Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

journal homepage:

Review

An overview on performance of PV plants commissioned at different

places in the world
Rachit Srivastava*, A.N. Tiwari, V.K. Giri
Department of Electrical Engineering, Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, 273010, India

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

Article history: Solar PV technology is the most promising renewable energy technology and is able to fulfill the elec-
Received 14 May 2019 tricity demand of the whole world even after conventional sources are completely finished. The pre-
Received in revised form diction of actual electricity output from PV plants under actual outdoor conditions is tough. Performance
23 October 2019
evaluation of installed PV plants is helpful in designing and prediction of the performance of other
Accepted 23 October 2019
Available online 26 November 2019
upcoming PV plants more precisely. IEC 61724 gives the standards by which the performance of a PV
plant can be judged. At present, several research works based on performance evaluation of PV plants
carried out in distinct locations across the world are reported in the literature. It is important to review
Keywords:
Solar photovoltaic
results from various case studies on the basis of the IEC 61724 standard. In this paper, the various case is
IEC 61724 reviewed on the basis of their location, commissioning year, capacity, used technology, and their per-
Performance ratio formance. This will be helpful to design a PV plant knowing previous commissioned plant performance.
Capacity factor From the review, it has been found that PV plants are installed in most of the countries in the world and
Tilt angle they are demonstrating satisfactory results. It has also been found that PV module material and panel tilt
angle is very crucial for designing a PV Plant.
© 2019 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2. IEC standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.1. Array Yield (YA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.2. Final PV system yield (Yf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3. Reference Yield (Yr) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.4. Array Capture loss (Lc) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.5. Performance ratio (Rp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.6. Capacity factor (CF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.7. Overall PV plant efficiency (htol) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3. Performance outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.1. Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.2. Performance ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.3. PV panel material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4. Software comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.5. Economical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.6. PV panel tilt angle and position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Conflicts of interest statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: srivastava.rachit94@gmail.com (R. Srivastava), amarndee@
rediffmail.com (A.N. Tiwari), girivkmmm@gmail.com (V.K. Giri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2019.10.004
0973-0826/© 2019 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
52 R. Srivastava et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59

Nomenclature MW Mega Watt

a-Si Amorphous Silicon Cell
Rp Performance Ratio Mono-Si Monocrystalline Silicon Cell
PV Photo-Voltaic p-Si Polycrystalline Silicon Cell
STC Standard Test Conditions m-Si Multicrystalline Silicon Cell
YA Array Yield b Tilt Angle
Yf Final Yield GCPV Grid Connected PV
Lc Array Capture Loss GCPS Grid Connected PV System
CF Capacity Factor ma-Si Amorphous Silicon Thin Film
htol Overall PV Plant Efficiency UMG-Si Upgraded Metallurgical Grade Silicon
mpp maximum power point Single c-Si Single crystalline
MPPT maximum power point tracker h/D Hour per Day
kWh KiloWatt Hour W Watt
kW Kilo Watt

1. Introduction Reference Yield, Final Yield, Overall System Efficiency, Performance

Electricity is a very important part of modern life. The demand
for electricity is increasing day by day as most of the equipment
depends on electricity for their operation (Diner, 2011). According
to the report of International Energy Outlook, 2016, report demand
for electricity will increase by 48% in the coming 25 years (Gaede &
Meadowcroft, 2016), (Kannan & Vakeesan, 2016). Continuous
harness of energy from conventional resources pushed them on the
verge of depleting, about 65% of electricity is produced by these
sources (Gaede & Meadowcroft, 2016), (Kannan & Vakeesan, 2016).
Such conditions are driving force in the direction of renewable and
sustainable sources of energy.
Solar energy is the most promising energy and it can fulfill the
electricity demand of the whole world (El Chaar, Lamont, & El Zein,
2011). Solar energy can be transformed into electricity by means of
two technologies: Concentrating Solar Power System and Solar
Photovoltaic (PV) System (Liu et al., 2016). In Concentrating Solar
Power System, Solar radiation is concentrated on a fluid to increase
its temperature and runs a turbine; the turbine gives the me-
chanical energy to the generator in order to produce electricity
(Solangi, Islam, Saidur, Rahim, & Fayaz, 2011). In Photovoltaic Sys-
tem, Sunlight is incident on the photovoltaic panel and it converts
the photonic energy into electricity (Khare, Nema, & Baredar, 2016).
In the Photovoltaic system, the cost of the Photovoltaic Panel is
most in the complete system cost. The cost of the PV panel is
decreasing day by day due to advancements in PV manufacturing
technology (Olatomiwa, Mekhilef, Ismail, & Moghavvemi, 2016),
(Hartner, Mayr, Kollmann, & Haas, 2017). According to the study, by
2022, the PV system will attain grid parity in most of the countries
in the world (Breyer & Gerlach, 2013). It means that by 2022, the
solar PV system will be economically competitive with the other
electricity sources and the cost of electricity produced by the PV
system will be equal to the cost of electricity by other sources.
The actual performance of the PV plant somewhat deviates from
the performance obtained under laboratory conditions. This is due
to problems of clouds, dust and shading conditions which are faced
by PV panel in outdoor conditions. Hence for the accurate predic-
tion and measurement of electricity output from PV system on-site
performance evaluation is imperative (Dincer, 2000), (Sharma &
Chandel, 2013). In literature performance of different PV system
are evaluated on different geographical locations according to the
International Electro-technical Commission (IEC) standards.
In this paper, the comparison of performance evaluation of
various PV systems has been carried out which are commissioned
at different locations across the world. The comparison has been
done in accordance with International Standards. IEC 61724 is the
most common standard used for the purpose. Array Yield,
Ratio, and Capacity Factor are the most useful performance in-
dicators defined in IEC 61724. Hence in this paper, performances of
the PV plants are compared on the basis of their locations, year, PV
technology and these parameters.
This paper is divided into four sections. In the second section,
the detailed International Standards are described. The third sec-
tion is dedicated to the literature review of the various case studies
are presents and a comparison of their results is tabulated. The
fourth section concludes the work with a discussion of review
outcomes.
2. IEC standard
IEC 61724 standards were developed by the International
Electro-technical Commission which has been adopted by many
countries of the world (Standard, 1998). This standard provides a
full procedure to measure the performance of all types of PV
technologies such as Standalone PV System, Grid Connected PV
System, and Hybrid PV System. According to this standard, for ac-
curate performance evaluation of the PV system, various mea-
surements are required such as irradiance measurement, ambient
temperature measurement, wind speed measurement, module
temperature measurement, voltage, and current measurement and
most important developed electricity measurement. All these
measurements must be done very accurately with 1e2% accuracy.
All these quantities have to measure with less than 10 min sam-
pling interval.
PV plants are installed at different capacities and at different
locations all over the world. To predict the performance of these
plants, common performance indicators are required. For this IEC
61724 gives a common standard to evaluate the performance of PV
systems. There are the following parameters which have been
proposed by IEC 61724.
2.1. Array Yield (YA)
Array Yield is the energy output of the PV array per kW of
installed capacity. It is the ratio of energy generated by a PV plant in
a day or month to the rated PV power (Sundaram & Babu, 2015)e
(Padmavathi & Daniel, 2013).
Daily Array Yield (Y(A,d)) is presented by equation:
.
YðA;dÞ ¼ EðDC;dÞ PpvðratedÞ ðh = DÞ (1)
where E(DC,d) is DC energy generation in a day and Ppv(rated) is the
rated power of the PV plant.
 R. Srivastava et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59 53

