Article 1

Study of the evolution of the Performance Ratio of Photovoltaic 2

plants operating in a utility-scale installation located at a sub- 3

tropical climate zone using mixed-effects linear modeling. 4

C. Montes1,2, *, R. Dorta-Guerra3, B. González-Díaz2, S. González-Pérez4, L. Ocaña1,2, E. Llarena1. 5

1 Instituto Tecnológico y de Energías Renovables, S. A. (ITER) 1; cmontes@iter.es 6

2 Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Escuela Superior de Ingeniería y Tecnología, Universidad de La 7
Laguna (ULL); bgdiaz@ull.edu.es 8
3 Departamento de Matemáticas, Estadística e Investigación Operativa, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de 9
La Laguna (ULL); rodorta@ull.edu.es 10
4 Departamento de Didácticas Específicas. Universidad de La Laguna (ULL) 2; sgonzal@ull.edu.es 11
* Correspondence: cmontes@iter.es; Tel.: +34 922 747 700. 12

Abstract: This paper presents a statistical multimodel that was developed to assess the evolution of 13
the Performance Ratio (PR) of a utility-scale Photovoltaic (PV) installation that operates at sub- 14
tropical climate conditions. The period of study encompassed eight years, the PR was calculated 15
according to the ICE 61724 standard with a monthly resolution and, from this set of data, the PR’s 16
declination rate (ΔPR%), was obtained, resulting in 0.0391%/month. This value, translated to years 17
becomes 0.4692%/year, a value that is in line with the PV module degradation rate that has been 18
reported in studies performed elsewhere (usually in more temperate environments). Besides, tak- 19
ing into account that PV modules from different suppliers were used for the installation and that 20
the facilities occupy a considerable area, a linear mixed-effects model with random intercept and 21
slope was also applied to include several kind of covariates that are related to the nature of the PV 22
modules used as well as to their location within the facilities, to evaluate and quantify their effect. 23
Thus, it was found that, although the type of manufacturer and the cell technology used in the 24
modules were not significant, parameters such as their nominal power and placement within the 25
Citation: Montes C.; Dorta-Guerra
R., González-Díaz B., Gonzá-
facilities were. 26

lez-Pérez S., Ocaña L., Llarena E.,

Study of the evolution of the Per- Keywords: Solar photovoltaic; performance ratio; PV module degradation; mixed-effect linear 27
formance Ratio of Photovoltaic modeling 28
plants operating in a utility-scale 29
installation located at a sub-tropical
climate zone using mixed-effects
linear modeling. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1. Introduction 30
x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
The study of the reliability and long-term durability of photovoltaic (PV) modules 31
Academic Editor: Firstname Last- have a great impact on the energy forecast, the economics of the power plants and the 32
name planning of the operation and maintenance activities of the PV systems [1–3]. 33

Received: date
Different performance analyses have been carried out with different technologies, 34

Accepted: date
plant topology and placements [4–7], where the results indicate the PV modules have 35
Published: date provided electric power for more than 20 years. However, errors determining degrada- 36
tion rates can increase financial risks in the PV sector [8]. 37
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
In outdoor conditions, to determine how long a PV module or system will last, is a 38
neutral with regard to jurisdictional
challenge, because they are influenced by several issues, such as the local climate, tech- 39
claims in published maps and
nology, materials and manufacturing, as much as the installation conditions themselves 40
institutional affiliations.
[9]. 41
After more than 40 years of field testing, in different world locations, degradation 42
rates distribution of the PV power plants have reported around 0.5%/year [8,10-11]. 43
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Therefore, this value has been also adopted to consider long-term crystalline silicon PV 44
Submitted for possible open access
publication under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
(https://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 12

