Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Techno-economic analysis of a solar photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) T

concentrator for building application in Sweden using Monte Carlo method
⁎
Yaxiu Gua, Xingxing Zhangb, , Jonn Are Myhrenb, Mengjie Hanb, Xiangjie Chenc, Yanping Yuand
a
Department of Building Environment and Energy Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
b
School of Industrial Technology and Business Studies, Dalarna University, Falun 79188, Sweden
c
Department of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
d
School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The solar energy share in Sweden will grow up significantly in next a few decades. Such transition offers not only
PV/T great opportunity but also uncertainties for the emerging solar photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) technologies. This
Monte Carlo paper therefore aims to conduct a techno-economic evaluation of a reference solar PV/T concentrator in Sweden
Economic for building application. An analytical model is developed based on the combinations of Monte Carlo simulation
LCOE
techniques and multi energy-balance/financial equations, which takes into account of the integrated un-
NPV
certainties and risks of various variables. In the model, 11 essential input variables, i.e. average daily solar
Payback period
irradiance, electrical/thermal efficiency, prices of electricity/heating, operation & management (OM) cost, PV/T
capital cost, debt to equity ratio, interest rate, discount rate, and inflation rate, are considered, while the eco-
nomic evaluation metrics, such as levelized cost of energy (LCOE), net present value (NPV), and payback period
(PP), are primarily assessed. According to the analytical results, the mean values of LCOE, NPV and PP of the
reference PV/T connector are observed at 1.27 SEK/kW h (0.127 €/kW h), 18,812.55 SEK (1881.255 €) and
10 years during its 25 years lifespan, given the project size at 10.37 m2 and capital cost at 4482–5378 SEK/m2
(448.2–537.8 €/m2). The positive NPV indicates that the investment on the selected PV/T concentrator will be
profitable as the projected earnings exceeds the anticipated costs, depending on the NPV decision rule. The
sensitivity analysis and the parametric study illustrate that the economic performance of the reference PV/T
concentrator in Sweden is mostly proportional to solar irradiance, debt to equity ratio and heating price, but
disproportionate to capital cost and discount rate. Together with additional market analysis of PV/T technol-
ogies in Sweden, it is expected that this paper could clarify the economic situation of PV/T technologies in
Sweden and provide a useful model for their further investment decisions, in order to achieve sustainable and
low-carbon economics, with an expanded quantitative discussion of the real economic or policy scenarios that
may lead to those outcomes.

1. Introduction period of 2015 to 2040, rising by an average rate of 2.8%/year, in

1.1. Solar photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) technology
Over the past 26 years, energy consumption in Sweden was almost
stable within the range of 46–53 Mtoe (Million Tonnes of Oil
Equivalent) in comparison to the global energy consumption [1]. This is
mainly owing to the fall in fossil fuel use, offset by slight increase in
renewables. The renewable shares grew up gently at approximately
3.58%/year, ranging from 38% to 64% during the period from 1990 to
2016. When looking further ahead, it is projected that the renewables
will be the continuous-growing sources of energy generation over the
which solar and wind will dominate growth in renewables [2]. In
Sweden, it has set up a goal of 100% renewable electricity in 2040 and
solar energy is planned to contribute 5–10% electricity generation,
comparing to today’s marginal level of less than 0.1% [3]. Along with
potential technological improvements, the Swedish government has
also published several strategies to support their future increased ap-
plications in solar field. For instance, the government introduces a
‘SOLROT’ deduction instead of investment support for individuals to
facilitate the development of small and medium-sized solar plants in the
electricity market [3]. Such adjustment allows homeowners to receive
the corresponding compensation level faster. Other measures include