Monthly Array Yield (Y(A,m)) is presented by the equation: 2.5. Performance ratio (Rp)

1 X
N
It represents a number of losses occur in the PV system such as
YðA;mÞ ¼ YðA;dÞ ðh = DÞ (2) losses due to temperature difference, losses due to inverter and
N
d¼1
losses due to the wiring of the system. The performance ratio in-
where N is the number of days. dicates the closeness to the ideal efficiency of a PV system. For ideal,
its value is 1(100%) which is not possible practically. It is the main
feature of a grid connected PV system. It is a unitless quantity. It is
2.2. Final PV system yield (Yf)
formulated as an equation:
It is also known as the PV yield or yield factor. It can be calcu- .
lated for a day/month/year. It is defined as the ratio of AC energy Rp ¼ Yf Yr (9)
output from the PV system to the rated power of the power system
at the STC condition. It is the main indicator which depends upon
plant operating technique such as tilt angle of PV panel, size of
plant and mounting structure (Shiva Kumar & Sudhakar, 2015). If 2.6. Capacity factor (CF)
the value of Final Yield is high, it means that appropriate technol-
ogy is used in the particular PV system (Tripathi, Yadav, Rathod, & CF is the ratio of the energy output of a PV system for a year to
Kumar, 2014). the energy generated by the PV system if it operates for a year in a
Daily (Y(f,d)), monthly (Y(f,m)) and yearly (Y(f,y)) Final Yield is whole 24 h. If the PV system produces full power continuously, it's a
formulated by equation: capacity factor will be unity. It is formulated as an equation:
. .
Yðf ;dÞ ¼ EðAC;dÞ PpvðratedÞ ðh = DÞ (3) CF ¼ Yðf ;yÞ ð24; 365Þ (10)

1 X
N
Yðf ;mÞ ¼ Yðf ;dÞ ðh = DÞ (4) 2.7. Overall PV plant efficiency (htol)
N
d¼1

System efficiency is defined as the ratio of AC energy generated

1 X
N
by the plant to the incident radiation by the PV panel multiplied by
Yðf ;YÞ ¼ Yðf ;YÞ ðh = DÞ (5)
N the total area of the panel. It defines the overall efficiency of the
d¼1
whole system including array efficiency and inverter efficiency and
where E(AC,d) is AC energy output in a day. some other. It can calculate in a day/month/year. It is formulated as
follows:
2.3. Reference Yield (Yr)
htol ¼ EAC =Hi  A (11)
Reference Yield is defined as the ratio of in-plane solar isolation where EAC is AC energy output.
(Hi) (kWh/m2) to the standard solar radiation (Gstc) (1 kW/m2).
Reference Yield depends upon the location of the PV system as at A is the area of the PV module
different locations different amounts of solar radiation reach the
surface of the earth whereas solar radiation on the outer most layer
3. Performance outcomes
of the atmosphere remains the same. It is formulated as follows:

Yr ¼ Hi = Gstc ðh = DÞ (6) 3.1. Comparison

If we consider the effect of temperature on the panel in Refer-
ence Yield calculation, It becomes Corrected Reference Yield rep-
resented by Ycr given by equation (Sundaram & Babu, 2015):
  
