2021 13th IEEE PES Asia Pacific Power & Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC)

Floating Solar Potential Assessment

Hema Bala Subramanyam Pakyala
Department of Hydro and Renewable Energy
IIT Roorkee
Roorkee, India
p_subramanyam@ah.iitr.ac.in

Abstract—India has a huge energy demand, and renewable II. CALCULATIONS OF SOLAR PV ARRAY
energy is the most promising solution for meeting this demand.
2021 13th IEEE PES Asia Pacific Power & Energy Engineering Conference (APPEEC) | 978-1-6654-4878-9/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/APPEEC50844.2021.9687733

Solar energy is a promising renewable energy resource that is
clean, eco-friendly, and abundant in nature. India is endowed
with a vast amount of solar energy potential. Floating
Photovoltaic (FPV) is predicted to be a better form of solar
energy, which is reliable, affordable, and sustainable. It
potentially solves land scarcity and cost because it can be
constructed over any stable water surface like a lake, pond,
reservoir, river, etc. Moreover, it generates more amount of
power because of the cooling effect of water. The FPV technology
has still not realized its potential in developing countries like
India. This study aims to calculate and compare the energy
generation, performance ratio, capacity utilization factor, cost
analysis, evaporation reduction, and greenhouse gas emissions
for 1 MW FPV and 1 MW Ground-mounted Photovoltaic (GPV)
at Visakhapatnam city in India. The electricity generation from
the FPV system is estimated to be 1.5%-3% higher than the GPV
system. 1 MW FPV system could save 42 million liters of water
from evaporation annually. The cost of electricity for floating
solar is 4.1 INR/kWh, which is slightly higher than ground-
mounted systems. This study highlights the advantages of using
the FPV system over the GPV system in energy generation,
water-saving, and efficiency.
Keywords- Floating PV plant, Ground-mounted PV plant,
Evaporation, Economic analysis, Visakhapatnam.
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the demand to generate energy using
renewable has been consistently rising. Solar is often seen as
the most promising energy. In India, solar PV is dominated
mainly by ground-based and rooftop installations [1].
Ground-mounted Photovoltaic (GPV) is land-dependent
and less efficient [1]. So, increasing project size requires large
land. Therefore, the PV systems which are installed on water
bodies can avoid the use of land. Floating Photovoltaic (FPV)
systems can be installed on water bodies like lakes, ponds,
reservoirs, and lagoons.
India has a huge potential for FPV installations due to the
availability of water bodies. The installation of FPV reduces
land costs and operating costs for power generation.
Floating Photovoltaic (FPV) panels are designed in such a
way that they will float on water bodies. The main
components required in the FPV are: i) PV module ii) floating
structure iii) anchoring and mooring system iv) cables and
connecting wires [2]. In this, solar panels are kept on a
floating structure fixed to the anchoring and mooring system.
PV modules generate direct current, and the inverter converts
direct current to alternating current and feeds to the grid.
A. SOLAR RADIATION RECEIVED ON TITLED SURFACE
Direct or Beam irradiance is the solar irradiance received
directly from the sun without any deviation. Diffused
irradiance is the irradiance received after being scattered by
atmospheric particles. Global irradiance means the summation
of both direct irradiance and diffused irradiance, as shown in
equation (1).
Ig = Ib + Id (1)
where Ig is the global irradiance, Id is the diffused
irradiance, and Ib is the direct Beam irradiance.
The incidence angle of solar radiation is the angle between
incoming solar radiation and the surface of the collector [3].
This study assumes the collector surface is facing south, and
the incidence angle is given by equation (2).
Cosθ= SinαCosβ + CosαSinβCos(гs-г) (2)
where θ is the incidence angle, φ is the latitude, β is the tilt
angle, γ is azimuth angle (γ=0 when surface facing south), ω is
hour angle, γs is solar azimuth angle, δ is declination angle
defined in equation (3) [4].
δ = 23.45 Sin( (284+n)) (3)
where n is the day of the year starting from January 01, we
are taking reference date as generally mid of each month.
While in summers, because of longer days of heat, a date may
be taken less than mid-month, and in winters, the date may be
higher than mid-month because of shorter days of heat. In
summer solicitor and winter solicitor, dates of months are
nearer to the beginning of the month.
Solar radiation received on the tilted surface is given by
equation (4), as proposed by Sukhatme et al. [5]
IT = Ib * rb + Id *rd + (Ib + Id )rr (4)
where Ib is beam flux on a tilted surface, Id is diffused flux
on a tilted surface, rb is beam radiation tilt factor, rd is diffused
radiation tilt factor, and rr is reflected radiation tilt factor.
∗ ( ─ ) ∗ ∗ ( ─ )
rb = = (5)
( ∗ ∗ ∗ )
rd = (6)
( )
rr = (7)
where ρ is the reflectivity of the ground.