module degradation in financial models [12]. Lately, annual degradation rates have been 45
estimated on PV modules, using modern cell technologies as well as encapsulating tech- 46
niques, which reduced the average degradation rate at 0.4%/year [13], where lower val- 47
ues than 0.27%/year can be achieved for crystalline silicon technologies, operating in 48
utility-scale PV facilities subjected to proper operation and maintenance practices [14]. 49
To perform an analysis of the durability, several parameters are required to evaluate 50
the degradation, such as the I-V curve evolution [13], color change of the PV panels [15] 51
or the temperature coefficient variation [16], among other approaches. However, the 52
analysis of the performance ratio (PR) is one of the most widely used methods [9,17-18], 53
mainly due to its accuracy and non-dependence of external factors. 54
Due to a single set of degradation measurements based on one measurement are not 55
representative of the population to estimate true degradation of a PV installation, re- 56
peated measures across several groups are necessary. The analysis of the operation data 57
and performance through linear mixed effects models, is a suitable tool for analyzing 58
longitudinal data to explain the degradations in PV modules/systems [19]. Evenmore, it 59
is reasonable to assume a linear degradation model although some publications use an 60
exponential degradation model [20] or classical series decomposition [18]; it is shown 61
that for a typical starting degradation rate, these models do not differ significantly during 62
the first 10–15 years [21]. 63
In this paper, the performance of almost 10 years of a 13MW installation located in 64
the South of Tenerife (Canary Island, Spain) has been analyzed. Linear mixed effects 65
model and statistics approaches have been used to evaluate the PR and its degradation 66
rate, considering the effects of technology, manufacturer, and nominal power of photo- 67
voltaic modules, as well as their location in the facility. The concept of degradation rate is 68
used in this work, where robust estimation of the true degradation in a specific envi- 69
ronment is evaluated [22]. 70

2. Materials and Methods 71

2.1. Description of the photovoltaic system 72

The analysis of the PV degradation is performed in SOLTEN, a 20 MW utility-scale 73
PV facility located in the south of Tenerife, Canary Islands, in the municipality of Gran- 74
adilla (see Figure 1), which was installed and operated by the Instituto Tecnológico y de 75
Energías Renovables, S.A. (ITER). Canary Islands are near to the West Coast of Africa, 76
with a subtropical climate, characterized by hot summers and mild winters with infre- 77
quent frost. However, due to the island’s orography, they are also subjected to other 78
climates that affect locally, called microclimates [23]. Thus, according to the Köppen cli- 79
mate classification [24], the climate where the PV power plant is located is similar to hot 80
arid desert, with high levels of solar irradiation but, due to its closeness to the coast, it is 81
also heavily exposed to a salty and humid environment. 82

83
Figure 1. Geographical location of the SOLTEN PV plant. 84
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12

SOLTEN 20 MW PV plant was developed between 2006 and 2008 in two different 85
phases, as shown in Figure 2. The first phase (also known as SOLTEN I) is formed by 130 86
100kW-rated photovoltaic generation units, each one with an area of around 820 m2, with 87
same tilt (10º) and orientation (true North-South), where the solar modules are clamped 88
over a light aluminum structure, totally modular and collapsible. The structure is formed 89
of pillars, girders, and beams, mounted over profiles of galvanized steel, embedded on 90
concrete foundations (see Figure 3). The PV plants were placed in rows, called streets, 91
each one accommodating a different number of plants, depending on their location 92
within the available land (which has a diamond like shape). 93

94
Figure 2. Aerial view of the SOLTEN 20 MW PV installation. As it can be seen in the diagram be- 95
sides the picture, this facility has been developed in two phases: SOLTEN I (13 MW) and SOLTEN 96
II (7MW). Both phases have the same functionality, except for the electricity meters. In this sense, 97
while each 100 kW production unit of SOLTEN I has its own electricity meter, connected to the low 98
voltage grid, there is just one single meter, this time connected to the medium voltage grid, to ac- 99
count for the energy produced for all SOLTEN II (7 MW) and, therefore, the data gathered from this 100
phase could not be considered for the present study. 101

Table 1. Number of PV plants per street. There are plants of SOLTEN I and SOLTEN II from 16th to 102
19th streets, the former are on the west side and the latter on the east. 103

Street # SOLTEN I SOLTEN II Total # of PV plants

1 1 0 1
2 2 0 2
3 3 0 3
4 3 0 3
5 4 0 4
6 5 0 5
7 5 0 5
8 6 0 6
9 7 0 7
10 7 0 7
11 8 0 8
12 15 0 15
13 15 0 15
14 15 0 15
15 12 0 12
16 8 5 13
17 5 4 9
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

18 5 4 9
19 4 4 8
104

105
Figure 3. Image depicting a typical distribution of 100 kW production units in the SOLTEN PV 106
plant. 107

All the inverters used in this installation are Teide 100 [25], developed and manu- 108
factured by ITER. Teide 100 is a 100 kW rated, transformer-less inverter, specially de- 109
signed for facilitating its operation and maintenance, as well as to contribute to 110
grid-sustain during exceptional conditions, such as voltage dips, according to the Span- 111
ish Grid Codes. 112