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: xza@du.se (X. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.03.043
Received 5 January 2018; Received in revised form 26 February 2018; Accepted 16 March 2018
Available online 21 March 2018
0196-8904/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Gu et al.
Nomenclature
A area, m2
C cost, SEK
C0 capital cost, SEK
CF cash flow, SEK
dg degradation rate,%
DE debt to equity ratio,%
E energy, kW h/year
EP electricity price, SEK/kW h
G daily solar irradiance per unit area, kW h/m2-day
Gw solar irradiance per unit area, W/m2
HP heating price, SEK/kW h
Ifr inflation rate,%
Itr interest rate,%
I0 initial investment, SEK
j number of simulation trials
L loan cost, SEK
LCOE levelized cost of energy, SEK/kW h
n number of life span
NPV net present value, SEK
the possibility of reducing tax rates for medium-sized plants, adjusting
energy taxes per plant instead of legal personality, and expanding ef-
ficiency by reviewing building permit processes, waste management
and spatial planning as well as support for electricity certificates for
micro-production [3].
In recent years, the innovative hybrid solar photovoltaic/thermal
(PV/T) technology has emerged on the solar market, which can gen-
erate both electrical and thermal energy simultaneously. Solar PV
modules usually can only output low energy per unit area at the effi-
ciency up to 22.5%, whereas the majority range from 14% to 16% ef-
ficiency in practice [4]. On the other hand, standalone solar thermal
collectors, consisting of heat exchangers, transform solar radiation to
internal thermal energy of the transport medium. They usually generate
higher energy quantity per unit area at the energy efficiencies from
40% to 85% depending on types of collectors (evacuate tube, glazed or
unglazed flat plate), but they have much lower energy quality at exergy
efficiencies from 2% to 3.9% [5]. To overcome these two inherent
barriers, solar PV/T could become a potential solution since it combines
both electrical and thermal components in a single unit area to produce
electricity and heat simultaneously, leading a higher overall solar-en-
ergy conversion up to 94% than those standalone ones [6]. Moreover,
PV cells drop in energy efficiency with the rise in its operating tem-
perature. Harvesting the superfluous heat from PV cells in a compro-
mised way, depending on local operating conditions [7], can therefore
increase the overall operating efficiency of PV cells and lead to the best
performance of PV/T module [8]. For instance, thermal efficiency of
PV/T is improved by adding glazing layer, while the PV efficiency de-
creases in this case. A compromise in PV and thermal yields must be
considered to achieve the best operational performance of PV/T in
practice. Other major benefits of PV/T modules include: (1) more ef-
fective usage of the entire solar spectrum with PV and thermal com-
ponents in one unit; (2) reduced installation cost and space, (3) de-
creasing the thermal load of whole building, and (4) better aesthetic
architectural integration than using two individual PV and thermal
collectors [9].
PV/T technologies can be categorized into flat-plate and con-
centrated types, for different application purposes. The flat-plate PV/T
modules are the mostly common ones, dominating current PV/T market
worldwide. Although they are relatively affordable, there is very lim-
ited application or research in Sweden [10]. This could be due to many
reasons, but one of them could possibly be that in the circumstance of
the extremely poor weather/operating conditions in Nordic area, heat is
9
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
OM operation & maintenance cost, SEK
PP payback period, year
r discount rate,%
S savings in year t, SEK
ta temperature of surrounding air, °C
tm mean temperature, °C
T time, year
Ta tax, SEK
TR tax rate per kW h, SEK/kW h
Greek
η efficiency, %
Subscripts
e electricity
et electricity in year t
t time in the unit of year
th thermal
tht thermal energy in year t
usually considered as a by-product in these PV/T types, and they must
be coupled with heat pumps or boilers to upgrade temperature for
applications – this increases the overall system cost and limits the ap-
plication feasibility. On the other hand, PV/T concentrators have been
applied in Sweden for nearly 20 years [10,11] that can generate heat at
temperature of up to 75 °C [11] and yearly-mean temperature of 40 °C
in Sweden scenario, which are suitable for most building applications
(such as hot water), through installation on ground, or integration with
roof, wall, balcony or even windows in either new or existing buildings
[11,12], as shown in Fig. 1. Moreover, PV/T concentrators are able of
connecting with complex heating and mechanical systems, such as
district heating system [13], desalting [14], industrial processing [15],
waste heat recovery [16], solar cooling [17] and solar power generation
[18] etc. These studies demonstrate that PV/T concentrators are more
capable to cope with complex systems and poor external operation
conditions. This paper thus decided to select an existing PV/T con-
centrator in Sweden as the research objective for further investigation.
1.2. Techno-economic evaluation techniques
Owing to these advantages of PV/T technology, there are many
researches now working on the techno-economic evaluations of various
PV/T types within different scenarios. Most of them firstly assessed the
energy performances of dedicated PV/T in different climate regions,
and then estimated the economic benefits by inputting the values of
local economic factors, based on different modelling methods
[15,19–23]. There are many economic performance indicators used by
investment professionals, such as LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy)
[15,19,23], NPV (Net Present Value) [24,25], EPBT (Energy Pay Back
Time) [26], ROI (Return on Investment) [25], BCR (Benefit to Cost
ratio) [27], IRR (Internal Rate of Return) [25], TCC (tolerable capital
costs) [28], UCE (Unit Cost of Energy) [27], and simple /discounted PP
(Payback Period) [24,25,29,30]. Among these indicators, LCOE, NPV,
and PP are found the most popular. By comparing the research results
of different authors, it can be summarized for the PV/T technologies
that: (1) LCOE varies in the range of 0.06–0.12 €/kW h; (2) NPV is
nearly €20,000 over a 25-year period; and (3) PP reaches about
11 years in general. In addition to the variety of economic indicators,
there is often a notable discrepancy in the economic impact factors,
including tax, incentives, discount rate, inflation rate, fuel cost, elec-
tricity tariff, loan interest, time, location etc., which can cause con-
siderable differences in the main economic performance and the
Y. Gu et al.
Fig. 1. PV/T concentrators for potential building applications [11,12]
investment decisions, particularly as the PV prices have declined by
about 50% from 2010 to 2015.
During these studies, only a few researchers considered the present
values of both costs and saving, while the rest only consider the present
value of costs. Also in most cases, LCOE is only calculated using point
(non-connected/non-integrated) values for all inputs, ignoring the in-
tegrated uncertainty for investment decision. Currently, the key simu-
lation engines for the economic analysis of PV/T are either commer-
cialized energy-performance modelling software, such as TRNSYS
[19,31], MATLAB [21], IES-VE [25], or the self-developed analytical
models [29]. Although these studies have suitably used the main eco-
nomic performance indicators as the objectives, most of them used
simplified economic models to estimate the economic-performance of
PV/T, which are usually too optimistic by only considering a limited
series of input variables and ignoring the inherent integrated un-
certainty of each variable [32], resulting in a certain disagreement
comparing to real cases. The sensitivities of different variables to the
economic-performance of PV/T in various operation conditions are not
10
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
clear and it is thus necessary to find feasible modelling solution to in-
crease the robustness of the economic estimations of PV/T technology.
Monte Carlo method is an effective solution to this challenge, which
is a relatively simple and established technique for involving un-
certainty and risk in quantitative models. In a Monte Carlo model, a
calculation is performed many times, and each set of input parameters
is chosen randomly from pre-defined distributions for each estimation
[33]. This, on the other hand, leads to the limitation of this method that
the tails of output distributions are very sensitive to the input dis-
tributions and the method sometimes requires significant trials of cal-
culation to complete the converge. Currently, there are seldom eco-
nomic studies of PV/T using the Monte Carlo method, even though this
method has been applied in standalone PV and solar thermal fields for
many years. For instance, Heck et al. [33] conducted a Monte Carlo
analysis of the LCOE probability distributions for the costs of major
generation technologies (such as PV and solar thermal), rather than the
usual point values. They indicated that the Monte Carlo approach is
only slightly more complex than using point values, but provides more
Y. Gu et al.
realistic information about risk and uncertainty, and enables more
useful analysis of potential investments in electricity generation. Dufo-
López et al. [34] optimised the energy supply at off-grid healthcare
facilities (PV–diesel–battery systems) using Monte Carlo simulation.
Their research method included a probabilistic optimisation by means
of Monte Carlo simulation, in order to consider the uncertainties in the
renewable sources and in the load profiles, which allowed stochastic
optimisation of complex hybrid systems with a high level of accuracy in
the modelling of the system. Meschede et al. [35] assessed the prob-
abilistic distributed factors influencing renewable energy supply (i.e.
PV) for hotels using Monte-Carlo methods, by considering the effect of
weather and occupancy fluctuations on the sensitivity of investment
criteria. They found that the results are sensitive to weather fluctua-
tions as well as economic parameters to about the same degree, and the
Monte Carlo method helps to define the mean of the annuity more
precisely and to rate the risk of fluctuating weather and occupancy
better. Rezvani et al. [36] conducted a techno-economic and reliability
assessment of solar water heaters in Australia based on Monte Carlo
analysis. They concluded that solar water heaters could offer sig-
nificantly better long-term economic viability compared to conven-
tional systems at moderate auxiliary energy consumptions.
1.3. Motivation and novelty
It is demonstrated from above studies that Monte Carlo method can
add the availability of performing stochastic analysis to the existing
simulation approach. In the existing studies, most evaluations of LCOE,
NPV and PP of PV/T have not yet considered the uncertainty due to
each input variable, giving only an “optimal performance” value that
often offers relative optimism in a capital-intensive long-term invest-
ment. This is because the input variables, such as capital cost, fuel
prices, variable operation and maintenance, are affected by numerous
factors that can change the value of these inputs dramatically. In most
existing models, researchers usually used the most-likely (average)
values for an input, while Monte Carlo method is capable of overcoming
Fig. 2. (a) annual installed PV capacity in Sweden from 1993 to 2016; (b) various market
segments' share of the yearly installed capacity in Sweden [38]
11
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
this limitation by considering a variety of scenarios in proportion to
their likelihood. This produces a probability distribution of different
outcomes for the main economic performance indicators, i.e. LCOE,
NPV, and PP, providing a more accurate projection as a result [33].
Upon to now, there is no research specifically addressing the economic
evaluation of PV/T concentrators in Swedish scenario. There are still
critical challenges for solar PV/T development in Sweden, such as un-
clear market size/position, application locations with appropriate solar
irradiance levels, unknown pricing/policy impact & economic perfor-
mance and weak development strategy etc.
This paper therefore aims to fill in these research gaps, through a
techno-economic evaluation of a reference solar PV/T concentrator in
Sweden. An analytical model is developed based on the combinations of
Monte Carlo simulation techniques and multi energy-balance/financial
equations, which takes into account of the inherent uncertainties and
risks of various variables. In the model, 11 essential input variables, i.e.
average daily solar irradiance, electrical/thermal efficiency, prices of
electricity/heating, operation & management (OM) cost, PV/T capital
cost, debt to equity, interest rate, discount rate, and inflation rate, are
considered and the economic evaluation metrics, such as LCOE, NPV
and PP, are primarily assessed. Together with additional market ana-
lysis of PV/T technologies in Sweden, it is expected that this paper
could, to some extent, clarify the economic situation of PV/T technol-
ogies in Sweden, and provide useful model and information for the
decision-makings of capital-intensive long-term investment of PV/T in
building sector.
2. Market analysis of PV/T in Sweden
It is likely that the economic results would be different if the study
were performed in another country or even in the same country today,
as costs, tariffs, and policies are changing. To make an accurate as-
sessment, it is necessary to clarify the local policies and market struc-
tures [37].
Currently, the Sweden’s market for solar energy is very small.
Nevertheless, the installation rate of PV continues to increase. In 2016,
a total of 79.2 MWp were installed, showing the annual PV market grew
with 63% as compared to the 48.4 MWp installed in 2015. For the PV
market, the off-grid PV application accounts for a very small share, with
only 1.5 MWp installed in 2016; while the market for grid-connected PV
systems has grown rapidly in Sweden, with 77.7 MWp systems installed
in 2016 [38], as observed in Fig. 2. Various market segments of the
yearly installed PV capacity in Sweden are illustrated. There has been a
clear shift from a market dominated by off-grid systems to a grid-con-
nected market, in which the grid-connected distributed PV systems
dominates the market, mainly due to the tax law for large centralized
PV systems. A new policy, published on July 2017, a 98% tax reduction
on PV systems over 255 kWp has further removed the major economic
barriers of PV generation systems – this will be the main source of in-
crease of PV market. Under the new policy, the tax would be reduced
from SEK 0.295 (0.0295 €)1 per kW h to SEK 0.005 (0.0005 €) per kW h
[39]. The total cumulative PV capacity installed in Sweden was ap-
proximately 205.5 MWp by the end of 2016. The cumulative PV market
grew with 63% under 2016, which is in line with the marked devel-
opment over the last five years where the cumulative market has grown
with 52%, 83%, 84%, 62% and 63%, respectively. The strong overall
growth in recent years started with the introduction of the direct capital
subsidy system in 2006, and has then been fuelled by the declining
system prices, high popularity among the public, a growing interest
from utilities and an ongoing reformation work from the Government to
simplify the rules for micro producers [38]. According to International
Energy Outlook [2], solar energy in Sweden is expected to contribute
5–10% to electricity generation in 2040, which means the share of solar
1
1 SEK equals 0.1 euro approximately on 25 January 2018.
Y. Gu et al.
electricity production within the total power generation mix will rise
from 0.1% in 2016 to 5–10% in 2040, which is up to 100 times of
current solar power capacity if the total electricity generation remain
stable as past decades. However, the PV market in Sweden is still re-
lying much on subsidies, and the PV system prices must continue to go
down, or the electricity prices to go up if PV needs to contribute to an
appreciable part of the Swedish electricity generation mix. Moreover,
the Swedish PV market is becoming broader as more and more players
with other core businesses, such as utilities and real estate owners, are
taking an increasing interest in the PV market. A high competition on
PV market will be expected in the near future.
The Swedish solar thermal market is decreasing significantly from
2011. The total number of the installed solar thermal collectors in 2016
was only about 2823, nearly half of the installed capacity in 2015. The
budget was about €1 million annually, while PV started out much
higher, at €5 to €10 million per year. The whole solar thermal market
faces increasing competition with other energy technologies, such as
biomass boilers, district heating, heat pumps, solar PV. It seems as if not
even the rather high national carbon tax can reinvigorate the country’s
solar heat market. Typical solar thermal products in Sweden are flat
plate and vacuum tubes collectors, while the concentrated solar thermal
plants and PV/T products are very rare. Their application includes the
fields of hot water and space heating, in operation with other energy
system in the meanwhile. The market price of flat plate collectors has
dropped in line with the overall development of collector prices across
Europe, while vacuum tube collectors have become more expensive
owing to less and less players in the area. About half of the market is
now being served by local manufacturers, according to the country
portrait [40]. IEA SHC [41] point out that the main market drivers are
the national building code and indirect tax deduction for repair, con-
version and extension work can be made for installing solar heating
systems. In contrast to PV market, there is no direct financial support to
Fig. 3. Flow chart of techno-economic analysis method.
12
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
solar thermal market. Other barriers are the lower prices of alternative
energy technologies and the lack of information on solar heating sys-
tems among actors and consumers. In general, the Swedish solar
thermal market is disruptive. It has to face high competition from al-
ternative energy systems, but with limited indirect policy support.
Great barriers are found for its further development.
Technology drivers offer opportunities for disruptive market in-
novation [42]. The innovative PV/T technology cogenerates of elec-
tricity and heat from the same area, but with less installation cost than
installing both individual PV and solar thermals collector, resulting in
the lower overall cost-to-performance ratio and enabling the possible
development of solar thermal market along with the growing PV
market. As a result, it offers opportunities for innovation in Swedish
solar thermal market. Meanwhile, PV/T technology lowers the energy
price per square meter, reducing the dependence degree of PV on
governmental subsidy and thus making the target set by the govern-
ment achievable [43,44]. Because PV market is shifting to the grid-
connected distributed systems, and solar thermal market is indirectly
driven by national codes for low-energy buildings and nearly zero-en-
ergy buildings, it is expected that the Swedish PV/T market will expand
mostly in building sector. However, in order to achieve the success of
PV/T market innovation in Sweden, it is desired to clarify investment
risks, to propose new investing models, to set appropriate price of PV/T
products, and to evaluate operate strategies of players, which are still
not clear and are challenging the market penetration.
3. Development of techno-economic model
This section will develop a techno-economic model by considering
the present values of both electricity and heating savings from PV/T
concentrator as part of the cash flow. A PV/T concentrator (X10 PVT)
from a Swedish company [11] is used as a reference for application in
Y. Gu et al.
buildings, where both electricity and heating supplies are needed. As
compared to the conventional PV and solar thermal devices, PV/T
concentrators have plenty of advantages for the application in buildings
as discussed in the introduction, i.e. higher electrical conversion effi-
ciency, more energy output per unit area, efficient use of the building
space, larger acceptance angle and higher optical efficiency [45,46].
The selected PV/T concentrator produces more energy per unit area
than typical PV and solar thermal collectors in a limited building ap-
plication space, and could achieve up to 75 °C heat output (with yearly-
average temperature at about 40 °C) in Swedish scenario [11,47],
suiting for most hot water application in buildings. It is also feasible for
low-concentration PV/T, such as the reference one, to be integrated
with buildings without tracking system, which further lowers down the
cost-to-performance ratio (cost per unit energy output) of PV/T con-
centrator [48], making it more promising for application in buildings.
The overall techno-economic modelling method is illustrated in Fig. 3.
3.1. Reference PV/T concentrator
The reference PV/T technology is a concentrated type (named X10)
and Fig. 4 illustrates its basic configurations. The X10 PV/T consists of a
cylinder-parabolic reflecting mirror, made by aluminium, that con-
centrates 17.8 times the solar light onto the receiver. Inside the
Fig. 4. (a) overall stracture of X10 PV/T; (b) cross section of receiver; (c) dimension of concentrator [49,51].
13
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
receiver, the PV component is composed of 166 mono-crystalline solar
cells in series with the size of each cell at 32 × 110 mm. The thermal
component is structured in triangular with a double aluminium section
bar substrate. Each bar is built in with a fluid channel for counter
current flow. On the two receiver sides, opposite to the parabolic
concentrator, there are laser groove buried contact solar cells on the
surface; whereas the top side of the receiver is covered with a thermal
absorber. The whole PV/T concentrator has a gross area of 10.91 m2
and an aperture area of 10.37 m2. The tracking of the sun is based on
special electrical custom-designed high quality linear actuator, which is
carried out by rotating the structure around an axis oriented in the
east–west direction.
According to the technical bulletin provided by the manufacturer
[49,50], the nominal efficiencies of the selected PV/T concentrator are
9.62% ( ± 5%) for electrical performance and 47.21–54.80% for
thermal performance, under the operational temperature differences
between thermal medium (tm) and surrounding air (ta) from 0 to 70 °C.
The yearly-average output temperature is about 40 °C and the stagna-
tion temperature is high to 243 °C with the maximum operation pres-
sure at around 1 MPa. The effective thermal capacity is almost 6.11 kJ/
m2-K. The thermal efficiency as function of the average operation
temperature (tm) and the external operation conditions is expressed as
η = 0.548–0.849(tm − ta)/AGw − 0.003(tm − ta)2/AGw, with the flow
Y. Gu et al. Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24