Yr ¼ Yr 1  Ct Tp  Ts ðh = DÞ
where Ct is the temperature coefficient.
Tp is panel temperature,
and Ts is standard temperature.
2.4. Array Capture loss (Lc)
Array Capture loss is the difference between Reference Yield and
Array Yield. It represents loss occurred due to the radiation to en-
ergy conversion loss, variation is STC condition of atmosphere,
MPPT loss, loss due to dust, snow on panel, heating of panel and
shading of the panel. It is formulated as an equation:
Lc ¼ Yr  YA ðh = DÞ
Results of all available case studies have been compared on the
basis of their location, year, PV technologies and performance in-
dicators. Their comparison has been presented in Table 1. In this
table, Year shows the last year on which measured data was re-
(7) ported. Locations of all PV systems are presented in Fig. 1 using
Google Map (Google Map).
3.2. Performance ratio
Performance ratio of the PV plant is a very important term that
defines the effectiveness of the PV plant. It defines how well the PV
plant is working. For a plant, performance ratio should be as high as
possible. Fig. 2 shows the performance ratio variation graph at
different places in the world. From the study, it has been found that
all the plants present a good performance ratio. The minimum
performance ratio was reported in Jaen, Spain (Ayompe et al., 2011)
of 49% due to the old PV system and a less effective system. The
maximum performance ratio was reported in Selangor, Malaysia
(Hussin et al., 2013) of 94.6% due to the use of modern PV tech-
nology and good weather condition on the plant. The average
(8)
performance ratio of all the plants is 73.21% which is good enough.
It means that PV plants at different locations of the world are
Table 1

54
Comparison of various PV plants.

Location Year Monitoring Rate System Remarks PV Tilt Angle (b) 

() Latitude and kWh/ YA Yr (h/ Yf (h/ Rp CF (%) htol Rref.
Duration Capacity Technology Longitude kW/Year (h/ D) D) (%) (%)
D)

Asian Continent
Tamil Nadu, India 2012 1 Year 5 MW GCPS Thin Film 10 9.47-9.48N & 1690.8 5.46 5.128 4.8106 89.15 e 5.08 Sundaram and Babu (2015)
78.26- 78.27 E
Rajkot, India 2013 1 Year 5.05 kW GCPS p-Si 15 22.30N & 70.80E 1635.64 4.71 6.06 4.49 70 e e Dobaria, Pandya, and Aware (2016)
Telangana, India 2015 1 Year 10 MW GCPS p-Si 33.75, 3.75, 18.75 18.75 N & 1635.0 4.44 3.33 e 85.22 17.68 10.12 Shiva Kumar and Sudhakar (2015)
(Seasonal varying tilt 79.46 E
angle)
Gujarat, India (PV1) 2012 1 Year 500 kW GCPS m-Si 22.22 23.22 N & e e e 2.79 75.3 e 10.52 Tripathi et al. (2014)
72.68 E e5.14
Gujarat, India (PV2) 2012 1 Year 500 kW GCPS a-Si 22.22 23.22 N & e e e 2.62 70.8 e 6.06 Tripathi et al. (2014)
72.68 E e4.84
Khatkar-Kalan, 2011 1 Year 190 kW GCPS p-Si 25 31.16 N & 812.76 e e 2.23 60.80 e 8.3 Sharma and Chandel (2013)
76.02 E