2.2. PV facilities under study 113

A total of 81.560 PV modules, made with mono or polycrystalline cells and provided 114
by four different manufacturers, were installed. All the installed modules with mono- 115
crystalline technology are formed by 72 125x125mm cells connected in series, while the 116
majority of the installed modules that carry polycrystalline cells have 48 156x156mm 117
cells, also associated in series. In both cases, the module fabrication process applied 118
modern lamination techniques, with encapsulations consisting of solar glass, interlayer 119
sheets of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) and three-layer backing film, made of two polyvinyl 120
fluoride films (PVF) that sandwich a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) layer, usually 121
called TPT (tedlar® -polyester- tedlar® ). 122

Table 2. Distribution of the modules installed in SOLTEN I, considering Manufacturer (SW, KC, 123
YL, ST, DK/ST and IT); Technology (“m” for monocrystalline and “p” for polycrystalline); nominal 124
power, number of plants installed with these modules and the total number of modules installed 125
for each kind. 126

Nominal Nºof
Manufacturer Technology Nºof plants Cell size (mm)
Power (W) modules
155 1 684
m 165 24 15526
175 40 24529
SW 125x125
155 1 684
165 9 5814
p 175 15 9158
167 7 4522
KC 156x156
170 4 2584
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

175 21 12938
YL 175 1 648
ST 162 5 3190
DK/ST 175 1 616
IT 170 1 667
127
This configuration around 100kW production units has to do with the kind of busi- 128
ness model applied during the promotion and construction of the facilities, which was 129
conceived in order to make use of the most suitable feed-in tariffs available at the time 130
[26]. Thus, the installation was articulated as a collective solar farm, where the PV gen- 131
eration units (PV modules, structure, inverter and electric meters) were individually 132
purchased by different owners, while the remaining infrastructure (transform stations, 133
high-voltage evacuation lines, communications, security and fire control systems, among 134
other services) were shared by all the owners [27]. 135
The PV plants are connected to a SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisi- 136
tion) system, which monitors the inverters, the security equipment, the energy meters 137
and, since 2011, also a weather station located at the facilities that has, among other sen- 138
sors, a ISO 9060 spectrally flat Class B pyranometer (CMP6 by Kipp & Zonen), which was 139
placed, oriented and tilted as the PV plants. All the acquired data is securely stored in a 140
database. 141

2.3. Performance Ratio calculation 142

The IEC 61724 norm constitutes the European Standard which describes the general 143
recommendations for performance monitoring and analysis of PV systems [17], both for 144
grid tied and for isolated ones. Thus, in order to provide information on the energy effi- 145
ciency and reliability of a PV installation, the Standard defines a performance ratio (PR) 146
as the quotient of the system’s final yield (Yf) to its reference yield (Yr), and indicates the 147
overall effect of losses on the system output due to both array temperature and system 148
component inefficiencies or failures, including balance of system components. 149
The PR is defined as: 150

𝑌𝑓 𝐸𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐻𝑖
𝑃𝑅 = = ( ) / ( ) (1)
𝑌𝑟 𝑃0 𝐺𝑖,𝑟𝑒𝑓

Where: the Eout is the net energy output of the entire PV system (AC in kWh), the P 0 151
is the rated kW (DC in kWp) of the installed PV array, the H i is the total in-plane irradia- 152
tion (in kWh·m-2) during the considered period and, finally, Gi,ref the module’s reference 153
plane of array irradiance (1 kW·m-2), which is the irradiance at which P0 is determined. 154
Thus, since the available data had monthly resolution, the monthly performance ra- 155
tio, PRmonthly or simply PR henceforth, is the performance ratio, evaluated for a reporting 156
period of one month. 157