978-1-6654-4878-9/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on October 15,2023 at 13:23:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

α= 90-θz (8)
where α is the altitude angle which is the angle between
the sun and horizontal plane, and it is the complement of the
zenith angle as shown in equation (8).
Cosθz = Sinα = Sinδ*Sinφ + Cosφ*Cosδ*Cosω (9)
Cosгs = (Sinα Sinφ- Sinδ)/ (Cosα Cosφ) (10)
Here θz is Zenith angle which is the angle between the sun
and vertical plane, and it can be calculated from equation (9)
ω=15º(ts-12) (11)
where ω is hour angle, and ts is solar time in hours
For floating solar, water temperature and wind speed over
the water surface are used to determine the cell temperature of
floating modules [6]. Water temperature to air temperature is
given by equation (12).
Tw = 5.0 + 0.75 Ta (12)
The wind velocity on the water surface is always higher
than wind velocity on land [6]. It is given by equation (13).
Vw = 1.62 + (1.17 * Vland) (13)
where Vw is wind velocity on water (m/s), Vland is wind
velocity on land (m/s).
In a floating Solar PV power plant, the temperature of the
PV cell [6] is given by equation (14).
TFPV = 0.943Tw + 0.0195G-1.528Vw+0.3529 (14)
where TFPV is cell temperature of FPV in degree celsius,
Tw is the water temperature in degree celsius, G is Average
daily irradiance (W/m2), Vw is wind velocity over the surface
of the water (m/s).
B. ELECTRICAL ENERGY GENERATED BY PV ARRAY
The Monthly DC Energy output can be calculated by
multiplying daily output by the number of days in the month is
given by equation (16) [7].
Edc/day = (Itr/1000) *(Pdc)*(1+γ (Tcell – Tref)) (15)
Edc/Month = Edc/day * Number of days in Month (16)
where Itr is transmitted irradiance, Tcell is cell temperature,
Pdc is specified DC Capacity, г is Temperature coefficient, and
value is -0.0047/℃ for the standard module, Tref is Reference
cell Temperature=25℃, reference irradiance is 1000 W/m2
AC Energy output is estimated from DC energy output by
considering inverter efficiency as 96% and Monthly PV
module losses assumed as 6.7% [7].
Earray = Edc [(1-operating losses in array (%)] (17)
Egrid = Earray[1- (losses at inverter (%)+losses in ac
cable(%)] (18)
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on October 15,2023 at 13:23:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
C. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE RATIO AND CAPACITY
UTILIZATION FACTOR
Annual Performance Ratio (PR) is the ratio of energy
supplied to the grid to the rated power and the tilted irradiation
to the standard irradiation (1000 W/m2). This factor tells the
performance of the Floating power plant. Annual Capacity
Utilization Factor (CUF) is the ratio of actual energy
generated to the theoretical maximum energy generation of a
power plant. It also determines the performance of a Floating
power plant. PR and CUF are calculated by using equations
(19) and (20) [8].
!
PR = "#$ (19)
%!
&'$ (
CUF = (20)
)∗ ∗*+ ,-. # #.--/( 0.,.0 #1
where Egrid is the energy supplied to the grid from floating
solar power plant, Po is the rated capacity of the power plant,
Itr is the transmitted irradiance.
D. EVAPORATION CALCULATIONS
The amount of water saved from evaporation is estimated by
using equation (21) [9].
Evaporation=15.24*(Es-Ea) *(1+(0.13*Us)) (21)
5. ∗7
6 9
2= . ∗ . ∗ .5 ∗ 5. 87 (22)
where Es is saturated vapor pressure in cm of mercury, Ea
is actual vapor pressure in cm of mercury, Us is the velocity of
air over water surface in km/h, Td is dew point temperature in
degree celsius.
E. REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS
The reduction of GHG emissions is estimated by using
equation (23) [10].
Gt= Es * G*(1+β) (23)
where Gt is the amount of GHG reduced annually in
tCO2/year, Es is annual electricity production, G is GHG
emissions of India in tCO2/year, β is the average loss rate of
power distribution and transmission.
III. SITE DESCRIPTION
The study is performed for the Meghadrigedda reservoir in
Visakhapatnam city in India. Solar radiation data of
Visakhapatnam city is taken from NASA from January 01,
2020, to December 31, 2020 [11]. The latitude and longitude
for location are 17°76’63” and 83°18’33” respectively.
The average global horizontal solar radiation in
Visakhapatnam city is around 5.47 kWh/m2/day [11]. The
annual average global radiation on an inclined surface is 5.87
kWh/m2/day. Here Tilt angle is considered the same as the
latitude angle of the Meghadrigedda reservoir.
The annual average temperature in the city is around
27.8℃ [11]. For solar photovoltaic modules, the reference
temperature is 25℃, beyond which the energy produced from
the module decreases. According to Indian Meteorological
Department, the annual average wind velocity in
Visakhapatnam is around 4 m/s [12]. The variation in GHI,
temperature, and wind velocity in each month is in Table I.
TABLE I
Meteorological parameters of Meghadrigedda Reservoir [11].
May at 41.19℃ is 206 MWh, and the least in December at
36.27℃ is 95 MWh. The variation in temperature, energy, PR,
CUF, and reduction of GHG emissions in each month for GPV
is shown in Table II.
TABLE II
Monthly estimation of different parameters for ground-mounted solar