R. Srivastava et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59

India
Karnataka, India 2011 1 Year 3 MW GCPS Mono-Si 15 12.88 N & 1372 e 5.36 3.73 70 e e Padmavathi and Daniel (2013)
78.15 E
Tiruchirappalli, 2012 1 Year 20 kW GCPS p-Si 10.8 10.74N & 78.79E 1600 e e e 82 17.2 e Kumar, Sundareswaran, and
India Venkateswaran (2014)
Mae Honh Son 2004 8 Month 500 kW GCPS, Battery Bank m-Si 15 19.30N & 97.96E 1695.9 e e 2.91 70 e 9e12 Chokmaviroj, Wattanapong, and
Province, e3.98 e90 Suchart (2006)
Thailand
Bangkok, Thailand 1999 13 Month 2.88 kW GCPS Triple- 15 13.75N & 100.50 e e e e 74 e 4.7 Adhikari, Kumar, and Siripuekpong
junction E (2003)
Korea (PV1) 2003 1 Year 3 kW GCPS m-Si 18 35.90N & 127.76 1228.66 e e e 75.1 12.8 9 Piao et al., 2009
E
Korea (PV2) 2003 1 Year 3 kW GCPS Mono-Si 18 35.90N & 127.76 1007 e e e 63.3 11.5 7.9 Piao et al., 2009
E
Korea (PV3) 2003 1 Year 3 kW GCPS Mono-Si 18 35.90N & 127.76 1107.33 e e e 67.3 11.5 7.9 Piao et al., 2009
E
Korea (PV4) 2003 1 Year 3 kW GCPS m-Si 18 35.90N & 127.76 1071 e e e 71.8 12.2 8.3 Piao et al., 2009
E
Abu Dhabhi, UAE 2013 1 Year 275 kW GCPS m-Si 23 24.45N & 54.37E 1521.6 e e 5.1 80 e e Emziane and Al Ali (2015)
(PV1)
Abu Dhabhi, UAE 2013 1 Year 210 kW GCPS m-Si 20 24.45N & 54.37E 1801.8 e e 6.2 81 21 e Emziane and Al Ali (2015)
(PV2)
Abu Dhabhi, UAE 2013 1 Year 300 kW GCPS c-Si 30 24.45N & 54.37E 1325.3 e e 4.6 70 16 e Emziane and Al Ali (2015)
(PV3)
Abu Dhabhi, UAE 2013 1 Year 315 kW GCPS c-Si 25 24.45N & 54.37E 1437.8 e e 4.7 e e e Emziane and Al Ali (2015)
(PV4)
Hong Kong 2012 2 Year 19.8 kW Standalone System with p-Si 22.5 22.38N & 114.27 e 4.08 3.05 2.45 60 e 7.7 Ma et al. (2017)
Battery bank E
Yunnan, China 2015 1 Year 9 kW HCPV Multi- Dual Axis Solar Tracker 24.78N & 102.81 e e e 3.11 79.8 e 18.9 Mi et al. (2016)
junction Used E
Shanghai, China 2009 3 Year 3 kW Building Attached PV p-Si 25 31.20N & 121.40 1063.04 3.01 3.62 2.86 80.66 e 10.73 Wu et al. (2015)
E
Sawda, Kuwait 2014 1 Year 85.05 kW GCPS, Rooftop, CIGS Thin e 29.31N & 47.48E 1604.94 e e 4.5 <70 e e Al-Otaibi, Al-Qattan, Fairouz, and Al-
Automatic Cleaning Film Mulla (2015)
System
Azda, Kuwait 2014 1 Year 21.6 kW GCPS, Rooftop, CIGS Thin 20 29.31N & 47.48E 1629.62 e e 4.5 <70 e e Edalati, Ameri, and Iranmanesh
Automatic Cleaning Film (2015)
System
Kerman, Iran (PV1) 2014 1 Year 5.52 kW GCPS m-Si Varying tilt angle 30.20N & 56.86E 1914.4 e e 5.24 80.81 23.20 e Edalati et al. (2015)
Kerman, Iran (PV2) 2014 1 Year 5.52 kW GCPS p-Si Varying tilt angle 30.20N & 56.86E 1965.1 e e 5.38 82.92 23.81 e Edalati et al. (2015)
Selangor, Malaysia 2011 4 Year 1.92 kW GCPS m-Si 7 2N & 101E e e e 2.77 78.2 e 10.2 Hussin et al. (2013)
(PV1)
Selangor, Malaysia 2011 4 Year 6.08 kW GCPS a-Si 5 2N & 101E e e e 2.89 94.6 e 6.4 Hussin et al. (2013)
(PV2)
Selangor, Malaysia 2011 4 Year 27.0 kW GCPS Mono-Si 5 2N & 101E e e e 2.22 81 e 11.13 Hussin et al. (2013)
(PV3)
Malaysia 2011 1 Month 5 kW GCPS m-Si e 2.91N & 101.78 916.51 e e 2.51 73.12 10.47 e Khatib, Sopian, and Kazem (2013)
E
Singapore 2011 18 Months 142.5 kW Rooftop GCPS p-Si 3.8e6.84 1.4N & 104.0E 1018.95 3.86 3.12 81 e 11.2 Wittkopf, Valliappan, Liu, Ang, and
Cheng (2012)
Sohar, Oman 2007 6 Months 1.4 kW Rooftop GCPS p-Si e 24.35N & 56.71E 1875 e e 5.1 84.6 21 e Kazem, Khatib, Sopian, and
Elmenreich (2014)
Europe Continent
As, Norway 2014 8 Months 2.07 kW GCPS, Rooftop m-Si, p-Si 37 59.65N & 10.76E 931.26 2.73 2.80 2.55 83.03 10.58 11.6 Adaramola and Vågnes (2015)
Serbia (PV1) 2012 1 Year 12.5 kW GCPS, Ground Mounted p-Si 11, 30 (Seasonal varying 39.70N & 8.61E 1700 e e e 87.3 e e Ghiani, Pilo, and Cossu (2013)
tilt angle)
Serbia (PV2) 2012 1 Year 300 kW GCPS, Rooftop p-Si 11 39.70N & 8.61E 1500 e e e 83.2 e e Ghiani et al. (2013)
Nis, Serbia 2013 1 Year 2 kW GCPS, Rooftop Mono-Si 32 43.32N & 21.89E 1161.704 e 3.81 e 93.6 12.88 10.07 Milosavljevic, Pavlovi
c, and Pirsl
(2015)
Warsaw, Poland 2002 1 Year 1 kW GCPS, Rooftop Thin-Film 30 21.12N & 52.09E 830 e e e 60 e 4e5 Pietruszko and Gradzki (2003)