mass rage at 0.01 kg/s-m2. In practice, the performance of the PV/T Lt is the financing loan cost in year t, including annual loan payment
concentrator maybe reply on many factors of the thermal side of the and interest SEK.
project. However, in order to evaluate the economic performance of the Tat is the tax paid for the electricity generation in the year t, SEK
selected concentrator at current stage with the limited practical data, it OMt is the operating & management cost in year t, SEK.
is a common and cost-effective way to estimate the economic perfor-
mance using the nominal efficiencies for initial decision. In above equation, the investment expenditure for the first year is de-
fined by
3.2. Energy generation model
I0 = C0 × (1−DE ) (6)

The energy generation model is simplified by only considering the where

impact from three essential variables, i.e. solar radiation and electrical/
thermal efficiencies, and the concentrator performance degradation C0 is the capital cost, SEK.
over the operating time. The energy generation from PV/T concentrator DE is the debt to equity ratio, %.
is expressed by equations from (1-3).
The financing loan cost in year t, Lt, is given as below equation
Et = Eet + Etht (1)
1 t
Eet = (365 × Gt × ηe × A) × (1−dge )t (2) Lt = C0 × DE × ⎡ + ⎛1− ⎞ × Itrt ⎤
⎣n ⎝ n⎠ ⎦ (7)
Etht = (365 × Gt × ηth × A) × (1−dgth)t (3) where
where
Itrt is the interest rate of year t, %.
Et is the total energy generated by the PV/T concentrator in the year
t, kW h/year. And the tax is written by Eq. (8)
Eet is the nominal electricity generated by the PV/T concentrator, Tat = TR × Eet (8)
kW h/year.
Etht is the nominal thermal energy generated by the PV/T con- where
centrator, kW h/year.
A is the effective collecting area of PV/T concentrator, m2. TR is the tax rate per kW h, SEK/kW h.
Gt is the average daily solar irradiation in the year t, kW h/m2-day.
ηe is the total concentrator electrical efficiency, %. NPV is defined by Eq. (9), which is a measurement of cumulative
ηth is the total concentrator thermal efficiency, %. profit calculated by subtracting the present values of cash outflows
dge and dgth are respectively the degradations of electrical and (including initial cost) from the present values of cash inflows over the
thermal parts of the PV/T concentrator, %. PV/T concentrator’s life time. NPV can be either involved only a single
t is the index of time in the unit of number of year, starting from year investment alternative or used to compare competing investment pro-
‘0’. jects. In this paper, we use NPV to evaluate a single investment whether
is acceptable or not [51]. A positive NPV indicates that the projected
3.3. Economical evaluation metrics earnings, generated by a project or investment, exceeds the anticipated
costs. In general, an investment with a positive NPV will be a profitable
LCOE weights the overall unit energy costs of establishing and op- one and the higher NPV means higher benefits. This concept is the basis
erating an energy system throughout its entire life. All costs factors, for the NPV decision rule, which dictates that the only investments that
such as fuel, financing, incentives, taxes, operational costs and de- should be made are those with positive NPV values.
gradation, should be considered in levelized cost calculations. n−1
CFt
Especially for the PV/T concentrator, LCOE serves a standardized me- NPV = −C0 + ∑ (1 + r )t
tric by combining two disparate energy flows into one bottom-line t=0 (9)
metric, so that it can adequately compare energy costs of diverse gen- where
eration sources. The mathematical equations for LCOE is given in Eq.
(4) [19]. CFt is the cash flow of the year t, SEK.
n−1
Ct
∑ (1 + r )t
The cash flow in year t is given by Eq. (10)
t=0
LCOE = n−1 CFt = Set + Stht −Ct (10)
Et
∑ (1 + r )t In addition, the energy savings are respectively from electricity and
t=0 (4)
heating
where
Set = EPt × Ifrt × Eet (11)
n is the number of year in terms of the concentrator’s lifetime.
Stht = HPt × Ifrt × Etht (12)
Ct is the total cost in the year of t, SEK.
r is the discount rate, %. where

While the total cost of the PV/T concentrator in the specific year could EPt is the electricity price in year t, SEK/kW h.
be expressed by HPt is the heating price in year t, SEK/kW h.
Ifrt is the inflation rate of year t, %.
Ct = (I0 |t = 0) + Lt + OMt + Tat (5)
where PP is the time in year for a project to break even or recover its initial
investment funds, where the cash flow starts to turn positive. If PP is
I0 is the investment expenditures in the initial year, SEK. larger than the life-span of the reference PV/T concentrator, it is