Global Horizontal Wind TGPV EGPV GHG

Temperature Month Tair(℃) Vair(m/s) PR(%) CUF(%)
Months irradiation speed (℃ ) (MWh) (tCO2)
(°C)
(kWh/m2/month) (m/s) Jan 23.5 3.14 37.21 104.10 84.42 13.99 85.21
Jan 155.35 23.5 3.14 Feb 25.4 3.16 38.97 124.14 83.68 18.47 101.62
Feb 163.80 25.4 3.16 Mar 27.9 3.76 40.41 172.29 83.07 23.15 141.04
Apr 29.9 4.64 40.95 195.25 82.84 27.11 159.83
Mar 200.20 27.9 3.76
May 31.2 5.29 41.19 206.14 82.75 27.70 168.74
Apr 204.21 29.9 4.64 Jun 30.9 4.6 41.96 165.90 82.42 23.04 135.81
May 200.41 31.2 5.29 Jul 29.4 5.19 39.64 162.29 83.40 21.81 132.85
Jun 162.25 30.9 4.6 Aug 29.2 5.08 39.62 145.58 83.41 19.56 119.17
Jul 160.85 29.4 5.19 Sep 28.8 4.34 40.37 130.68 83.09 18.15 106.97
Aug 151.98 29.2 5.08 Oct 28 3.02 41.64 120.32 82.56 16.17 98.497
Sep 146.71 28.8 4.34 Nov 25.8 3.61 38.66 104.69 83.81 14.54 85.70
Dec 23.6 3.82 36.27 95.40 84.82 12.82 78.10
Oct 152.44 28 3.02
Yearly 27.8 4.14 39.74 1726.84 83.36 19.71 1413.59
Nov 153.02 25.8 3.61
Dec 148.50 23.6 3.82
The module temperature of the GPV is highest in June at
IV. METHODOLOGY 41.96℃ and lowest in December at 36.27℃. The performance
ratio is highest in December at 84.8% and the lowest
performance ratio in June at 82.4%. The highest capacity
utilization factor in May is about 27.7%, and the least is 12.8%
in December.
B. FLOATING PV POWER PLANT
1 MW floating power plant produces 1775 MWh of annual
energy fed to the grid. The module temperatures of floating
solar are lesser when compared to ground-mounted solar, so
the amount of energy produced from floating solar is higher
than ground-mounted solar. The variation in temperature,
energy, PR, CUF, and reduction of GHG emissions in each
month for FPV is shown in Table III.
TABLE III
Monthly estimation of different parameters for floating solar