R. Srivastava et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59

e80
Nazouco, Portugal 2013 3 Year 124.2 kW GCPS a-Si 34 41.2N & 6.48W 1261 e e e 78.33 e e Palmero-Marrero, Matos, and
Oliveira (2015)
Malaga, Spain 1997 1 Year 2 kW GCPS e 9 36.71N & 4.42W 1424 e e e 64.5 e 7.11 pez
Sidrach-de-Cardona and Mora Lo
(1999)
Jaen, Spain (PV1) 2003 3 Year 67.84 kW GCPS Mono-Si 5 37.73N & 3.78W e 3.10 4.27 2.74 65 e 8.08 Drif et al. (2007)
Jaen, Spain (PV2) 2003 1 Year 67.84 kW GCPS Mono-Si 5 37.73N & 3.78W e 2.42 4.01 2.32 58 e 7.20 Drif et al. (2007)
Jaen, Spain (PV3) 2003 1 Year 20 kW GCPS, Semi-Transparent Mono-Si 13 37.73N & 3.78W e 3.35 4.20 2.74 65 e 8.04 Drif et al. (2007)
PV
Jaen, Spain (PV4) 2003 1 Year 40 kW GCPS p-Si e 37.73N & 3.78W e 1.83 3.26 1.60 49 e 4.96
Drif et al. (2007)
Dublin, Ireland 2009 1 Year 1.72 kW GCPS, Rooftop m-Si 53 53.4N & 6.3E 885.1 2.62 2.85 2.41 81.5 12.6
Ayompe, Duffy, McCormack, and
Conlon (2011)
Northern Ireland 2003 3 Year 13 kW GCPS Single c-Si 45 54.86N & 6.28W e 1.94 e 1.69 60 e 6.0 Mondol, Yohanis, Smyth, and Norton
e62 e9.0 (2006)
Crete, Greece 2007 1 Year 171.36 kW GCPS m-Si 30 35.24N & 24.80E 1336.4 e e 1.96 67.36 15.26 e Kymakis, Kalykakis, and Papazoglou
e5.07 (2009)
Apulia, Italy (PV1) 2012 8 Months 353.3 kW GCPS Mono-Si 3 40.32N & 18.09E e e 3.5 e e e e Micheli, Alessandrini, Radu, and
e7.9 Casula (2014)
Apulia, Italy (PV2) 2012 8 Months 606.6 kW GCPS Mono-Si 15 40.32N & 18.09E e e 4 e e e e Micheli et al. (2014)
e7.8
Calabria, Italy 2004 4 Year 2.85 kW GCPS p-Si 40 39.36N & 16.22E 1230 e e 3.4 e e e Cucumo, De Rosa, Ferraro,
Kaliakatsos, and Marinelli (2006)
Umbertide, Italy 2001 1 Year 15 kW Rooftop PV p-Si 20 43.18N & 12.19E 1213.33 e e e e e 6.77 Ubertini and Desideri (2003)
Mugla, Turkey 2008 1 Year 2.73 kW GCPS m-Si 15, 35 (Seasonal varying 37.18N & 28.48E 1414.18 e e 3.87 72 e 7.33 Eke and Demircan (2013)
tilt angle)
Germany 1994 4 Year 5 MW 170 GCPS e e 51.16N & 10.45E 680 e e 1.9 66.5 e e Decker and Jahn (1997)
Africa Continent
Nouckchott, 2015 1 Year 15 MW GCPS a-Si, ma-Si 10 18.15N & 15.98E e 4.39 e 4.27 67.96 19.59 e Elhadj Sidi et al. (2016)
Mauritania e17.7
South Algeria 2001 1 Year 1.5 kW Stand-alone PV System Mono-Si 28 28.03N & 1.65E e e e e e e 10.01 Benatiallah, Mostefaou, and Bradja
(2007)
Algiers, Algeria 2007 1 Year 9.54 kW GCPS Mono-Si 29 36.48N & 4.12E 1151 e e e 62 e e Cherfa, Hadj Arab, Oussaid,
e77 Abdeladim, and Bouchakour (2015)
Brazil 2002 5 Year 2 kW GCPS a-Si e 27.60S & 48.52 1300 e e e 82 e e Ruther, Knob, Beyer, Dacoregio, and
W e1500 e92 Montenegro (2003)
North America Continent
Co, USA 2015 5 Year 1.26 kW GCPS UMG-Si 40 39.74N & 105.18 e e e e 84 e e Huang, Edesess, Bensoussan, and
W e93 Tsui (2016)
Oceania Continent
Wellington, New 2014 1 Year 10 kW GCPS m-Si 41 174.9E & 41.16S 1616 e 3.87 2.99 78 e 11.96 Emmanuel, Akinyele, and Rayudu
Zeeland (2017)

55
56 R. Srivastava et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59

Fig. 1. Locations of PV plants.

Fig. 2. Performance Ratio of the PV system at different Plants at Different locations of the World.

working satisfactory and about 26.79% of energy is wasting in PV
module, inverter and wiring losses.
Fig. 3 shows the performance ratio vs. year graph. In this graph,
on horizontal axis plant observation years are represented and on
the vertical axis, the average performance ratio of the plants
observed in the same year is represented. From the observation, it
has been found that the performance ratio of the plants is
increasing with the year. This is because; as the technology de-
velops more accurate and effective systems are developed by which
more performance ratio is observed.
3.3. PV panel material
The choice of PV panel (Panel material) is a very important
discussion. In various literature, different PV technology-based
system is compared. Brijesh Tripathi et al. (Tripathi et al., 2014)
had presented a comparison between two PV systems made from
two different panel material. The first system was made from mSi-
based PV modules and the second system was made from a-Si
based PV modules. From the results, it has been found that the
performance of m-Si-based PV system was much better than the a-
Si based PV system. Jung Hun et al. () evaluated four grid connected
PV systems in Test Center at Korea. In two systems mono-Si tech-
nology based PV panels had been used and in the other two sys-
tems m-Si technology based PV panels had been used. It was
observed that the results of mono-Si based PV systems were similar
and m-Si-based PV systems were similar. The performances of m-Si
PV panels were better than the performance of mono-Si panels.
 R. Srivastava et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59 57

Fig. 3. Year vs. Performance Ratio Graph.

Mahieddine Emziane et al. (Emziane & Al Ali, 2015) evaluated four
rooftop PV systems at different buildings in Abu Dhabi. In two
systems m-Si technology had been used and panels were tilted at
13 and 20 . In another two systems, c-Si technology has been used
and panels were tilted at 30 and 25 . From the study, it has been
found that m-Si-based system was better than the c-Si system. In
Iran, 11.04 kW GCPV system had been commissioned (Edalati et al.,
2015). This system consisted of two subsystems. In the first sub-
system, PV modules were made of mono-Si technology whereas in
second subsystem PV modules were made of p-Si technology. It has
been found that the performance of the second subsystem was
better than the first subsystem. M. Z. Hussin et al. (Hussin et al.,
2013) compared three different PV technologies in Malaysia. In
the first PV system, PV modules were made of p-Si technology. In
the second PV system, PV modules were made of a-Si technology. In
the third PV system, PV modules were made of mono-Si technol-
ogy. It had found that a-Si based PV system shows better perfor-
mance among all three systems. It had also found that a-Si based PV
system had lower Degradation Rate than the other two systems.
Fig. 4 presents the average performance ratio drawn from PV
plants having different PV module technology (PV material). From
the figure, it has been observed that Multi-junction based PV plants
are showing the highest average performance ratio whereas c-Si-
based PV plants are showing the least performance ratio among all
shown PV material based PV plants.
3.4. Software comparison
In recent years, many softwares were developed that are able to
predict solar power outcomes from a plant by feeding all the
required paraments of the plant and plant environment in the
software. In many works of literature software results were
compared with the actual system results. In (Shiva Kumar &
Sudhakar, 2015), (Sharma & Chandel, 2013), (Palmero-Marrero
et al., 2015), (Okello, Van Dyk, & Vorster, 2015), (Wu et al., 2015)
actual plant results were compared with PVsyst software results. In
(Sundaram & Babu, 2015) RETScreen software, in (Shiva Kumar &
Sudhakar, 2015) PV-GIS software and in (Palmero-Marrero et al.,
2015) TRANSYS software has been used for the comparison. It has
been found that all the softwares show close agreement with actual
PV plant results in all the cases. Hence, softwares can be helpful in
the prediction of expected plant performance.

