techniques in terms of PV cooling technique production cost effectiveness factor
when the value of PPV,out is changed
PV Cooler PPV, PPV, PPVCT, Cost of One Watt of
Types outmax, W out, W out, W PV Power, USD
A 150 80 95 2 20
B 150 80 102 2 24
C 150 80 105 2 25
D 150 80 120 2 30
E 150 80 140 2 35
(3.2), or (3.3), are 0.95, 0.90, 0.88, 0.79, and 0.70 for PV
coolers Type A, Type B, Type C, Type D, and Type E,
respectively. Now, all the PV cooler types are falling into
the production cost effective area (FCE,min ≤ FCE < 1) and
are production cost effective. By applying Equation (3.4),
the new value of FCE,min is 0.53. It is noticed that the clas-
sification status of PV coolers Type A and Type B are
changed from not production cost effective and neutral,
respectively, as shown in Table 4, to production cost
effective for both (see Table 7). It is noticed that PPV,out is
one of the important parameters that have influence on
the FCE and FCE,min values and thus on the classification
of the PV cooler types.
5 | C ON C L US I ON
Nowadays, research on PV cooling technique is focusing
on improving the power productivity of the PV. On the
other hand, the manufacturing cost of such technique as
compared with their output power has attracted a little
attention in the previous studied. The need of economic
analysis guidance becomes mandatory to justify produc-
ing certain PV coolers based on their manufacturing cost
and power productivity. For this purpose, a relation
between the manufacturing cost of the PV cooler and its
power productivity is created by defining and deriving a
new parameter called the PV cooling technique produc-
tion cost effectiveness factor whose value depends on the
power of a PV with and without a cooler, the cost of
the one watt of PV power, and the manufacturing cost of
the PV cooler. To classify the PV coolers, three conditions
are given. The minimum value of PV cooling technique
production cost effectiveness factor is defined for the pur-
pose of determining the best PV cooler type. The applica-
bility conditions and the limitations of the proposed
method are mentioned. This parameter may have a sig-
nificance in the classification and the decision on the PV
cooling technologies during PV cooler design stage
and/or production process.
SULTAN ET AL.
Cost of PV Cooling FCE, Production Cost
Technique, USD FCE min Effectiveness
0.95 0.53 Production cost effective
0.90 0.53 Production cost effective
0.88 0.53 Production cost effective
0.79 0.53 Production cost effective
0.70 0.53 Production cost effective
ORCID
Sakhr M. Sultan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2722-5248
RE FER EN CES
1. OliaH, MohammadaminT, MehdiB, MohammadHA, MarjanG,
MohammadRS. Application of nanofluids in thermal perfor-
mance enhancement of parabolic trough solar collector: state-
of-the-art. Appl Sci. 2019;3:463-472.
2. DehghaniM, Mohammad, Mohammad AN, JamalTA,
AlirezaA, RoghayehG, MohammadHA. Analysis of stakeholder
roles and the challenges of solar energy utilization in Iran. Int.
J. Low Carbon Technol. 2018; 13:438-451.
3. ArameshM, AlibakhshK, FathollahP, MohammadHA. A
detailed investigation of the walls shading effect on the perfor-
mance of solar ponds. Environ Prog Sustain Energy. 2019;38.
4. NizeticS, PapadopoulosAM, GiamaE. Comprehensive analysis
and general economic-environmental evaluation of cooling
techniques for photovoltaic panels, Part I: Passive cooling tech-
niques. Energ Conver Manage. 2017;149:334-354.
5. NizeticS, GiamaE, PapadopoulosAM. Comprehensive analysis
and general economic-environmental evaluation of cooling
techniques for photovoltaic panels, Part II: Active cooling tech-
niques. Energ Conver Manage. 2018;155:301-323.
6. LiQ, WolfsP. A review of the single phase photovoltaic module
integrated converter topologies with three different DC link
configurations. IEEE Trans Power Electron. 2008;23(3):1320-
1333.
7. PaulR. The photovoltaic effect and its utilization. Solar Energy.
1959;3:8-18.
8. BhubaneswariP, IniyanS, RankoG. A review of solar photovol-
taic technologies. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2011;15:1625-1636.
9. KhatibiA, FatemehRA, MohammadHA. Generation and com-
bination of the solar cells: a current model review. Energy Sci-
ence & Engineering. 2019;7(2):305-322.
10. MohammadHA, MahyarG, MiladS, et al. Solar power technol-
ogy for electricity generation: a critical review. Energy Science &
Engineering. 2018;6(5):340-361.
11. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/
documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf.
12. Quaschinig. Understanding renewable energy systems. Ear-
thscan. 2005.
13. FuentesaM, VivarM, CasaJ, AguileraJ. An experimental com-
parison between commercial hybrid PV-T and simple PV
SULTAN ET AL.
systems intended for BIPV. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2018;93:
110-120.
14. RuobingL, QiangguangP, PengW, JiliZ. Experiment research of
solar PV/T cogeneration system on the building façade driven
by a refrigerant pump. Energy. 2018;161:744-752.
15. Al-ShamaniAN, MatS, RuslanMH, AbedAM, SopianK. Effect of
new ellipse design on the performance enhancement of PV/T
collector: CDF approach. International Journal of Environment
and Sustainability. 2016;5:54-60.
16. TiwariGN, FischerO, MishraRK, Al-HelalIM. Performance
evaluation of N-photovoltaic thermal (PVT) water collectors
partially covered by photovoltaic module connected in series:
an experimental study. Sol. Energy. 2016;134:302-313.
