The Need of Frameless Mounting Structures for Vertical Mounting of Bifacial PV Modules

Transcription

1 The Need of Frameless Mounting Structures for Vertical Mounting of Bifacial PV Modules Jorge Rabanal-Arabach 1, Milica Mrcarica 2, Andreas Schneider 1, Radovan Kopecek 1, Martin Heckmann 3 1 International Solar Energy Research Center (ISC-Konstanz) 2 DSM Innovation Center 3 Technische Universität Berlin Campus El Gouna

2 Motivation 2

3 Motivation Commonly mounted Monofacial Module Tilted mounted Bifacial Module Peaks and valleys power are latitude dependents Verticallly mounted Bifacial Module 3

4 Motivation Module frame shading Lateral view 4

5 Motivation Impact of module frame shading on the annual energy production Can a VBM PV plant compete with a CMM in terms of annual energy generation? Plays the dust accumulation an important roll for VBM vs CMM? Will a module with DSM AR coated glass bring a sustained gain to the energy yield? CMM: Commonly mounted Monofacial Module TBM: Tilted mounted Bifacial Module VBM: Verticallly mounted Bifacial Module 5

6 Agenda Experimental setup and methodology Results Shading effects for Vertically mounted Bifacial Modules Benefit of ARC on Vertically mounted Bifacial Modules Soiling investigation Extrapolation to 1MWp PV plants» Conclusions 6

7 Experimental setup and methodology Site test: El Gouna, Egypt AR_WB Monofacial c-si cells SM_SM AR_AR Bifacial c-si cells SM_SM AR_AR Bifacial c-si cells 7

8 Experimental setup and methodology Rack & module frame Non optimal mounting structure (vertical) Module frame Only module frame shade (vertical) Soiling Extrapolation to 1MWp PV plant 8

9 Shading effects for vertically mounted bifacial modules Bifacial Module Upper rack beam Additional shading Bottom rack beam Non-optimal mounting structure Lateral view 9

10 Current (A) Shading effects for vertically mounted bifacial modules Mean values for the SM_SM module mounted with a non optimal structure ~9:00 am ( optimal structure ) Voltage (V) ~9:00 am ( non-optimal structure ) Power loss SM_SM ~8 % rel AR_AR ~10 % rel 10

11 Shading effects for vertically mounted bifacial modules Power Loss ~8 % rel ~1 % rel ~10 % rel ~5 % rel 11

12 Gain Benefit of ARC on Vertically mounted Bifacial modules AR_AR module (DSM ARC glass) energy yield gain? 5.4% 5.0% DSM ARC yield gain (4.2±0.2)% rel 4.6% 4.2% 3.8% 3.4% 3.0% Yield Gain DSM_ARC/DSM_ARC vs. SM/SM d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12 d13 d14 d15 Day Only afternoon generation is evaluated 12

13 Soiling investigation 57 days of soiling exposition Module Mounting I SC :G net clean dusty Rel. Diff. (% rel ) AR_AR Tilted AR_AR Vertical SM_SM Tilted SM_SM Vertical AR_WB Tilted I SC :G net ratio in ma/w/m² 13

14 Soiling investigation 57 days of soiling exposition Module P Loss (% rel d 1 ) Tilted Vertical AR_AR SM_SM AR_WB I SC :G net ratio in ma/w/m² 14

15 Annual Energy (GWh) Extrapolation to 1MWp PV plants Test site: El Gouna, Egypt 2.8 No_Soiling With_Soiling % rel +31% rel +11% rel +16% rel Modules with module frame shading +6% rel +8% rel AR_WB SM_SM AR_AR SM_SM AR_AR SM_SM AR_AR Tilted CMM TBM VBM Monofacial Tilted Bifacial Vertical Bifacial 15

16 Extrapolation to 1MWp PV plants Rel. Annual Energy (%rel) No_Soiling With_Soiling 11-3 AR_WB SM_SM AR_AR SM_SM AR_AR SM_SM AR_AR 16 1 Modules with module frame shading Tilted CMM TBM VBM Monofacial Tilted Bifacial Vertical Bifacial 16

17 Conclusion For vertically mounted bifacial modules, frameless modules are required in order to reduce the power loss to a minimum Bifaciality helps to reduce the power loss due to the dust accumulation on PV modules by up to 5% rel It is important to consider the dust deposition in the evaluation of PV plants projects Vertically installed bifacial PV plants should definitively be considered as complement to the bifacial tilted PV plants in desert locations 17

18 THANK YOU! 18

19