Fig. 4. PV Material vs. Performance Ratio Graph.

58 R. Srivastava et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59
3.5. Economical analysis
Along with the technical performance evaluation, economical
analysis is also a big concern for any system. Hence, in many works
of literature techno-economical analysis of PV system has been also
carried out. In the techno-economical analysis, Levelized Cost of
Energy (LCOE) and payback period are the most important terms.
LCOE is defined as the ratio of lifetime costs of the plant to the
lifetime electric power production (Short, Packey, & Holt, 1995).
This merit can be used to compare the cost of electricity generation
by a renewable energy source with conventional power generation
units. The payback period presents the number of years that the
plant will take to recover its initial investment cost. From the
literature, it has been found that the average life of a PV plant is 25
years. It means that if the payback period of the plant is less than 25
years, that plant is economical (Sherwani, Usmani, & Varun, 2010).
In Many works of literature, techno-economic analysis has been
carried out. A Techno-Economical analysis of 1.4 kW GCPS had been
carried out in Oman (Kazem et al., 2014). The system cost of elec-
tricity was 0.045USD/kW and its payback period was 11 years. In
Norway, similar work has been carried out (Adaramola & Vågnes,
2015). The cost of electricity of the system was $0.246/kWh for
25-year lifetime. Similarly, techno-economic analysis has been
carried out for school in Wellington, New Zeeland (Emmanuel et al.,
2017). The installation cost of the system was about NZD $28000.
From the financial calculation, the author claimed that the system
had a payback period of about 6.4 years. From the observations, it
has found that all the plants considered in the study are
economical.
3.6. PV panel tilt angle and position
Tilt angle (b) of the module and module position is very crucial
for designing a PV system. From the review, it has been found that
PV panel should set at Optimal Tilt Angle (angle at which PV panel
produces maximum power), as Performance Ratio of the system is
very much dependent on tilt angle of the PV module (), (Emziane &
Al Ali, 2015), (Hussin et al., 2013), (Milosavljevi c et al., 2015),
(Ayompe et al., 2011). In Sardinia (Milosavljevi c et al., 2015), both
the PV plants are located at the same place but PV panels of one
plant were grounded and PV panels of another plant were roof-
mounted. The performance ratio of the roof-mounted PV plant
(panel tilted at the optimal tilt angle) was more than the ground-
mounted PV plant. In Abu Dhabi (Emziane & Al Ali, 2015), the
same material based PV Plants give a different performance at the
same time due to the difference in tilt angle. The same can be
observed at Jaen (Ayompe et al., 2011), Apulia () and Selangor
(Hussin et al., 2013). Hence, before the installation of the PV plant, it
is very important to find an optimal tilt angle and suitable posi-
tioning of the PV panel to get optimal results.
Along with these, some other findings can also draw from this
literature review. Some finding listed below:
➢ PV plant should be designed at the place where shading on the
panels is not present throughout the year, as shading decreases
the performance of the PV system (Chokmaviroj et al., 2006).
➢ De-rating of the panel is also an important concern. De-rating is
also depending upon PV module technology (Hussin et al.,
2013).
➢ A grid-connected PV system can give better results than a
standalone PV system (Mondol et al., 2006).
4. Conclusion
Performance evaluation of a PV system is a very important
aspect to know the actual behavior of the PV system in actual
outdoor conditions. IEC 61724 standard gives appropriate standards
that help to compare various PV Plants at different locations of the
world. In this review, various PV Plants at different locations of the
world are compared as per the IEC standard. From the review, it has
been found that PV Power Plants are feasible in most of the regions
of the world as sufficient electricity in kWh/kW/year was generated
by various Power Plants in almost all areas of the world. It also
found that with the enhancement of PV material technology and
inverter topologies, the performances of the plants are increasing
year by year. Important aspects of PV plant were also filtered out
such as choice of PV material, PV module tilt angle and position,
temperature effects and de-rating of PV modules. By considering
these aspects before installing a PV plant, a far better system can
install which gives high Electrical output. Hence, very wide possi-
bilities are present in PV Plant to fulfill electricity demand
throughout the world.
Conflicts of interest statement
The authors whose names are listed immediately below certify
that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organi-
zation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria;
educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; member-
ship, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity
interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements),
or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional re-
lationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter
or materials discussed in this manuscript.
References
Adaramola, M. S., & Vågnes, E. E. T. (2015). Preliminary assessment of a small-scale
rooftop PV-grid tied in Norwegian climatic conditions. Energy Conversion and
Management, 90, 458e465.
Adhikari, S., Kumar, S., & Siripuekpong, P. (2003). Performance of household grid-