14
Y. Gu et al. Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24

considered that PP equals 26 in this case. ⎡ (LCOE

1 NPV 1 PP1) ⎤
PP = T(CFt > 0) ⎢ (LCOE 2 NPV 2 PP 2) ⎥
(13) ⎢ ⎥
⎢⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ j NPV j PP j ) ⎥
⎣ (LCOE ⎦
3.4. Key input variables
= Monte Carlo model
The key input variables for the analysis of the reference PV/T ⎛ ⎡ (S1 ηe1 ηth1 EP1 HP1 OM1 C01 DE1 Itr 1 r 1 Ifr 1) ⎞ ⎤
concentrator are categorized into technical, financial, and geographical ⎜ ⎢ (S 2 ⎥
ηe1 ηth1 EP 2 HP 2 OM 2 C02 DE 3 Itr 4 r 5 Ifr 6) ⎟ ⎥
ones. Table 1 displayed the basic variables that are included in the ⎜⎢ ⎟⎥
⎢⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
analytical model, in which, the possible values of each variable are ⎜⎢ ⎟⎥
⎜ Sj ηej ηthj EP j HP j OM j C0j DE j Itr j r j Ifr j ⎟ ⎥ (14)
estimated with relevant probabilities while assuming the variable fol- ⎝⎣ ⎠⎦
lows a continuous probability distribution. For instance, the average
where
daily irradiation in a specific location of Sweden is assumed to fit with
the continuous probability distribution curve. Taking Stockholm as an
j is the number of simulation trials.
example, the average daily solar irradiation varies between 0.25 kW h/
m2–day to 5.93 kW h/m2–day from January to December, and the mean
of the annual average daily irradiation is 2.87 kW h/m2-day, so the 3.5. Simulation process
average daily solar irradiation could be then defined to follow the
continuous probability distribution, ranging between minimum and The Monte Carlo analytical model is developed upon Crystal Ball,
maximum values given in Table 1 and the highest probability at the which is a leading spreadsheet-based application for predictive mod-
mean value. As a result, it is possible to further run the probabilistic elling, forecasting, simulation, and optimization. It offers unparalleled
analysis using Monte Carlo simulation, conducting different combina- insight into the critical factors affecting risk so that the decision-makers
tions that follow the probability curves of different variables. can make the right tactical decisions [58]. In this model, the variables
The average cost for the whole reference PV/T concentrator (in- mentioned above were defined as the triangular probability distribution
cluding other indirect cost, such as installation, admin charges, system due to the limited data of the parameters, ranging between minimum
components, etc.,) is around 4500 SEK/m2 (450 €/m2), with up to 20% and maximum given in Table 1 and the highest probability at the mean
price-floating range. There are different ways to finance the PV/T value. A range of values for assumptions was randomly generated.
concentrators, for instance, a loan from a bank is possible at the levels These inputs were then feed into formulas of evaluation metrics defined
of 0%, 60%, 80% and 90% of the capital investment (Debt to equity). in forecast cells. This was repeated for a large number of combinations
Meanwhile, the associated interest rate varies from 2% to 6% de- of parameters (10,000 trials in this work). After simulation, it explored
pending on the loan’s option (flexible or fixed) and duration. The OM ranges of outcomes, expressed as graphical forecasts, in order to exam
cost of a PV/T varies in different cases. For instance, Kalogirou and the sensitivity/reliability of various input variables, and to estimate the
Tripanagnostopoulos [52] and Herrando and Markides [29] estimated probability/certainty of different economic evaluation metrics [58].
at 1% of total system cost by considering parasitic costs with an in-
crease rate of 1% per year of the system operation due to the required 4. Results and discussion
energy for circulate system pump. Riggs et al. [15] reported that OM
costs for PV part and thermal part of a PV/T concentrator are respec- 4.1. Sensitivity and reliability analysis
tively at 6.5 USD/kWelec (51.41 SEK/kWelec) and 15 USD/kWtherm
(118.64 SEK/kWelec) during its life time. By referring to these figures, A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the sensitivity of the
the OM cost to capital cost for the reference PV/T concentrator is about variations in input variables to the evaluation metrics (LCOE, NPV, and
1.36%. In this paper, depending on the reference PV/T concentrator’s PP), as displayed in Fig. 5. Stockholm was taken as a basic example for
company [11], the OM cost is assumed in the range from 0.75% to 2% application of the reference PV/T concentrator. The default forecast
of the capital cost, which covers the ratios (1% and 1.36%) mentioned
above. The regular labour cost for OM is not considered as the reference Table 1
PV/T concentrator is a standalone system. Basic thermal OM (such as Key input parameters and their ranges for the simulation model.
plumbing, pump power, etc.) and electrical OM (such as inverter re-
Description Mean Min Max Unit
placement, control, etc.) are taken into account. Mirror cleaning costs
are retained within the OM costs but the reduced power output due to Geographical parameters
maintenance downtime is not included in the model. Further, there are Average daily solar irradiance in 2.87 0.25 5.93 kW h/m2-
a variety of business models for smaller scale installations, in which the Stockholm [53] day
Electricity price [54] 1.94 1.54 2.09 SEK/kW h
installer covers system specific maintenance. This also increases the Heating price [55] 0.80 0.45 1.02 SEK/kW h
variation extent of OM cost. Over the past 10 years, both electricity Technical parameters
price and oil & gas increased a lot, so it is also important to consider the Effective PV/T area [50] 10.37 – – m2
inflation rate of both electricity and heating prices depending on the Years of operation [11] 25 – – years
STC nominal electrical efficiency 9.62 9.14 10.08 %
general inflation rate in the range of -1.6% to 4.4%. The normal de-
[49,50]
preciation of solar energy panel is estimated at 25 years. Nominal thermal efficiency [50] 51.52 47.21 54.80 %
By considering the tornado analysis done by Riggs et al., [15] and Nominal degradation rate [15] 1.00 – – %/year
the scenarios in Sweden, there will be 11 essential input variables Financial Parameters
considered in this paper, for further sensitivity analysis, which are: Capital product cost (include 4482.00 3586.00 5378.00 SEK/m2
indirect cost) [11]
daily solar irradiance (S), electrical/thermal efficiency (ηe/ηth), prices of Debt to equity [11,15] 60.00 0.00 90.00 %
electricity/heating (EP/HP), OM cost (OM), concentrator capital cost Interest rate [11,15] 4.00 2.00 6.00 %/year
(C0), debt to equity ratio (DE), interest rate (Itr), discount rate (r), and Loan term [11,15] 25.00 – – years
inflation rate (Ifr). These variables are either affecting largely the result Effective tax [39] 0.01 – – SEK/kW h
Nominal discount rate [11,56] 8.00 6.00 10.00 %/year
or are rather uncertain, and their effect on the results are expected.The
OM to capital product cost [11,15] 1.00 0.75 2.00 %/year
total evaluation strategy in the Monte Carlo model is expressed by Inflation rate [57] 1.20 −1.60 4.40 %/year
input-output vector in Eq. (14)