17. NaharA, HasanuzzamanM, RahimNA. Numerical and experi-
mental investigation on the performance of a photovoltaic ther-
mal collector with parallel plate flow channel under different
operating conditions in Malaysia. Solar Energy. 2017;144:
517-528.
18. RahmanMM, HasanuzzamanM, RahimNA. Effects of opera-
tional conditions on the energy efficiency of photovoltaic mod-
ules operating in Malaysia. J Clean Prod. 2017;143:912-924.
19. FayazH, NasrinR, RahimNA, HasanuzzamanM. Energy and
exergy analysis of the PVT system: effect of nanofluid flow rate.
Solar Energy. 2018;169:217-230.
20. FadhelMI, SakhrMS, AlkaffSA. Theoretical study of new con-
figuration of PVT system design. Journal of Advanced Material
research. 2013;772:681-687.
21. SakhrMS, FadhelMI, AlkaffSA. Performance analysis of the
photovoltaic/thermal solar collector for different Malaysian cli-
matic condition. Journal of Applied Mechanics and Materials.
2014;467:522-527.
22. NaharA, HasanuzzamanM, RahimNA, ParvinS. Numerical
investigation on the effect of different parameters in enhancing
heat transfer performance of photovoltaic thermal systems.
Renew Energy. 2019;132:284-295.
23. Al-ShamaniAN, MatS, RuslanMH, AbedAM, SopianK. Numeri-
cal study on the characteristics of a specially designed rectan-
gular tube absorber photovoltaic thermal collector (PVT).
WSEAS Trans Environ Dev. 2016;11:23-28.
24. SakellariouE, AxaopoulosP. Simulation and experimental per-
formance analysis of a modified PV panel to a PVT collector.
Solar Energy. 2017;155:715-726.
25. BilbaoJI, SproulAB. Detailed PVT-water model for transient
analysis using RC networks. Sol. Energy. 2015;115:680-693.
26. Grubišic-ČaboF, NižeticS, DujeC, IvoMK, AgisP. Experimental
investigation of the passive cooled free-standing photovoltaic
panel with fixed aluminum fins on the backside surface.
J Clean Prod. 2018;176:119-129.
27. Grubišic-ČaboF, NižeticS, MarinicKI, ČokoD. Further progress
in the research of fin-based passive cooling technique for the
free-standing silicon photovoltaic panels. Int. J. Energy
Res.2019;1-21.
28. KalkanC, EzanMA, DuquetteJ, YilmazBS, YilanciA. Numerical
study on photovoltaic/thermal systems with extended surfaces.
Int. J. Energy Res.2019;1-17.
583
29. AliNA, AlghoulMA, ElbrekiAM, AmmarAA, AzherMA,
SopianK. Mathematical and experimental evaluation of ther-
mal and electrical efficiency of PV/T collector using different
water based nano-fluids. Energy. 2018;145:770-792.
30. HosseinA, RoghayehG, MohammadBS, MohammadHA, Wei-
MonY, MohammadAN. Numerical simulation of PV cooling by
using single turn pulsating heat pipe. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf.2018;127:203-208.
31. XiaojiaoY. Liang lS, Yanping Y, Xudong Z, Xiaoling
C. Experimental investigation on performance comparison of
PV/T-PCM system and PV/T system. Renew Energy. 2018;119:
152-159.
32. SakhrMS, TsoCP, ErvinaEMN. Comments on “Performance eval-
uation of photovoltaic thermal solar air collector for composite cli-
mate of India”. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells. 2019;198:63-64.
33. SakhrMS, ErvinaEMN. Review on recent photovoltaic/thermal
(PV/T) technology advances and applications. Sol. Energy.
2018;173:939-954.
34. BrealeyRA, MyersSC, AllenF, MohantyP. Principles of Corpo-
rate Finance. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2003.
35. BrealeyRA, MyersSC, AllenF. Principles of Corporate Finance. -
New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2008. ISBN:
0073405108.
36. AnnamariaB, FrancescoC, MariaV. Design, simulation and
experimental investigation of a solar system based on PV
panels and PVT collectors. Energies. 2016;489-497.
37. ZsiborácsH, PályiB, PintérG, et al. Technical-economic study of
cooled crystalline solar modules. Sol. Energy. 2016;140:227-235.
38. CoriaG, PenizzottoF, PringlesR. Economic analysis of photo-
voltaic projects: the Argentinian renewable generation policy
for residential sectors. Renew Energy. 2018.
39. PintérG, BaranyaiNH, WilliamsA, ZsiborácsH. Study of photo-
voltaics and LED energy efficiency: case study in Hungary.
Energies. 2018;11(4).
40. PANNON Pro Innovations Ltd. Practical Experiences of PV
Systems. Available online: https://klimainnovacio.hu/en/
pannon-pro-innovations ().
41. JordanDC, KurtzSR. Photovoltaic degradation rates, an analyti-
cal review. Progr. Photovolt.: Res. Appl. 2013;21(1):12-29.
42. AlmaktarM, AbdulRH, HassanMY. Economic analysis using
net present value and payback period: case study of a 9kWp
grid-connected PV system at UTM. Johor Bahru Campus Appl
Mech Mater. 2016;818:119-123.
43. LewisCA, KirkpatrickJP. Solar cell characteristics at high solar
intensities and temperatures. 8th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists
Conf. Record. 1970;123-134.
How to cite this article: Sultan SM, Tso CP,
Ervina EMN. A new production cost effectiveness
factor for assessing photovoltaic module cooling
techniques. Int J Energy Res. 2020;44:574–583.
https://doi.org/10.1002/er.4889