connected PV system in Thailand. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Ap-
plications, 11(8), 557e564.
Al-Otaibi, A., Al-Qattan, A., Fairouz, F., & Al-Mulla, A. (2015). “Performance evalua-
tion of photovoltaic systems on Kuwaiti schools' rooftop. Energy Conversion and
Management, 95, 110e119.
Ayompe, L. M., Duffy, A., McCormack, S. J., & Conlon, M. (2011). Measured perfor-
mance of a 1.72 kW rooftop grid connected photovoltaic system in Ireland.
Energy Conversion and Management, 52(2), 816e825.
Benatiallah, A., Mostefaou, R., & Bradja, K. (2007). Performance of photovoltaic solar
system in Algeria. Desalination, 209(1e3), 39e42. SPEC. ISS.
Breyer, C., & Gerlach, A. (2013). Global overview on grid-parity. Progress in Photo-
voltaics: Research and Applications, 21(1), 121e136.
Cherfa, F., Hadj Arab, A., Oussaid, R., Abdeladim, K., & Bouchakour, S. (2015). Per-
formance analysis of the mini-grid connected photovoltaic system at Algiers. In
Energy Procedia, 83, 226e236.
Chokmaviroj, S., Wattanapong, R., & Suchart, Y. (2006). Performance of a 500
kWPgrid connected photovoltaic system at mae hong son province, Thailand,.
Renewable Energy, 31(1), 19e28.
Cucumo, M., De Rosa, A., Ferraro, V., Kaliakatsos, D., & Marinelli, V. (2006). Perfor-
mance analysis of a 3 kW grid-connected photovoltaic plant. Renewable Energy,
31(8), 1129e1138.
Decker, B., & Jahn, U. (1997). Performance of 170 grid connected PV plants in
northern Germany - analysis of yields and optimization potentials. In Solar
Energy, 59, 127e133. no. 4-6e6 pt 4.
Dincer, I. (2000). Renewable energy and sustainable development: A crucial review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 4(2), 157e175.
Diner, F. (2011). The analysis on photovoltaic electricity generation status, potential
and policies of the leading countries in solar energy. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 15(1), 713e720.
Dobaria, B., Pandya, M., & Aware, M. (2016). Analytical assessment of 5.05 kWp grid
tied photovoltaic plant performance on the system level in a composite climate
of western India. Energy, 111, 47e51.
Drif, M., Perez, P., J., Aguilera, J., Almonacid, G., Gomez, P., Casa, J., de la, et al. (2007).
Univer Project. A grid connected photovoltaic system of 200 kWp at Jae n
University. Overview and performance analysis. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells,
91(8), 670e683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2006.12.006.
Edalati, S., Ameri, M., & Iranmanesh, M. (2015). Comparative performance investi-
gation of mono- and poly-crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules for use in
grid-connected photovoltaic systems in dry climates. Applied Energy, 160,
255e265.
 R. Srivastava et al. / Energy for Sustainable Development 54 (2020) 51e59
Eke, R., & Demircan, H. (2013). Performance analysis of a multi crystalline Si
photovoltaic module under Mugla climatic conditions in Turkey. Energy Con-
version and Management, 65, 580e586.
El Chaar, L., Lamont, L. A., & El Zein, N. (2011). Review of photovoltaic technologies.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(5), 2165e2175.
Elhadj Sidi, C. E. B., Ndiaye, M. L., El Bah, M., Mbodji, A., Ndiaye, A., & Ndiaye, P. A.
(2016). Performance analysis of the first large-scale (15 MWp) grid-connected
photovoltaic plant in Mauritania. Energy Conversion and Management, 119,
411e421.
Emmanuel, M., Akinyele, D., & Rayudu, R. (2017). Techno-economic analysis of a 10
kWp utility interactive photovoltaic system at Maungaraki school, Wellington,
New Zealand. Energy, 120, 573e583.
Emziane, M., & Al Ali, M. (2015). Performance assessment of rooftop PV systems in
Abu Dhabi. Energy and Buildings, 108, 101e105.
Gaede, J., & Meadowcroft, J. (2016). “A question of authenticity: Status quo bias and
the international energy agency's world energy outlook. Journal of Environ-
mental Policy and Planning, 18(5), 608e627.
Ghiani, E., Pilo, F., & Cossu, S. (2013). Evaluation of photovoltaic installations per-
formances in Sardinia. Energy Conversion and Management, 76, 1134e1142.
Wu, X., Liu, Y., Xu, J., Lei, W., Si, X., Du, W., et al. (2015). Monitoring the performance
of the building attached photovoltaic (BAPV) system in Shanghai. Energy and
Buildings, 88, 174e182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.073.
Google Map.” [Online]. Available: www.google.co.in/maps.
Hartner, M., Mayr, D., Kollmann, A., & Haas, R. (2017). Optimal sizing of residential
PV-systems from a household and social cost perspective: A case study in
Austria. Solar Energy, 141, 49e58.
Huang, C., Edesess, M., Bensoussan, A., & Tsui, K. L. (2016). Performance analysis of a
grid-connected upgraded metallurgical grade silicon photovoltaic system. En-
ergies, 9(5).
Hussin, M. Z., Omar, A. M., Zain, Z. M., & Shaari, S. (2013). Performance of grid-
connected photovoltaic system in equatorial rainforest fully humid climate of
Malaysia. International Journal of Applied Power Engineering, 2(3).
Kannan, N., & Vakeesan, D. (2016). Solar energy for future world: - a review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 1092e1105.
Kazem, H. A., Khatib, T., Sopian, K., & Elmenreich, W. (2014). Performance and
feasibility assessment of a 1.4 kW roof top grid-connected photovoltaic power
system under desertic weather conditions. Energy and Buildings, 82, 123e129.
Khare, V., Nema, S., & Baredar, P. (2016). Solar-wind hybrid renewable energy sys-
tem: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 23e33.
Khatib, T., Sopian, K., & Kazem, H. A. (2013). Actual performance and characteristic