15
Y. Gu et al.
Fig. 5. Frequency forecast chart of (a) LCOE, (b) NPV, and (c) PP.
views are shown as the samples’ count of values (the frequency) for
each interval on the x-axis. In Fig. 5 (a), the mean value of LCOE is
observed at 1.27 SEK/kW h (0.127 €/kW h). The LCOE value that oc-
curred the most frequently is at around 0.80 SEK/kW h, which has a
probability of around 6.5%, meaning that there is a 6.5% chance of
LCOE values falling near this value. There is about 88.65% probability
of LCOE values falling between 0.30 and 2 SEK/kW h. Comparing to the
LCOE of other PV/T systems reviewed in Section 2 (0.06–0.12 €/kW h
or 0.6–1.2 SEK/kW h), the mean LCOE of X10 PV/T is more closed to
the upper limit owing to the much less energy generation and lower
energy saving benefits in Sweden. Similarly in Fig. 5(b), the reference
concentrator has the mean NPV value of 18,812.55 SEK (1,881.255 €)
after 25 years operation, and there is nearly 74.91% probability for this
PV/T concentrator to achieve positive NPV (valuable investment) when
it is operated in Sweden. According to the NPV decision rule, the po-
sitive NPV indicates that the investment on the selected PV/T con-
centrator will be highly-likely profitable as the projected earnings ex-
ceeds the anticipated costs. The mean PP, displayed in Fig. 5(c), is
nearly 10 years when the cash flow turns positive, which is equivalent
16
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
to the other cases (about 11 years) reviewed in Section 2. There is
around 80.92% possibility for this PV/T concentrator to have a PP less
than 15 years. However, there is nearly 12% high risk for the PP over
the concentrator’s operation life span of 25 years.
Fig. 6 demonstrates the sensitivity of different variables to different
output values. It is found that the main parameters that determine a
positive outcome of business case are average daily solar irradiance,
concentrator capital cost, heating price, debt to equity ratio and dis-
count rate. The average daily solar irradiance accounts for approxi-
mately 91.85%, 91.12% and 84.60% of the values of LCOE, NPV and
PP, respectively. It is therefore considered as the most important as-
sumption in the model since it determines energy generation and sav-
ings of the whole concentrator system. The concentrator capital cost
also influences all the three evaluation metrics: 3.64% to LCOE, 1.97%
to NPV and 3.00% to PP, since it contributes directly to the annual
savings and cash flow. The debt to equity ratio is another important
factor that strongly connected with the initial investment and the as-
sociated annual cost/cash flow; so it affects the outputs too, con-
tributing 1.85% impact to LCOE, and 7.71% to PP. Heating price also
influences NPV and PP to an extent of 4.85% and 4.08% respectively.
This is because the magnitude of heat generation is relative larger,
comparing to electricity generation, and thus the product of heat output
and heating price contributes largely to the cash flow. In addition, the
discount rate has slight impact on LCOE while the rest variables are not
so important and their impacts on the final output are so limited and
that can be ignored.
Additional comparison is also carried out between two cases using
different analytical methods: case (1) Monte Carlo method (Monte
Carlo case) and (2) average point value method (Normal case). In the
Monte Carlo case, it considers the probability distribution of each input
variable and predicts the mean values of output metrics in a certain
range. In the Normal case, it applies the average point value of each
input variable and calculates the average values of output metrics.
Table 2 displays the estimation results of the Normal case, and Fig. 7
compares the two cases in parallel. It is seen that in the Normal case,
the economic performance are too optimistic, where LCOE is calculated
at 1.05 SEK/kW h (0.105 €/kW h) while NPV and PP are respectively
estimated at 22,973.84 SEK (2,297.384 €) and 5 years. However, cur-
rent Swedish PV/T market is very poor, mainly because of the weak
practical economic benefits of PV/T. The results shown in the Normal
case are in great disagreement to real situation. In the Normal case, the
analysis neglects the inherent uncertainty in the investment and thus
overestimates the economic benefits from PV/T. On the contrast, the
analysis in Monte Carlo case chose the input parameters randomly from
pre-defined distributions for each input variable and performed the
calculation for 10,000 times, whose results seem more realistic by
providing more realistic information about risk and uncertainty.
4.2. Optimization analysis
In order to measure the potential impact of each important variable
mentioned above, such as average daily solar irradiance, debt to equity,
heating price, concentrator capital price, and discounted rate, this
section will use the existing model and the nominal efficiencies/data to
predict the values of LCOE, NPV and PP, by changing the value of each
important variable in a certain range when keeping the others as the
same assumptions. The simulation results are expected to be useful in
further marketing positioning and penetration of the reference PV/T
from the points of views of marketing location, financial measures and
governmental tariffs.
4.2.1. Impact of average daily solar irradiance
When keeping the other assumptions the same, increasing only the
average daily solar irradiance from 0.5 to 6.5 kW h/m2-day in the ex-
isting model, the impact of the average daily solar irradiance is illu-
strated in Fig. 8. In this case, only the average daily solar irradiance
Y. Gu et al.
Fig. 6. Sensitivity and Tornado charts of (a) LCOE, (b) NPV and (c) PP.
data is considered as the fixed value under each simulation running,
instead of the triangular distribution, but other 10 key input variables
are still assumed as the triangular distributions. Increasing the average
daily solar irradiance increases NPV and reduces LCOE and PP. NPV
increases from −35,068.77 SEK (−3506.877 €) to 102,639.38 SEK
(10,263.938 €) with increasing solar irradiance in a purely linear way
(y = 11497x–46567; R2 = 1), and NPV starts to turn positive after the
average daily solar irradiance is greater than about 2.10 kW h/m2-day.
LCOE falls down significantly at the beginning when the average daily
solar irradiance starts to increase but then it drops gradually when solar
irradiance becomes larger, presenting a downwards power trend
(y = 5.8109x−0.999, R2 = 1) from 5.81 SEK/kW h (0.581 €/kW h) to
0.45 SEK/kW h (0.045€/kW h). PP varies in a similar way to LCOE, also
17
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
showing downwards power trend (y = 23.057x−0.933; R2 = 0.9976).
PP is estimated over 25 years when the average daily solar irradiance is
lower than 1.5 kW h/m2-day, and it achieves minimum 2.52 years when
the average daily solar irradiance is at 6.5 kW h/m2-day. Such results
can be interpreted that higher solar irradiance leads to more total
electricity/heat generation, and thus increases the related economic
savings and NPV while decreasing LCOE and PP.
The average daily solar irradiance has a significant impact on all the
economic indexes; the higher solar irradiance, the better business out-
comes. The appropriate places for operating the reference PV/T con-
centrator are suggested to have the average daily solar irradiance
greater than 2.40 kW h/m2-day (876 kW h/m2-year) at least, in order to
achieve positive NPV and low LCOE of 1.20 SEK/kW h (0.12 €/kW h)
 Table 2
The estimated results of Normal case using average point value method.
Y. Gu et al.

Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Cost saving from energy generation

Electricity 1030.97 1020.66 1010.46 1000.35 990.35 980.45 970.64 960.94 951.33 941.81 932.39 923.07 913.84
generation
Heat generation 5521.39 5466.18 5411.52 5357.40 5303.83 5250.79 5198.28 5146.30 5094.84 5043.89 4993.45 4943.51 4894.08
Electricity savings 1950.33 1953.99 1934.45 1915.11 1895.96 1877.00 1858.23 1839.65 1821.25 1803.04 1785.01 1767.16 1749.49
Heating savings 4417.11 4425.42 4381.16 4337.35 4293.98 4251.04 4208.53 4166.44 4124.78 4083.53 4042.70 4002.27 3962.25
TOTAL ENERGY 6552.37 6486.84 6421.98 6357.76 6294.18 6231.24 6168.92 6107.24 6046.16 5985.70 5925.84 5866.59 5807.92
GENERATION
TOTAL ENERGY 6367.44 6379.41 6315.62 6252.46 6189.94 6128.04 6066.76 6006.09 5946.03 5886.57 5827.70 5769.43 5711.73
SAVING

Cost of operation & maintenance and Tax

OM cost 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78
Tax for electricity 5.15 5.10 5.05 5.00 4.95 4.90 4.85 4.80 4.76 4.71 4.66 4.62 4.57
TOTAL 469.94 469.89 469.84 469.79 469.74 469.69 469.64 469.59 469.54 469.49 469.45 469.40 469.35

Financial cost
Loan payment 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115
Loan interest 1115 1071 1026 982 937 892 848 803 759 714 669 625 580
TOTAL 2230.96 2186.34 2141.72 2097.10 2052.48 2007.86 1963.25 1918.63 1874.01 1829.39 1784.77 1740.15 1695.53

Discounted cash flow and energy generation

Net Profit −14924.79 3723.19 3704.06 3685.57 3667.72 3650.49 3633.88 3617.88 3602.48 3587.69 3573.49 3559.88 3546.85
Discounted Cost 21292.23 2656.23 2611.56 2566.89 2522.22 2477.55 2432.88 2388.21 2343.55 2298.88 2254.21 2209.55 2164.88
Discounted Energy 6067.01 6006.34 5505.81 5046.99 4626.41 4240.88 3887.47 3563.51 3266.55 2994.34 2744.81 2516.08 2306.40
Generation

18
Cash flow −14924.79 −11201.61 −7497.55 −3811.97 −144.25 3506.24 7140.11 10757.99 14360.47 17948.16 21521.65 25081.53 28628.38

Evaluation metrics
Net Present Value 22,973.84 SEK (2297.384 €)
LCOE 1.05 SEK/kW h (0.105 €/kW h)
Payback period c.a. 5.0 Year

Year 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cost saving from energy generation

Electricity 904.70 895.65 886.70 877.83 869.05 860.36 851.76 843.24 834.81 826.46 818.20 810.01
generation
Heat generation 4845.14 4796.69 4748.72 4701.23 4654.22 4607.68 4561.60 4515.99 4470.83 4426.12 4381.86 4338.04
Electricity savings 1731.99 1714.67 1697.52 1680.55 1663.74 1647.11 1630.63 1614.33 1598.19 1582.20 1566.38 1550.72
Heating savings 3922.62 3883.40 3844.56 3806.12 3768.06 3730.38 3693.07 3656.14 3619.58 3583.39 3547.55 3512.08
TOTAL ENERGY 5749.84 5692.34 5635.42 5579.06 5523.27 5468.04 5413.36 5359.23 5305.64 5252.58 5200.05 5148.05
GENERATION
TOTAL ENERGY 5654.62 5598.07 5542.09 5486.67 5431.80 5377.48 5323.71 5270.47 5217.77 5165.59 5113.93 5062.79
SAVING

Cost of operation & maintenance and Tax

OM cost 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78 464.78
Tax for electricity 4.52 4.48 4.43 4.39 4.35 4.30 4.26 4.22 4.17 4.13 4.09 4.05
TOTAL 469.31 469.26 469.22 469.17 469.13 469.09 469.04 469.00 468.96 468.92 468.87 468.83

Financial cost
Loan payment 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115 1115
Loan interest 535 491 446 402 357 312 268 223 178 134 89 45
TOTAL 1650.91 1606.29 1561.67 1517.05 1472.43 1427.81 1383.20 1338.58 1293.96 1249.34 1204.72 1160.10

Discounted cash flow and energy generation

(continued on next page)
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
Y. Gu et al. Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24

and PP of less than 10 years. Fig. 9 illustrates the suitable places that

70378.51
3433.86
1628.93
meets such criteria in Sweden. The reference PV/T concentrator are

811.84
appropriate to be applied in those representative cities, i.e. Lund, Gö-
24

teborg, Norrköping, Stockholm, Borlänge and Umeå, etc. [59]. From the
geographic point of view [60], nearly two thirds of Sweden are the
66944.65 suitable places to install this reference PV/T concentrator.
3440.34
1673.59
885.65

4.2.2. Impact of debt to equity ratio

23

Varying the debt to equity ratio and keeping the other assumptions
the same, Fig. 10 shows the variation trend of NPV, LCOE and PP under
this circumstance. The debt to equity ratio is set as the fixed value
63504.31
3447.33
1718.25

(instead of the triangular distribution) during each simulation running.