2.4. Data filtering 158

From the available data, which encompass from January 2012 to December 2019, 8 159
operation years, the monthly Performance Ratio (PR) was calculated for the 130 PV 160
100kW plants, following the formulation indicated in the previous section. 161
The dataset available from the beginning of 2020 to nowadays has been not consid- 162
ered in this study because, due the COVID-19 pandemic and the decrease of the energy 163
consumption, SOLTEN power plants have been experimenting several curtailments, or- 164
dered by the Spanish grid operator, Red Eléctrica de España. 165
From the 130 PV plants initially sampled, described in Table 1 and Table 2, and to 166
study the effect of the manufacturer on the performance ratio evolution, the plants of 167
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12

type ST (5 plants), DK/ST (1 plant), IT (1 plant) and YL (1 plant) were discarded for not 168
having sufficient representativeness. 169
Therefore, the number of plants considered in this study was reduced to 122 and 170
aggregated depending on their module manufacturer, nominal power and technology, in 171
the tables 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Representativeness of each considered variable is 172
shown in each table. 173

Table 3. Distribution of the PV plants, considering the Manufacturer’s representativeness. 174

Nominal Representativenes
Manufacturer Technology Nºof plants
Power (W) s
155 1
m 165 24
175 40
SW 73.77%
155 1
165 9
175 15
p
167 7
KC 170 4 26.23%
175 21
175

Table 4. Distribution of the PV plants, considering their Nominal power’s representativeness. 176

Nominal Power
Manufacturer Technology Nºof plants Representativeness
(W)
m 1
155 SW 1.64%
p 1
m 24
165 SW 27.05%
p 9
167 KC p 7 5.74%
170 KC p 4 3.28%
m 40
SW
175 p 15 62.30%
KC p 21
177

Table 5. Distribution of the PV plants, considering the Technology’s representativeness. 178

Nominal Power
Manufacturer Technology Nºof plants Representativeness
(W)
155 1
m 165 SW 24 53.28%
175 40
155 SW 1
p 46.72%
165 SW 9
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12

167 7
170 KC 4
21
175
SW 15
179
Outlier and extreme points were analyzed inspecting the box-and-whisker plots (see 180
Figure 4). PR values greater than 1 were discarded from the study. The absence of a 181
comprehensive historical record about the Operation and Maintenance actions carried 182
out in the facilities, made impossible to ascertain causes to explain the existence of these 183
anomalous PR values. In some instances, PR values of 1 and above, could be attributed to 184
momentary malfunctions on either the electric meters or in the data acquisition and 185
storage procedures, shifting part of the monthly energy production on a PV plant onto 186
the following month. 187

188
Figure 4. Monthly PR of 130 plants over the period January 2012–December 2019 installed in 189
SOLTEN I. The points that represent potential outliers and extreme outliers are marked with an 190
asterisk (*). 191

2.5. Performance loss rate evaluation using mixed-effects linear models 192
A random coefficients model (mixed-effects linear model) with random intercept 193
and slope was applied to monthly PR. Three models were defined to evaluate the PR 194
decline rate over time, or ΔPR%. The first model, denoted as “Null model”, was con- 195
structed to evaluate the ΔPR% when no factors were included. The second model, de- 196
noted as “Typology model”, was devised to evaluate the ΔPR% when factors related to 197
the nature of the modules used in the PV plants were taken into account. To that effect, 198
three covariates were considered: module manufacturer (Manufacturer), cell used in the 199
module fabrication, that is, either monocrystalline “m” or polycrystalline “p” (Technolo- 200
gy) and the Nominal Power of the modules (NominalP). The third model, denoted as 201
“Location model”, was conceived to evaluate the ΔPR% when factors related to the situ- 202
ation of the PV plants, within the facility, were taken into account. Thus, it includes two 203
covariates: the edge effect (Edge), which takes into account the closeness of the PV plants 204
to the facility's “Edge zone” and, therefore, contemplates their degree of exposure to the 205
prevailing winds (see Figure 5) and the length of the street (LengthSt), which considers 206
the position of the PV plants on each street (counting from East to West). 207
208
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12

209
Figure 5. Diagram depicting the SOLTEN facility together with the zone considered as the “Edge 210
area”, in terms of direct exposure to the prevailing winds. 211

Evaluation of the principal effects and interactions of these variables over time al- 212
lowed to calculate the PR decline rate (ΔPR%) For this model the homoscedasticity was 213
assessed by visual inspection of a scatterplot of residuals versus fitted values. The as- 214
sumption of normality was met, as assessed by the histogram of residuals and by Kol- 215
mogorov test (p > 0.05). 216
217
2.5.1. Performance Ratio declination rate model 218
Let 𝑦𝑖𝑗 be the measured Performance Ratio (PR) of plant 𝑖 at time 𝑡𝑖𝑗 in months, 219
where 𝑖 = 1, … ,122 denotes number of plants and 𝑗 denotes the considered period with 220
𝑗 = 1, … ,96, that is, from January 2012 till December 2019. The linear degradation model 221
is given by: 222