EFPV GHG
Month Tw(℃) Vw(m/s) TFPV(℃) PR(%) CUF(%)
(MWh) (tCO2)
Fig. 1: Flowchart for the Methodology
Jan 22.62 5.29 33.09 106.24 86.15 14.27 85.52
Feb 24.05 5.31 34.41 127.00 85.61 18.89 102.23
Energy calculation is performed for 1 MW FPV and 1 MW Mar 25.92 6.01 35.10 176.93 85.31 23.78 142.43
GPV, calculate all other parameters like solar angles, energy Apr 27.42 7.04 34.94 201.21 85.38 27.94 161.98
from the array, energy fed to the grid, capacity factor, and May 28.4 7.81 34.70 212.94 85.48 28.62 171.42
performance ratio. For energy calculation, calculate the solar
Jun 28.17 7.00 35.72 171.19 85.05 23.77 137.81
angles at the middle of the time interval. The modules are
Jul 27.05 7.69 33.61 167.24 85.94 22.47 134.62
assumed to be south facing. The plant requires 3332 solar
polycrystalline PV modules having a rating of 300 W and 11 Aug 26.9 7.56 33.66 149.96 85.92 20.15 120.72
inverters of 80 kW capacity. Sep 26.6 6.69 34.70 134.44 85.48 18.67 108.22
Oct 26 5.15 36.49 123.48 84.72 16.59 99.40
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Nov 24.35 5.84 33.88 107.21 85.82 14.89 86.30
Dec 22.7 6.09 31.954 97.45 86.64 13.09 78.44
A. GROUND-MOUNTED PV POWER PLANT
The Annual energy generated by a 1MW GPV is around Yearly 25.85 6.46 34.35 1775.33 85.62 20.26 1429.14
1726 MWh. The highest amount of energy fed to the grid in

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on October 15,2023 at 13:23:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The module temperature of floating photovoltaic is highest The values calculated are compared with PVSyst software.
in October at 36.4 ℃ and lowest in December at 31.9 ℃. The In PVSyst software, the monthly air temperature, monthly
highest amount of energy fed to the grid in May at 34.7℃ is energy generated from an array, monthly energy fed to the
212 MWh, and the least in December at 31.9 ℃ is 97.4 MWh. grid, and PR are in Table IV. The energy fed to the grid is
The performance ratio is highest in December at 86.6% and 1707 MWh annually, and the annual performance ratio is
the lowest performance ratio in October at 84.7%. The highest 81.2%. The energy generation and PR values that are
capacity utilization factor in May is about 28.6%, and the least estimated for GPV and FPV are comparable with PVSyst.
is 13% in December. TABLE IV
Monthly estimation of different parameters using PVSyst
C. COMPARISON OF FPV AND GPV
The temperature of FPV is closer to ambient temperature
than GPV. The comparison of monthly module temperatures GHI DHI Tamb GHI eff Earray Egrid
Month PR(%)
of GPV and FPV with ambient temperature is shown in Fig.2. (kWh/m2) (kWh/m2) (℃) (kWh/m2) (MWh) (MWh)
Jan 163.5 51.57 22.51 190.5 166.6 162.1 82.3
Feb 168 47.12 24.01 184.9 159.8 155.4 81.2
60
Temperature(ºC)

Tcell Mar 212 61.72 26.82 216.1 184.5 179.5 80.3

40 GPV(°C)
Apr 215.3 63.58 29.22 204.4 173.3 168.6 79.7
20 Tcell May 197 70.14 31.19 177.1 150.1 146.1 79.3
FPV(°C)
0 Jun 132.8 79.86 29.28 119.3 104.1 101.2 81.2
Jan

May
Mar

Sep
Jul

Dec
Oct
Jun

Aug

Nov
Apr

Tambient
Feb

Jul 144.3 79.97 28.04 130.2 113.9 110.7 81.4

Aug 146.5 76.55 27.77 136.7 119.5 116.2 81.6
Sep 146.3 73.61 27.66 143.3 125.1 121.7 81.6
Fig. 2: Comparison of Temperatures of FPV and GPV Oct 157.9 62.25 26.39 166.3 144.4 140.4 81.6
Nov 164.7 48.64 24.85 188.8 164.0 159.6 81.9
The vital aspect for estimating the potential is the
prediction of cell temperature. The temperature difference Dec 145.6 52.58 23.17 170.1 149.6 145.7 82.8
between floating solar and ground-mounted solar cells is about Yearly 1994 767.59 26.76 2027.4 1755.0 1707.4 81.2
15%, approximately stands for 5℃.
D. WATER SAVED FROM EVAPORATION
The Energy production from floating solar is about 2.8%
higher compared to ground-mounted solar. This is mainly due The evaporation losses have been estimated by Kuzmin’s
to less module temperature because of the cooling water empirical equation [9], as shown in Table V. The water saved
effect. The average amount of energy generated by floating from evaporation for Meghadrigedda reservoir by installing
solar is 154.1 MWh and for ground-mounted solar is about FPV is 42 Million liters of water, as in Fig.5.
149.89 MWh of energy per month. The comparison of CUF
TABLE V
and PR of FPV and GPV are shown in Fig.3 and Fig.4, Monthly estimation of water saved from evaporation
respectively.
Evaporation
Ea Es
30 Month Tw(℃) Vw(km/h) Tdew (℃) (Million
(cm/Hg) (cm/Hg)
Capacity Utilization