966.16

The higher debt to equity ratio results in the higher LCOE/NPV, but the
22

lower PP. LCOE slightly increases from 1.01 SEK/kW h (0.101 €m/
kW h) to 1.39 SEK/kW h (0.139 €/kW h) with the increase of debt to
equity from 0% to 90% in a linear way (y = 0.0425x + 0.9493;
60056.97
3454.85
1762.91
1053.99

R2 = 0.994). The impact of debt to equity ratio to NPV value is very

limited, which is also demonstrated in Fig. 6(b). NPV grows from
21

17,329.53 SEK (1732.953 €) to 26,418.06 SEK (2,641.806 €) when the

debt to equity grows in the range of 0% to 90% in a linear way
(y = 1021.2x + 16537; R2 = 0.9928). PP drops against the increase of
56602.12
3462.89
1807.58
1149.81

debt to equity ratio in a polynomial way (y = -

0.0391x2 + 0.0309x + 10.539; R2 = 0.9947), decreasing from
20

10.64 years to 6.83 years. These variations are because the higher debt
to equity means the higher loan from the bank, increasing the annual
loan cost and therefore higher LCOE; on the other hand, high loan re-
53139.23
3471.47
1852.24
1254.34

quires less initial investment and PP, which further increases the pre-
sent values of cash flow slightly. However, the impact of debt to equity
19

is not as much as that of the average daily solar irradiance, which is

consistent with the results in sensitivity/reliability analysis. The simu-
lation results are meaningful to encourage Swedish customers to have
49667.76
3480.58
1896.90
1368.37

more loan from the bank when they decide to invest the PV/T product,
and also useful for development of new business models among dif-
18

ferent stakeholders.

4.2.3. Impact of heating price for household

46187.17
3490.24
1941.56
1492.77

The variations of LCOE, NPV and PP against the increase of

household heating price are displayed in Fig. 11, when the other
17

parameters are remained as the same assumptions. The heating price is

treated as the fixed value in the model (instead of the triangular dis-
tribution) during each simulation running. As concluded in above
42696.94

sensitivity/reliability analysis section, the impact of heating price on

3500.44
1986.23
1628.48

the LCOE can be ignored, which is also observed in this parametric

16

study. By changing heating price from 0.50 SEK/kW h (0.05 €/kW h) to

1.00 SEK/kW h (0.1 €/kW h), LCOE almost stays constantly at around
1.20 SEK/kW h (0.12 €/kW h), while NPV increases greatly from
39196.49

6,805.52 SEK (680.552 €) to 38,450.23 SEK (3,845.023 €) linearly

3511.20
2030.89
1776.52

(y = 6323x + 200; R2 = 0.9996); on the contrast, PP drops from

15

12.47 years to 6.93 years in a linear way (y = -1.0949x + 13.239; R2 =

0.9858). Since the energy savings are only considered into the present
value of cash flow (not in the present value of system cost), the heating
1.05 SEK/kW h (0.105 €/kW h)
35685.29

price only has the impact to NPV and PP but no direct influence on
3522.52
2075.55
1938.02

LCOE. The higher heating price leads to larger savings due to energy
14

generation, contributing more to cash flows and NPV/PP. The simula-

tion result has an indication that it would be more beneficial to apply
the reference PV/T concentrator in those locations or municipalities
32162.78

with higher heating price in Sweden.

3534.40
2120.22
2114.20
13

4.2.4. Impact of concentrator capital price

Considering the change of concentrator price only and keeping the
Discounted Energy

other assumptions the same, the variations of LCOE, NPV and PP

Net Present Value
Table 2 (continued)

Evaluation metrics
Discounted Cost

Payback period
Generation

against the increase of concentrator capital price are presented in

Fig. 12. The concentrator capital price is regarded as the fixed value
Cash flow
Net Profit

(instead of the triangular distribution) during each simulation running.

LCOE
Year

In previous sensitivity/reliability analysis, it is observed that the impact

of concentrator capital price on all the three economic indexes is

19
Y. Gu et al. Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24

25000 Mean NPV (SEK) Mean LCOE (SEK/kWh) Mean PP (year) on PP. When increasing the discount rate from 6% to 10%, LCOE in-
1.4
creases from 1.03 SEK/kW h (0.103 €/kW h) to 1.39 SEK/kW h
10
(0.139 €/kW h) linearly (y = 0.089x + 0.941; R2 = 0.9991); while
20000 1.2
NPV reduces from 30,675.55 SEK (3067.555 €) to 16,353.94 SEK
8 (1635.394 €) in a linear way (y = −3575.5x + 33745; R2 = 0.9934).
1.0
The variation of PP ranges very limited from 9.15 to 9.28 years. The
15000
larger discount rate weakens the present values of cash flow and the
0.8 6
energy generation/benefits, and it ultimately reduces NPV and en-
hances LCOE. According to the simulation result, the lower discount
10000 0.6
4 rate is beneficial to the investment of the reference PV/T concentrator
in Sweden.
0.4
5000
2
0.2
5. Future work to improve the model

0 0.0 0
Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2
Case 1: Monte Carlo Case; Case 2: Normal case using avearge point values
Fig. 7. Comparison of economic analytical results between two cases using different
methods.
remarkable, which is also observed in this parametric study. Increasing
concentrator capital price from 3000 SEK/m2 (300 €/m2) to 5500 SEK/
m2 (550 €/m2), LCOE goes up from 0.81 SEK/kW h (0.081 €/kW h) to
1.48 SEK/kW h (0.148 €/kW h) in a linear way (y = 0.1351x + 0.672;
R2 = 0.9989), and similarly, PP increases from 5.63 years to
11.89 years linearly too (y = 1.2657x + 4.2567; R2 = 0.9987); on the
other hand, NPV falls down from 37,989.16 SEK (3,798.916 €) to
12,078.33 SEK (1207.833 €) linearly (y = −5219.5x + 43373; R2 =
0.9987). The higher concentrator capital price results in the higher
initial investment and the higher loan cost; so it has a negative impact
on all the three economic indexes, lowering NPV and increasing LCOE/
PP simultaneously. The simulation result indicates that the capital price
of the reference PV/T concentrator is important to the final decision of
investment, and it is suggested that the concentrator capital price
should be controlled as low as possible for a better market penetration.
4.2.5. Impact of discount rate
When changing the discount rate only, its impact to the LCOE, NPV
and PP is illustrated in Fig. 13. It needs to be noted that the discount
rate is set at the fixed value, rather than triangular distribution, while
the rest assumptions are defined as the same distributions. The discount
rate has certain impact on both LCOE and NPV but the limited influence
Since the main task in this work is to propose a methodology and
develop the relevant model by using the nominal efficiencies/data, in
order to find out the most influencing variables (sensitivities) on PV/T
investment decisions in Sweden scenario, further work is required to
improve this model’s reliability in practical decision making process.
The average daily solar irradiance has the highest sensitivity ranking
and therefore is regarded as the most important factor. Further im-
provement of the model should apply the historic real-time solar irra-
diance data to reduce its uncertainty and increase model accuracy. As
highlighted by Guarracino et al. [61], it is important to use real climate
data at high resolution instead of time-averaged data, where the yearly
energy yields may be discrepant by over 25%. The next important
impact factors are the debt to equity ratio, the concentrator capital
price, local heating prices, and the discount rate. Further simulation
should be based on the actual financial plan and the location-based
product & energy prices.
Additional attention should be paid to the location-specific real-time
PV/T efficiencies. In this paper, only the nominal PV/T efficiencies are
applied in the model, while future model should be based on real-time
PV/T efficiencies that could be defined as the practical probability
distribution curves in the model. Fiorenza et al. reported that the peak
energy yield/efficiencies of the same PV/T concentrator were 15%
lower than that in manufacturer’s technical bulletin [50]. Fig. 14
compared two cases by referring the PV/T efficiencies’ maximum va-
lues as −15% [50] and minimum values as −25% [61] respectively, to
the nominal efficiencies according to manufacturer’s technical bulletin.
A normal distribution of PV/T efficiencies in case 2 was defined. It
dictates that NPV decreases to 8677.80 SEK (867.780 €) while LCOE

Fig. 8. Variations of LCOE, NPV and PP against average daily solar irradiance.