𝑦𝑖𝑗 = 𝑏0,𝑖 + 𝑏1,𝑖 𝑡𝑖𝑗 + 𝜀𝑖𝑗 (2)

Where: 𝑏0𝑖 and 𝑏1𝑖 denote the intercept and the gradient of the linear model for 223
plant 𝑖, 𝜀𝑖𝑗 denotes a random effect and: 224
∗
𝑏0𝑖 = 𝛽0 + 𝑏0,𝑖
∗
𝑏1𝑖 = 𝛽1 + 𝑏1,𝑖
Where, 225
𝛽0 = 𝛾00 + 𝛾01 𝑥𝑖1 + ⋯ + 𝛾0𝑘 𝑥𝑖𝑘
𝛽1 = 𝛾10 + 𝛾11 𝑥𝑖1 + ⋯ + 𝛾1𝑘 𝑥𝑖𝑘
Where: 𝑥𝑖𝑘 are the covariates associated to “Null” (𝑘 = 0), “Typology” (𝑘 = 1,2,3) 226
and “Location” (𝑘 = 1,2) model respectively. 227
The intercept and the gradient can be modeled using a bivariate normal distribution, 228
(𝑏0 , 𝑏1 )𝑡 ~𝐵𝑉𝑁(𝛽, 𝑉) with mean vector 229
𝛽 = (𝛽0 , 𝛽1 )𝑡

and covariance matrix 230

𝑉 = (𝜎𝑏20 𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑏0 , 𝑏1 ) 𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑏1 , 𝑏0 ) 𝜎𝑏21 )

The equation (2) can be written as a linear mixed model: 231

𝑦𝑖𝑗 = 𝛾10 + 𝛾11 𝑥𝑖1 + ⋯ + 𝛾1𝑘 𝑥𝑖𝑘 + 𝛾10 𝑡𝑖𝑗 + 𝛾11 𝑥𝑖1 𝑡𝑖𝑗 + ⋯ + 𝛾1𝑘 𝑥𝑖𝑘 𝑡𝑖𝑗
∗ ∗
(3)
+ (𝑏0,𝑖 + 𝑏1,𝑖 𝑡𝑖𝑗 + 𝜀𝑖𝑗 )
The above equation (3) can be written into matrix form: 232
𝑌𝑖 = 𝑋𝑖 𝛽 + 𝑍𝑖 𝑏𝑖∗ + 𝜀𝑖
(4)

where, 233
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12

𝑡 𝑡
𝑌𝑖 = (𝑦𝑖 1 , … , 𝑦𝑖 122 )𝑡 ; 𝜀𝑖 = (𝜀𝑖 1 , … , 𝜀𝑖 122 )𝑡 ; 𝑏𝑖∗ = (𝑏0,𝑖
∗ ∗
, 𝑏1,𝑖 ∗
) ; (𝑏0,𝑖 ∗
, 𝑏1,𝑖 ) ~ 𝐵𝑉𝑁(0, 𝑉)
𝜀𝑖 ~𝑀𝑉𝑁(0, 𝜎 2 𝐼𝑖 );
𝑉(𝑏𝑖∗ , 𝜀𝑖 ) = 0;
𝑋𝑖 = 𝑍𝑖 = (1 𝑡𝑖1 ⋮ ⋮ 1 𝑡𝑖122 )
and 𝐼𝑖 is a 122 by 122 identity matrix. Under this 𝑌𝑖 has a multivariate normal dis- 234
tribution with mean vector 𝑋𝑖 𝛽 and covariance 235
𝛴𝑖 = 𝑉(𝑌𝑖 ) = 𝑍𝑖 𝑉𝑍𝑖𝑡 + 𝜎 2 𝐼𝑖
(5)

