4.6 Article

Cooling of floating photovoltaics and the importance of water temperature

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY
Volume 218, Issue -, Pages 544-551

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2021.03.022

Keywords

Floating PV; Cooling; Module temperature; Membrane technology; Performance; Commercial FPV system

Categories

Funding

  1. Norwegian Research Council [309820]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluates the impact of water cooling on energy yield in floating PV systems, finding that water-cooled PV modules produce 5-6% higher electricity compared to air-cooled ones. It also identifies the U-value of systems in thermal contact with water and the importance of considering water temperature for more accurate module temperature calculations.
Enhanced performance of floating PV due to water cooling is widely claimed, but poorly quantified and documented in the scientific literature. In this work, we assess the effect of water cooling for a specific technology developed by Ocean Sun AS, consisting of a floating membrane with horizontally mounted PV modules allowing for thermal contact between the modules and the water. The impact of thermal contact with water on energy yield is quantified using production data from a well-instrumented 6.48 kW installation at Skaft?, Norway. In addition, we apply a thermal model that incorporates the effect of heat transport from the module to the water to estimate the module temperature. By comparing a module string in thermal contact with water with a module string with an air gap between the water and the modules, we find that the water-cooled string had on average 5?6% higher yield compared to the air-cooled string. Also, we find that the system in thermal contact with water has a U-value of approximately 70?80 W/m2K, and that it is necessary to consider the water temperature for a more accurate calculation of the module temperature.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available