20
Y. Gu et al. Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24

Fig. 9. Appropriate places for the reference PV/T concentrator in Sweden: (a) representative cities, and (b) geographic view.

and PP only increase to 1.51 SEK/kW h (0.151 €/kW h) and 12 years, practical factors, such as seasons, locations, orientations etc. So it is not
respectively. Although the PV/T efficiencies only influence the overall easy to simply foresee the practical efficiencies, and long-term re-
economic performance to a certain level, they can result in a more cording of real-time efficiencies could be one solution for these data.
realistic prediction. Practical PV/T efficiencies vary with many It is also important to introduce temperature production as a

NPV LCOE PP
28000 Mean NPV (SEK)
11.0
Mean LCOE (SEK/kWh)
Mean PP (Year) 1.4 10.5
26000
10.0
PP polynomial fitting
1.3
24000 y = -0.0391x2 + 0.0309x + 10.539 LCOE linear fitting 9.5
R² = 0.9947 y = 0.0425x + 0.9493
R² = 0.994 9.0
22000 1.2
8.5
NPV linear fitting
20000 y = 1021.2x + 16537
8.0
R² = 0.9928 1.1
7.5
18000
1.0 7.0

16000 6.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Debt to equity ratio
Fig. 10. Variations of LCOE, NPV and PP against debt to equity.

21
Y. Gu et al. Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24

NPV LCOE PP
13
Mean NPV (SEK)
40000
Mean LCOE (SEK/kWh) 1.24
12
35000 Mean PP (Year)

30000 1.22 11

25000 10
1.20
20000 9

15000 1.18 8
10000 NPV linear fitting
y = 6323x + 200 PP linear fitting
y = -1.0949x + 13.239
7
R² = 0.9996 1.16
5000 R² = 0.9858
6
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Heating price (SEK/kWh)
Fig. 11. Variations of LCOE, NPV and PP against heating price.

parameter in future model, together with surrounding air temperature
and hot water load profile. For instance, PV electrical efficiency relies
on the output temperature; the real-time thermal efficiency could be
achieved though using annual temperature production and annual inlet
temperature as essential parameters to estimate practical thermal
output and efficiency. In addition, this paper assumed both the thermal
and power output are useful for building services (such as lighting, hot
water at 40 °C level), where it would be possible when grid connection
or electrical storage is available for the PV output and thermal storage is
available for the thermal output. The estimation from the model may
vary depending on the demand profile at different temperature levels
and the nominal capacity installed in practice. Further work should also
involve the integration of high-resolution demand profile with the ex-
isting model.
6. Conclusions
PV/T technologies offer great opportunities for solar market in-
novation in Sweden. In order to achieve such success, this paper carries
out a techno-economic evaluation of a reference solar PV/T con-
centrator in Sweden based on Monte Carlo method. The important
conclusion can be summarized as below:
Among the 11 assumptions in the model, the average daily solar
irradiance has the highest sensitivity ranking and therefore is regarded
as the most important factor. The next important impact factors are
debt to equity ratio, the product capital price, local heating prices, and
the discount rate. Further improvement of the model should apply the
historic real-time solar irradiance data and the location-specific effi-
ciencies, financial plan and product & energy prices, as well as tem-
perature production and load profiles, to reduce its uncertainty and
increase model accuracy.
Given the project size at 10.37 m2 and capital cost at 4,482–5378
SEK/m2 (448.2–537.8 €/m2), the reference concentrator has the mean
values of LCOE, NPV and PP at 1.27 SEK/kW h (0.127 €/kW h),
18,812.55 SEK (1,881.255 €) and 10 years, respectively, in Stockholm.
There is nearly 12% high risk for the PP over the concentrator’s op-
eration life span of 25 years. According to the NPV decision rule, the
positive NPV indicates that the investment on the selected PV/T

NPV Mean NPV (SEK) LCOE PP

Mean LCOE (SEK/kWh)
40000 Mean PP (Year) 1.5 12

1.4 11
35000 LCOE linear fitting
y = 0.1351x + 0.672 1.3
NPV linear fitting R² = 0.9989 10
30000 y = -5219.5x + 43373
R² = 0.9987 1.2
9
25000
1.1
8
20000 1.0
PP linear fitting 7
y = 1.2657x + 4.2567
R² = 0.9987 0.9
15000
6
0.8
10000 5
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Concentrator capital price (SEK/m2)
Fig. 12. Variations of LCOE, NPV and PP against concentrator capital price.