236

3. Results and discussion 237

As it can be seen in Table 6, the value obtained for the mean slope of the PR (or 238
ΔPR%) for the considered period at a monthly resolution, without considering any factor 239
or covariable (Null model), was 0.0391%/month. This is a remarkable result because, to 240
our knowledge, it has not been reported with such accuracy and with this level of reso- 241
lution so far. Considering yearly intervals instead, the resulting value of the mean slope 242
of the PR was 0.4692%/year. This is also relevant because it means that, despite the chal- 243
lenging conditions in which the studied plants operate, in terms of exposure to high lev- 244
els of irradiation and under quite harsh climatic environments, the obtained ΔPR% per 245
year corresponds to the values reported in the literature due to solely PV module deg- 246
radation [8,10-11]. 247
When considering the PR of the PV plants, this time by taking into account the 248
module manufacturer (Manufacturer, in this case two manufacturers: “SW” and “KC”), 249
the technology (Technology, that is, whether the modules were laminated with mono- 250
crystalline “m” or polycrystalline “p” cells) and the nominal power (NominalP, ranging 251
from 155 to 175W) as covariates, that is, the Typology model, the results indicate that, 252
although the manufacturer and technology were not significant (see Table 6), when the 253
nominal power of a plant is increased by one unit, the variation of the PR per elapsed 254
month decreases by 0.000897%. Although this may look like a rather small number, ac- 255
cording to this result and by considering it on an annual basis, its effect adds up so that, 256
throughout the considered period, a PV plant made with 175W modules has had, on av- 257
erage, a PR 0.2165% lower than one made with 155W ones. 258
Now, considering how big the facility is, where it is placed and how the PV modules 259
are distributed in it, the Location model was considered with covariates: the Edge and the 260
LengthSt. This was devised in order to evaluate whether the PV plants were influenced by 261
their location, distinguishing between plants placed at the eastern edge (or border) and 262
those located further down the street (or interior). It was found that the ΔPR% does vary 263
according to its physical location in terms of its edge effect. Thus, for those plants placed 264
at the easternmost edge (or border), the ΔPR% is less than 0.013% (see table 6) than those 265
located towards more western positions (or interior). Also, by considering a yearly pe- 266
riod, this difference increases to 0.15% per year. Finally, the results indicate that the 267
length of the street in which the PV plants are installed also influences their ΔPR% so 268
that, for each plant that increases the length of the street, its ΔPR% gets reduced by 269
0.00117% per month (see table 6). Again, this is an effect that adds up so, for instance, a 270
plant located at the westernmost side of a 10 plant street, gets its PR reduced by 0.1404% 271
per year in relation to its corresponding easternmost counterpart. This result reflects the 272
effect of exposure to the prevailing winds, which are the Trade Winds, which blow from 273
the Northeast most of the year in this area, thus helping to cool down the PV plants. An 274
effect that is more relevant the closer the PV plant is to the Eastern edge in each street. In 275
addition, this result suggests that, all other things being equal, a more efficient way to 276
install PV plants in this geographical area could be to consider placing them all having 277
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 12

their Eastern side free of obstacles or, if this is not possible, at least spacing them in the 278
East-West direction, so as to maximize their exposure to the prevailing winds. 279

Table 6. ∆𝑃𝑅 estimation for the three mixed models: Null model without covariates; Typology 280
model with covariates Manufacturer, Technology and NominalP; and Location model with covariates 281
Edge and LenghtSt. SE: Standard Error; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval 282

Estimation
Model Covariates SE p -value 95% CI
∆𝐏𝐑 (𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡)
Null Time -3.910E-4 1.673E-5 <0.001 -4.230E-4 -3.580E-4
Time -2.370E-4 6.257E-5 <0.001 -3.600E-4 -1.150E-4
Manufacturer -5.118E-5 4.811E-5 0.287 -1.450E-4 4.312E-5
Typology
Technology 1.271E-5 4.204E-5 0.762 -6.968E-5 9.511E-5
NominalP -8.977E-6 3.289E-6 0.006 -1.542E-5 -2.529E-6
Time -3.960E-4 5.130E-5 <0.001 -4.970E-5 -2.960E-4
Location Edge 1.320E-4 5.062E-5 0.009 3.292E-5 2.310E-4
LengthSt -1.177E-5 3.755E-6 0.002 -1.913E-5 -4.412E-6
283