of a grid connected photovoltaic power system in the tropics: A short term
evaluation. Energy Conversion and Management, 71, 115e119.
Kumar, K. A., Sundareswaran, K., & Venkateswaran, P. R. (2014). Performance study
on a grid connected 20kWpsolar photovoltaic installation in an industry in
Tiruchirappalli (India). Energy Sustain. Dev., 23, 294e304.
Kymakis, E., Kalykakis, S., & Papazoglou, T. M. (2009). Performance analysis of a grid
connected photovoltaic park on the island of Crete. Energy Conversion and
Management, 50(3), 433e438.
Liu, M., Tay, N. H., Steven, Bell, S., Belusko, M., Jacob, R., Will, G., et al. (2016). Review
on concentrating solar power plants and new developments in high tempera-
ture thermal energy storage technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 53, 1411e1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.026.
Ma, T., Yang, H., & Lu, L. (2017). Long term performance analysis of a standalone
photovoltaic system under real conditions. Applied Energy, 201, 320e331.
Mi, Z., Chen, J., Chen, N., Bai, Y., Wu, W., Fu, R., et al. (2016). Performance analysis of
a grid-connected high concentrating photovoltaic system under practical
operation conditions. Energies, 9(2), 1e12. https://doi.org/10.3390/en9020117.
Micheli, D., Alessandrini, S., Radu, R., & Casula, I. (2014). Analysis of the outdoor
performance and efficiency of two grid connected photovoltaic systems in
59
northern Italy. Energy Conversion and Management, 80, 436e445.
Milosavljevi c, D. D., Pavlovi
c, T. M., & Pirsl, D. S. (2015). Performance analysis of A
grid-connected solar PV plant in Nis, republic of Serbia. Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews, 44, 423e435.
Mondol, J. D., Yohanis, Y., Smyth, M., & Norton, B. (2006). Long term performance
analysis of a grid connected photovoltaic system in Northern Ireland. Energy
Conversion and Management, 47(18e19), 2925e2947.
Okello, D., Van Dyk, E. E., & Vorster, F. J. (2015). Analysis of measured and simulated
performance data of a 3.2 kWp grid-connected PV system in Port Elizabeth,
South Africa. Energy Conversion and Management, 100, 10e15.
Olatomiwa, L., Mekhilef, S., Ismail, M. S., & Moghavvemi, M. (2016). Energy man-
agement strategies in hybrid renewable energy systems: A review. Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 821e835.
Padmavathi, K., & Daniel, S. A. (2013). Performance analysis of a 3MWpgrid con-
nected solar photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy Sustain. Dev., 17(6),
615e625.
Palmero-Marrero, A., Matos, J. C., & Oliveira, A. C. (2015). Comparison of software
prediction and measured performance of a grid-connected photovoltaic power
plant. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 7(6).
Piao, Z. G., Jung, B. I., Choi, Y. O., & Cho, G. B. (2009). Performance assessment of
3 kW grid-connected PV systems in Korea. In INTELEC, International Telecom-
munications Energy Conference (Proceedings).
Pietruszko, S. M., & Gradzki, M. (2003). Performance of a grid connected small PV
system in Poland. Applied Energy, 74(1e2), 177e184.
Ruther, R., Knob, P., Beyer, H. G., Dacoregio, M. M., & Montenegro, A. A. (2003). “High
performance ratios of a double-junction a-Si BIPV grid-connected installation
after five years of continuous operation in Brazil,” in Photovoltaic Energy Con-
version. In Proceedings of 3rd World Conference on, 2003 (vol. 3, pp. 2169e2172).
Sharma, V., & Chandel, S. S. (2013). Performance and degradation analysis for long
term reliability of solar photovoltaic systems: A review. Renewable and Sus-
tainable Energy Reviews, 27, 753e767.
Sherwani, A. F., Usmani, J. A., & Varun. (2010). Life cycle assessment of solar PV
based electricity generation systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable En-
ergy Reviews, 14(1), 540e544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.08.003.
Shiva Kumar, B., & Sudhakar, K. (2015). Performance evaluation of 10 MW grid
connected solar photovoltaic power plant in India. Energy Report, 1, 184e192.
Short, W., Packey, D. J., & Holt, T. (1995). A manual for the economic evaluation of
energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies (No. NREL/TPe462-5173).
Golden, Colorado, United States: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL.
Sidrach-de-Cardona, M., & Mora Lo pez, L. (1999). Performance analysis of a grid-
connected photovoltaic system. Energy, 24(2), 93e102. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0360-5442(98)00084-X.
Solangi, K. H., Islam, M. R., Saidur, R., Rahim, N. A., & Fayaz, H. (2011). A review on
global solar energy policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(4),
2149e2163.
Standard, B. (1998). Photovoltaic system performance monitoring-Guidelines for
measurement, data exchange and analysis. BS EN (p. 61724).
Sundaram, S., & Babu, J. S. C. (2015). Performance evaluation and validation of 5
MWp grid connected solar photovoltaic plant in South India. Energy Conversion
and Management, 100, 429e439.
Tripathi, B., Yadav, P., Rathod, S., & Kumar, M. (2014). Performance analysis and
comparison of two silicon material based photovoltaic technologies under
actual climatic conditions in Western India. Energy Conversion and Management,
80, 97e102.
Ubertini, S., & Desideri, U. (2003). Performance estimation and experimental
measurements of a photovoltaic roof. Renewable Energy, 28(12), 1833e1850.
Wittkopf, S., Valliappan, S., Liu, L., Ang, K. S., & Cheng, S. C. J. (2012). Analytical
performance monitoring of a 142.5kWpgrid-connected rooftop BIPV system in
Singapore. Renewable Energy, 47, 9e20.