25 liters)
CUF(%)
20 Jan 22.62 19.06 16.48 1.41 2.06 3.46
for FPV
factor(%)

15 Feb 24.05 19.14 17.58 1.51 2.24 3.92

10 Mar 25.92 21.67 19.42 1.69 2.51 4.76
CUF(%)
Dec
Oct
Jan

May
Jun
July
Mar

Sep
Aug

Nov
Apr
Feb

for GPV Apr 27.42 25.37 21.74 1.95 2.74 5.17

May 28.40 28.11 23.56 2.18 2.90 5.12
Jun 28.17 25.21 24.24 2.27 2.86 3.87
Jul 27.05 27.69 24.4 2.29 2.68 2.73
Fig. 3: Comparison of Capacity Utilization Factor of FPV and GPV
Aug 26.9 27.22 24.57 2.37 2.66 2.37
90 Sep 26.6 24.11 24.42 2.29 2.61 1.99
Oct 26.0 18.55 22.85 2.08 2.52 2.25
Performance

PR(%) for
Ratio(%)

85 Nov 24.35 21.04 19.88 1.74 2.29 3.10

GPV
Dec 22.7 21.92 16.9 1.44 2.07 3.66
PR(%) for
80 FPV Yearly 25.85 23.27 21.34 1.905 2.50 42.43
Jan

Jul

Dec
May

Oct
Jun

Aug

Nov
Mar

Sep
Apr
Feb

Fig. 4: Comparison of Performance Ratio of FPV and GPV

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on October 15,2023 at 13:23:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE VII
6 Comparison of GPV and FPV
(MillionLitres) 5
Evaporation

4
3 Parameters GPV FPV
2
Average Module Temperature (˚C) 39 34
1
0 Annual energy generated (MWh) 1726 1775
Jan