4. Conclusions 284
In this work the analysis of the PR of a utility scale PV power plant located in Tene- 285
rife has been reported. 286
The multimodel analysis performed reveals that the calculated mean slope of the PR 287
(or ΔPR%) per month is 0.0391%/month. On a yearly basis this figure translates to 288
0.4692%/year, a value that is in the same range of the ones reported in the literature due 289
solely to PV module degradation in different climate zones. Also, the results indicate that 290
the manufacturer and technology of the modules are not significant in the obtained val- 291
ues of PR. However, PV plants built with 175W modules present a PR 0.2165% lower 292
than their counterpart, built with 155W ones. Taking into account the location of the PV 293
plants within the facility, the ones placed at the easternmost edge (or border), have a 294
ΔPR% less than 0.013% from those located towards more western positions (or interior). 295
Also, by considering a yearly period, this difference increases to 0.15% per year. Finally, 296
for each plant that increases the length of the street, its ΔPR% gets reduced by 0.00117% 297
per month. Thus this represents that a plant located at the westernmost side of a 10 plant 298
street, gets its PR reduced by 0.1404% per year in relation to its corresponding eastern- 299
most counterpart, for not being able to benefit from the cooling effect of the prevailing 300
winds. 301
302
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C. Montes, R. Dorta-Guerra, B. González-Díaz, S. Gon- 303
zález-Pérez, L. Ocaña and E. Llarena; methodology, C. Montes, R. Dorta-Guerra, B. González-Díaz, 304
S. González-Pérez, L. Ocaña and E. Llarena; software, R. Dorta-Guerra; validation, C. Montes, R. 305
Dorta-Guerra, B. González-Díaz, S. González-Pérez, L. Ocaña and E. Llarena; formal analysis, C. 306
Montes and R. Dorta-Guerra; investigation, C. Montes, R. Dorta-Guerra, B. González-Díaz, S. 307
González-Pérez, L. Ocaña and E. Llarena; resources, C. Montes, L. Ocaña and E. Llarena; data cu- 308
ration, C. Montes and R. Dorta-Guerra; writing—original draft preparation, C. Montes and R. 309
Dorta-Guerra; writing—review and editing, C. Montes, R. Dorta-Guerra, B. González-Díaz, S. 310
González-Pérez, L. Ocaña and E. Llarena; visualization, C. Montes, R. Dorta-Guerra, B. Gonzá- 311
lez-Díaz, S. González-Pérez, L. Ocaña and E. Llarena; supervision, B. González-Díaz, S. Gonzá- 312
lez-Pérez; project administration, E. Llarena; funding acquisition, C. Montes, L. Ocaña and E. Lla- 313
rena. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. 314

315
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 12

Funding: This research and the APC has been funded by Interreg (V-A - Spain-Portugal 316
(Madei-ra-Açores-Canarias - MAC) 2014 - 2020), Grant number: MAC2/1.1a/395. 317

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. 318

Acknowledgments: This work has been developed within the MACLAB-PV project framework, 319
which has been co-financed by the INTERREG Madeira-Azores-Canarias Territorial Cooperation 320
Programme (MAC) 2014-2020. 2nd Call. Axis 1 –Enhancing research, technological development 321
and innovation. 322