22
Y. Gu et al.
NPV Mean NPV (SEK)
32000 Mean LCOE (SEK/kWh)
Mean PP (Year)
30000
28000
NPV linear fitting
26000 y = -3575.5x + 33745
R² = 0.9934
24000
22000
20000
18000
16000
0.06 0.07
Discount rate
Fig. 13. Variations of LCOE, NPV and PP against discount rate.
Fig. 14. Comparison of economic analytical results between two cases using nominal
efficiencies and referenced lower practical efficiencies.
concentrator will be profitable since the projected earnings exceeds the
anticipated costs during its life span.
The higher solar irradiance, the better business outcomes. The ap-
propriate places for operating the reference PV/T concentrator is sug-
gested to have the average daily solar irradiance greater than 2.40
kW h/m2-day (876 kW h/m2-year) at least. The reference PV/T con-
centrator could be applied in those representative cities, such as Lund,
Göteborg, Norrköping, Stockholm, Borlänge and Umeå etc. It is mean-
ingful to encourage Swedish customers to have more loans from the
bank when they decide to invest the PV/T product. It would be more
beneficial to apply such system in those locations or municipalities with
higher heating price or lower discount rate in Sweden. The concentrator
capital price should be controlled as low as possible for a better market
penetration.
The modelling method presenting in this paper considers the in-
tegrated uncertainties and risks of most key input parameters, whose
analytical results are expected to be useful for more realistic investment
decisions of PV/T technologies applied in Swedish building sector.
Acknowledgement
The authors would acknowledge the comments by Professor
Juergen Branke from the Warwick Business School of University of
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
LCOE PP
9.30
1.40
9.28
1.35
LCOE linear fitting 9.26
y = 0.089x + 0.941 1.30
R² = 0.9991
9.24
1.25
PP linear fitting 9.22
y = 0.032x + 9.116 1.20
R² = 0.9961
9.20
1.15
9.18
1.10
9.16
1.05
9.14
1.00
0.08 0.09 0.10
Warwick, UK. The authors would also appreciate all the reviewers’
comments for us to improve of the paper.
References
[1] Enerdata Yearbook. < https://yearbook.enerdata.net/ > [accessed 17.10.17].
[2] International Energy Outlook. < https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/
0484(2017).pdf > [accessed 19.08.17].
[3] Swedish energy agency. Proposals for strategy for increased use of solar. < https://
energimyndigheten.a-w2m.se/Home.mvc?ResourceId=5599 > [accessed 19.
10.17].
[4] Vikram Aggarwal. What are the most efficient solar panels on the market? <
https://news.energysage.com/what-are-the-most-efficient-solar-panels-on-the-
market/ > [accessed 27.01.18].
[5] Kalogirou Soteris A, Karellas Sotiriοs, Braimakis Konstantinos, Stanciu Camelia,
Badescu Viorel. Exergy analysis of solar thermal collectors and processes. Prog
Energy Combust Sci 2016;56:106–37.
[6] Wu J, Zhang X, Shen J, et al. A review of thermal absorbers and their integration
methods for the combined solar photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) modules. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;75:839–54.
[7] Yuan Yanping, Ouyang Liping, Sun Liangliang, Cao Xiaoling, Xiang Bo, Zhang
Xingxing. Effect of connection mode and mass flux on the energy output of a PVT
hot water system. Sol Energy 2017;158:285–94.
[8] Khelifa A, Touafek K, Ben Moussa H, et al. Analysis of a hybrid solar collector
photovoltaic thermal (PVT). Energy Proc 2015;74:835–43.
[9] Al-Waelia Ali HA, Sopiana K, Kazemb Hussein A, Chaichan Miqdam T.
Photovoltaic/Thermal (PV/T) systems: status and future prospects. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;77:109–30.
[10] Zondag HA, Helden WGJ, Elswijk MJ, Bakker M. PV-thermal collector development
- an overview of the lessons learnt. In: Proceeding the 19th European PV solar
energy conference and exhibition, 7–11 June 2004, Paris, France.
[11] X10 PV/T. < http://www.absolicon.se/product/absolicon-x10-pvt > [accessed 22.
02.18].
[12] Strebkov D, Litvinov P, Kuzhnurov Y, Tveryanovich E, Tyukhov I, Kivalov S.
Integrating PV/thermal concentrator systems into buildings. In: Proceedings of the
solar world congress 2005: bringing water to the world, including proceedings of
34th ASES annual conference and proceedings of 30th national passive solar con-
ference. p. 1091.
[13] Alba Ramos, Ilaria Guarracino, Alexander Mellor, Diego Alonso-Álvarez, Peter
Childs, Nicholas J. Ekins-Daukes, Christos N. Markides. Solar-Thermal and Hybrid
Photovoltaic-Thermal Systems for Renewable Heating. Grantham Institute, Briefing
paper No 22; May 2017. < https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/
grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/2679_Briefing-P-22-Solar-
heat_web.pdf > [accessed 25.01.18].
[14] Arunkumar T, Denkenberger David, Velraj R, Sathyamurthy Ravishankar, Tanaka
Hiroshi, Vinothkumar K. Experimental study on a parabolic concentrator assisted
solar desalting system. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105:665–74.
[15] Riggs BC, Biedenharnb R, Dougher C, et al. Techno-economic analysis of hybrid PV/
T systems for process heat using electricity to subsidize the cost of heat. Appl
Energy 2017;208:1370–8.
[16] Xing Ju, Chao Xu, Liao Zhirong, Xiaoze Du, Wei Gaosheng, Wang Zhifeng, et al. A
review of concentrated photovoltaic-thermal (CPVT) hybrid solar systems with
waste heat recovery (WHR). Sci Bull 2017;62:1388–426.
[17] Buonomano Annamaria, Calise Francesco, Palombo Adolfo. Solar heating and
23
Y. Gu et al.
cooling systems by absorption and adsorption chillers driven by stationary and
concentrating photovoltaic/thermal solar collectors: Modelling and simulation.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:1874–908.
[18] Powell Kody M, Rashid Khalid, Ellingwood Kevin, Tuttle Jake, Iverson Brian D.
Hybrid concentrated solar thermal power systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2017;80:215–37.
[19] Ramos A, Chatzopoulou MA, Guarracino I, et al. Hybrid photovoltaic-thermal solar
systems for combined heating, cooling and power provision in the urban environ-
ment. Energy Convers Manage 2017;150:838–50.
[20] Ghafoor A, Fracastoro GV. Cost-effectiveness of multi-purpose solar thermal sys-
tems and comparison with PV-based heat pumps. Sol Energy 2015;113:272–80.
[21] Zhang X, Shen J, Xu P, et al. Socio-economic performance of a novel solar photo-
voltaic/loop-heat-pipe heat pump water heating system in three different climatic
regions. Appl Energy 2014;135:20–34.
[22] Zhang X, Zhao X, Smith S, et al. Review of R&D progress and practical application of
the solar photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:599–617.
[23] Bianchini M, Gambuti A, Pellegrini M, Saccani C. Photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T)
solar system: experimental measurements, performance analysis and economic as-
sessment. Renew Energy 2017;111:543–55.
[24] Buker MS, Mempouo B, Riffat SB. Performance evaluation and techno-economic
analysis of a novel building integrated PV/T roof collector: an experimental vali-
dation. Energy Build 2014;76:164–75.
[25] Zhang X, Shen J, Adkins D, et al. The early design stage for building renovation with
a novel loop-heat-pipe based solar thermal facade (LHP-STF) heat pump water
heating system: Techno-economic analysis in three European climates. Energy
Convers Manage 2015;106:964–86.
[26] Wilson R, Young A. The embodied energy PP of photovoltaic installations applied to
buildings in the UK. Build Environ 1996;31(4):299–305.
[27] Michael JJ, Selvarasan I. Economic analysis and environmental impact of flat plate
roof mounted solar energy systems. Sol Energy 2017;142:159–70.
[28] Rasoul Asaee S, Nikoofard Sara, Ismet Ugursal V, Beausoleil-Morrison Ian. Techno-
economic assessment of photovoltaic (PV) and building integrated photovoltaic/
thermal (BIPV/T) system retrofits in the Canadian housing stock. Energy Build
2017;152:667–79.
[29] Herrando M, Markides CN. Hybrid PV and solar-thermal systems for domestic heat
and power provision in the UK: Techno-economic considerations. Appl Energy
2016;161:512–32.
[30] Herrando M, Markides CN, Hellgardt K, et al. A UK-based assessment of hybrid PV
and solar-thermal systems for domestic heating and power: System performance.
Appl Energy 2014;122:288–309.
[31] Rodríguez LR, Lissén JMS, Ramos JS, et al. Analysis of the economic feasibility and
reduction of a building’s energy consumption and emissions when integrating hy-
brid solar thermal/PV/micro-CHP systems. Appl Energy 2016;165:828–38.
[32] Kumar S, Tiwari GN. Life cycle cost analysis of single slope hybrid (PV/T) active
solar still. Appl Energy 2009;86:1995–2004.
[33] Heck N, Smith C, Hittinger E. A Monte Carlo approach to integrating uncertainty
into the levelized cost of electricity. Electr J 2016;29:21–30.
[34] Dufo-López R, Pérez-Cebollada E, Bernal-Agustín JL, et al. Optimisation of energy
supply at off-grid healthcare facilities using Monte Carlo simulation. Energy
Convers Manage 2016;113:321–30.
[35] Meschede H, Dunkelberg H, Stöhr F, et al. Assessment of probabilistic distributed
factors influencing renewable energy supply for hotels using Monte-Carlo methods.
Energy 2017;128:86–100.
[36] Rezvani S, Bahri PA, Urmee T, et al. Techno-economic and reliability assessment of
solar water heaters in Australia based on Monte Carlo analysis. Renew Energy
2017;105:774–85.
[37] Poppi S, Sommerfeldt N, Bales C, et al. Techno-economic review of solar heat pump
systems for residential heating applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;81:22–32.
[38] Lindahl J. National survey report of PV power applications in Sweden – 2016.
24
Energy Conversion and Management 165 (2018) 8–24
Swedish Energy Agency.
[39] Clover I. Sweden to effectively scrap solar energy tax: reports. < https://www.pv-
magazine.com/2016/11/22/sweden-to-effectively-scrap-solar-energy-tax-reports_
100026987/ > [accessed 28.11.17].
[40] Baerbel R. Sweden’s solar heat market on hold. < http://www.solarthermalworld.
org/content/swedens-solar-heat-market-hold > [accessed 16.10.17].
[41] IEA SHC. Status of Solar Heating/Cooling and Solar Buildings – 2017. < http://
www.iea-shc.org/country-report-sweden > [accessed 22.08.17].
[42] Joe Tidd, John Bessant, Keith Pavitt. Managing Innovation: Integrating
Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 3rd ed.. John Wiley & Sons Ltd;
2005.
[43] Tripanagnostopoulos Y, Souliotis M, Battisti R, Corrado A. Energy, cost and LCA
results of PV and hybrid PV/T solar systems. Prog Photovolt 2005;13:235–50.
[44] Coventry JS, Lovegrove K. Development of an approach to compare the ‘value’ of
electrical and thermal output from a domestic PV/thermal system. Sol Energy
2003;75:63–72.
[45] Xuan Qingdong, Li Guiqiang, Pei Gang, Ji Jie, Yuehong Su, Zhao Bin. Optimization
design and performance analysis of a novel asymmetric compound parabolic con-
centrator with rotation angle for building application. Sol Energy
2017;158:808–18.
[46] Li Guiqiang, Pei Gang, Ji Jie, Yang Ming, Yuehong Su, Ning X. Numerical and ex-
perimental study on a PV/T system with static miniature solar concentrator. Sol
Energy 2015;120:565–74.
[47] Elin Lindström, Marcus Winroth. Koncentrerande solfångare Teoretisk modell för
småskalig produktion. Luleå tekniska universitet; 2012. < http://www.diva-portal.
org/smash/get/diva2:1024522/FULLTEXT02 > [accessed 22.02.18].
[48] Piratheepan M, Anderson TN. Performance of a building integrated photovoltaic/
thermal concentrator for facade applications. Sol Energy 2017;153:562–73.
[49] S L Croce. Simulazione energetica discenari per la produzione combinataa ervizio di
edificicivili in area mediterranea. Università degli Studi di Cagliari. < http://
veprints.unica.it/1445/1/PhD_Thesis_LaCroce.pdf > [accessed 11.11.17].
[50] Fiorenza G, Paparo G, Apicella F, Bianco N, Graditi G. An innovative dynamic
model for the performance analysis of a concentrating photovoltaic/thermal (CPV/
T) solar collector. In: Sayigh A, editor. Renewable energy in the service of mankind.
vol II. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 337–51.
[51] Gallagher TJ, Andrew JD. Financial management; principles and practice. 4th ed.,
Freeload Press, Inc; 2007. p. 269–70.
[52] Kalogirou SA, Tripanagnostopoulos Y. Hybrid PV/T solar systems for domestic hot
water and electricity production. Energy Convers Manage 2006;47:3368–82.
[53] Solarelectricityhandbook. Average daily solar irradiance. < http://
solarelectricityhandbook.com/solar-irradiance.html > [accessed 08.12.17].
[54] Statista. Electricity prices for households in Sweden from 2010 to 2016, semi-an-
nually. < https://www.statista.com/statistics/418124/electricity-prices-for-
households-in-sweden/ > [accessed 08.12.17].
[55] Sköldberg H, Rydén B. The heating market in Sweden: an overall picture. < http://
www.varmemarknad.se/pdf/The_heating_market_in_Sweden_141030.
pdf > [accessed on 08.12.17].
[56] Koene F. Report on the developed techno-economic integrated concepts [accessed
12.11.17].
[57] Trading economics. < https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden > [accessed 30.
09.17].
[58] Oracle Crystal Ball. < https://www.oracle.com/applications/crystallball/index.
html > [accessed 12.11.17].
[59] Thomas Carlund. 30 years of Swedish solar radiation observations. EGU General
Assembly 2013, held 7–12 April, 2013 in Vienna, Austria.
[60] SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute). Global radiation in
Sweden. < http://www.smhi.se/klimatdata/meteorologi/stralning/normal-
globalstralning-under-ett-ar-1.2927 > [accessed 30.11.17].
[61] Guarracino Ilaria, Mellor Alexander, Ekins-Daukes Nicholas J, Markides Christos N.
Dynamic coupled thermal-and-electrical modelling of sheet-and-tube hybrid pho-
tovoltaic/thermal (PVT) collectors. Appl Therm Eng 2016;101:778–95.