Mar

Sep
Jul

Dec
May

Oct
Jun

Aug

Nov
Apr
Feb

Annual Performance ratio (%) 83 85

Fig. 5: Water saved from evaporation for FPV.
E. ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS
The total project cost is estimated by considering solar
panels, module support, inverter, installation, and land. The
land cost will not be considered for the FPV plant as it is
situated on a water body. The module support cost for the FPV
plant is higher than the GPV plant. The cost for designing,
installation, civil works, Testing, and commissioning is around
3.8 Million INR. The capital expenditure cost for FPV and
GPV is 51.12 Million and 43.21 Million, respectively. The
initial operation and maintenance cost is considered as 1% of
the capital expenditure cost. The escalation in operation and
maintenance cost is considered as 5% every year. When more
FPV projects are installed then operation and maintenance cost
reduce proportionally.
TABLE VI
The total cost of equipment for FPV and GPV
Serial Components Number Cost per
No. of units unit (INR)
1 PV Module 3332
2 Module support for 3332
GPV
2 Module support for 3332
FPV
3 Inverter 11
4 Installation - 3800000
5 Land cost for GPV - 2500000
Investment CAPEX for GPV = 43.21 Million
Investment CAPEX for FPV = 51.12 Million
Degradation of module 0.6% annually
Discount rate 10%
Depreciation rate 8.33% for the first 12 years
No of years of operation 25
The cost of electricity for Andhra Pradesh is 6.37
INR/kWh for 2020-21 [13]. This paper calculated all the
corresponding parameters for FPV and GPV for 25 years. The
sum of the operation and maintenance cost of FPV and GPV
for 25 years is 24.38 Million and 20.71 Million, respectively.
The sum of the discounted annual cost of FPV and GPV for 25
years is 68.41 Million and 58.10 Million, respectively.
Annual Capacity Utilization Factor (%) 19 20
Water saved from evaporation (Million
Liters/year) 0 42
Reduction of GHG emissions (tCO2 /year) 1413 1429
Energy cost (INR/kWh) 3.58 4.1
Payback Period(years) 3.9 4.5
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Floating solar has higher efficiency than ground-mounted
solar due to the natural evaporative cooling system. This
system cools the solar panels and maintains the ambient
temperature. While calculating the output, some assumptions
are considered, such as all modules are south facing, 6.7% PV
module losses, 10% discount rate, 0.6% annual module
degradation rate. The energy generated by 1 MW GPV is 1726
Total cost MWh annually, and 1 MW FPV is 1775 MWh annually
(Million)
therefore, the amount of energy generated for the FPV plant is
8100 26.98 2.8% higher than the GPV plant. The average performance
ratio for GPV and FPV is 83% and 85%, respectively. The
1326 4.42 average capacity utilization factor for GPV and FPV is 19%
4450 14.83 and 20% respectively. The average module temperature for
GPV and FPV is 39℃ and 34℃, respectively. As module
500000 5.50 temperature decreases by 15%, the amount of energy
generation for FPV increases by 2.8%.
3.80
Using the GPV plant, there is no saving of water, but using
2.50
the FPV plant, the amount of water saved from evaporation for
the Meghadrigedda reservoir is 42 Million liters of water
annually. This saved water can be used for drinking and the
irrigation of agricultural lands for Visakhapatnam city. The 1
MW FPV plant can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 1430
tons of CO2 emissions annually. The cost of electricity for
floating solar is 4.10 INR/kWh and for ground-mounted solar
is 3.58 INR/kWh. The payback period for the FPV plant is 4.5
years. From this result FPV plant proves having good payback
period. Based on the study and the calculations, the FPV
plants are a good solution for replacing fossil fuel resources
and also benefits like higher performance ratio, higher
capacity utilization factor, saving land, saving a million liters
of valuable water from evaporation, higher reduction of CO2
emission, and higher amount of energy generation than GPV
plants. The future work involves environmental impacts of
FPV panels on water quality, aquatic animals, and to check the
impact of water waves on FPV plants.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on October 15,2023 at 13:23:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 REFERENCES
[1] Mohit Acharya and Sarvesh Devraj (2019), “Floating Solar Photovoltaic
(FSPV): The Third Pillar to Solar PV Sector,” TERI Discussion Paper:
Output of the ETC India Project (New Delhi: The Energy and Resources
Institute), pp. 14-17.
[2] M. H. Albadi, R. S. Al Abri, M. I. Masoud, K. H. Al Saidi, A. S. Al
Busaidi, A. Al Lawati, K. Al Ajmi, I. Al Farsi, “Design of a 50-kW solar
PV rooftop system”, International Journal of Smart Grid and Clean
Energy, vol. 3, no. 4, October 2014.
[3] I. Parra, M. Munoz, E. Lorenzo, M. García, J. Marcos, and F.
Martínezmoreno, “PV performance modelling: A review in the light of
quality assurance for large PV plants,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
vol. 78, pp. 780–797, Apr. 2017.
[4] B. Shivakumar, K. Sudhakar, “Performance Evaluation of 10 MW grid-
connected solar photovoltaic power plant in India”, EnergyReports1
(2015)184–192.
[5] S. P. Sukhatme and J. K. Nayak. Solar Energy: Principles of thermal
collection and storage. New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education (India)
Private Limited, 2015.
[6] A. T. Umoette, E. A. Ubom, and M. U. Festus, “Design of standalone
floating PV system for Ibeno health center,” Science Journal of Energy
Engineering. Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 56-61, 2017.
[7] Swati. S. Gurfude and P. S. Kulkarni, “Energy Yield of Tracking Type
Floating Solar PV Plant,” National Power Electronics Conference
Tiruchirappalli, India, pp.16, 2019.
[8] A. M. Khalid, I. Mitra, W. Warmuth, and V. Schacht, “Performance ratio
– Crucial parameter for grid-connected PV plants,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 65, pp. 1139–1158, Jul. 2016.
[9] S. N. Simha, P. Shabong, and Aravindan, “Feasibility of Floating
Photovoltaics in the city of Bengaluru,” International Research Journal
of Engineering and Technology, Issue 6, vol.7, 2019.
[10] S. Jinyoung, C. Yosoon, “Analysis of the Potential for the use of
Floating Photovoltaic Systems on Mine Pit Lakes: Case Study at the
Ssangyong Open-Pit Limestone Mine in Korea,” Energies 2016.
[11] NASA prediction of worldwide energy resource. (2020). [Online].
Available: https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-access-viewer/.
[12] Indian Meteorological department. (2020). [Online]. Available:
https://imdamaravati.gov.in/climatology/.
[13] Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission. (2020). [Online].
Available: https://www.aperc.gov.in/page/Tariff_Orders/.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA. Downloaded on October 15,2023 at 13:23:08 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.