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. 323

References 324
1. Dag HI, Buker MS. Performance evaluation and degradation assessment of crystalline silicon based photovoltaic rooftop 325
technologies under outdoor conditions. Renew Energy 2020;156:1292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.141. 326
2. Gxasheka AR, Van Dyk EE, Meyer EL. Evaluation of performance parameters of PV modules deployed outdoors. Renew 327
Energy 2005;30:611–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.06.005. 328
3. Osterwald CR, Adelstein J, Cueto JA del, Sekulic W, Trudell D, McNutt P, et al. Resistive loading of photovoltaic modules and 329
arrays for long-term exposure testing. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 2006;14:567–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.693. 330
4. Polverini D, Field M, Dunlop E, Zaaiman W. Polycrystalline silicon PV modules performance and degradation over 20 years. 331
Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 2012;20:n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2197. 332
5. Chamberlin CE, Rocheleau MA, Marshall MW, Reis AM, Coleman NT, Lehman PA. Comparison of PV module performance 333
before and after 11 and 20 years of field exposure. Conf Rec IEEE Photovolt Spec Conf 2011:000101–5. 334
https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2011.6185854. 335
6. Da Fonseca JEF, de Oliveira FS, Massen Prieb CW, Krenzinger A. Degradation analysis of a photovoltaic generator after oper- 336
ating for 15 years in southern Brazil. Sol Energy 2020;196:196–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.11.086. 337
7. Pozza A, Sample T. Crystalline silicon PV module degradation after 20 years of field exposure studied by electrical tests, elec- 338
troluminescence, and LBIC. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 2016;24:368–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2717. 339
8. Dhimish M. Performance Ratio and Degradation Rate Analysis of 10-Year Field Exposed Residential Photovoltaic Installations 340
in the UK and Ireland. Clean Technol 2020;2:170–83. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol2020012. 341
9. Kaaya I, Lindig S, Weiss KA, Virtuani A, Sidrach de Cardona Ortin M, Moser D. Photovoltaic lifetime forecast model based on 342
degradation patterns. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 2020;28:979–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3280. 343
10. Jordan DC, Silverman TJ, Sekulic B, Kurtz SR. PV degradation curves: non-linearities and failure modes. Prog Photovoltaics 344
Res Appl 2017;25. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2835. 345
11. Liu Z, Castillo ML, Youssef A, Serdy JG, Watts A, Schmid C, et al. Quantitative analysis of degradation mechanisms in 346
30-year-old PV modules. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2019;200:110019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2019.110019. 347
12. Richter M, Tjengdrawira C, Vedde J, Green M, Frearson L, Herteleer B, et al. Technical Assumptions in Financial PV Models: 348
Review of Current Practices and Recommendations. 2016. 349
13. Ishii T, Masuda A. Annual degradation rates of recent crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 350
2017;25:953–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2903. 351
14. Pascual J, Martinez-Moreno F, García M, Marcos J, Marroyo L, Lorenzo E. Long-term degradation rate of crystalline silicon PV 352
modules at commercial PV plants: An 82-MWp assessment over 10 years. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 2021;29:1294–302. 353
https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3456. 354
15. Rosillo FG, Alonso-García MC. Evaluation of color changes in PV modules using reflectance measurements. Sol Energy 355
2019;177:531–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.11.039. 356
16. Piliougine M, Oukaja A, Sidrach-de-Cardona M, Spagnuolo G. Temperature coefficients of degraded crystalline silicon pho- 357
tovoltaic modules at outdoor conditions. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 2021:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3396. 358
17. Choi S, Ishii T, Sato R, Chiba Y, Masuda A. Performance degradation due to outdoor exposure and seasonal variation in 359
amorphous silicon photovoltaic modules. Thin Solid Films 2018;661:116–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2018.07.017. 360
18. Makrides G, Zinsser B, Schubert M, Georghiou GE. Performance loss rate of twelve photovoltaic technologies under field 361
conditions using statistical techniques. Sol Energy 2014;103:28–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.02.011. 362
19. Yang D. Simulation study of parameter estimation and measurement planning on photovoltaics degradation. Int J Energy Stat 363
2015;03:1550013. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2335680415500131. 364
20. Chuang SL, Ishibashi A, Kijima S, Nakayama N, Ukita M, Taniguchi S. Kinetic model for degradation of light-emitting diodes. 365
IEEE J Quantum Electron 1997;33:970–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/3.585485. 366
21. Vázquez M, Rey-Stolle I. Photovoltaic module reliability model based on field degradation studies. Prog Photovoltaics Res 367
Appl 2008;16:419–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.825. 368
22. Laird NM, Ware JH. Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data Author ( s ): Nan M . Laird and James H . Ware Published 369
by : International Biometric Society Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2529876 REFERENCES Linked references are 370
available on JSTOR for this article. Biometrics 1982;38:963–74. 371
23. T. B. Franklin, Climates in miniature;a study of micro-climate and environment. New York, 1955. 372
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 12

24. M. C. Peel, B. L. Finlayson, and T. A. McMahon, “Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification,” Hydrol. 373
Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1633–1644, Oct. 2007. 374
25. Teide 100 Inverter Specifications. https://www.iter.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Ficha-técnica-Inversor-Teide-100.pdf (ac- 375
cessed September 07, 2022). 376
26. Gobierno de España. Real Decreto 436/2004 n.d. https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2004-5562 (accessed January 377
20, 2022). 378
27. Cendagorta M, Montes C, Linares A, Llarena E, Salata S, Delgado M & Friend M. The 15 MW PV Solar Project in Tenerife – 379
Practical issues in the context of the Spanish feed in law whilst realizing the multi megawatt plant. In: WIP, editor. Proc. 21st 380
Eur. Photovolt. Sol. Energy Conf. Exhib., Dresden, Germany: WIP; 2006. 381