Boosting Revenue: Leveraging Non-Evaporated Water in Floating PV
Floating PV plant operators have the potential to boost their revenue by leveraging non-evaporated water, according to a study conducted by Italian researchers. The investigation focused on the economic viability of various ground-mounted and floating PV systems, considering factors such as cost, performance, and revenue from reduced water evaporations. The researchers discovered that utilizing non-evaporated water at photovoltaic system sites could result in revenues exceeding $3/kW if employed for irrigation and surpassing $4/kW if sold for hydroelectricity generation.
In their study, the Italian researchers evaluated the cost competitiveness of nine different configurations of floating PV (FPV) systems installed on a water basin in Southern Italy. The analysis included a comparison with ground-mounted PV (GPV) systems, considering Capital Expenditure (Capex), Operational Expenditure (Opex), and the levelized cost of energy (LCOE).
The researchers highlighted that relocating a monofacial PV array from land to water could enhance performance by nearly 5%. Additionally, a further 2.5% improvement could be achieved by substituting monofacial modules with bifacial modules. The potential for even greater enhancements was noted with the installation of trackers. The study revealed that using a tracker with a vertical axis could result in a 20% higher yield for an FPV system compared to one with a fixed structure. Moreover, a two-axis tracker FPV system demonstrated a 40% and 16% higher yield compared to fixed and single vertical axis configurations, respectively.
To model the energy and economic performance of various FPV designs, the researchers utilized a water basin in Sicily, Southern Italy, taking into account energy parameters from existing literature. The model considered potential revenues arising from reduced water evaporations due to the shading effect of FPVs, with the non-evaporated water being repurposed for hydropower generation or agricultural use.
Despite FPVs having a higher Capex compared to ground-based installations, the researchers attributed this to the early stage of development and the limited installed capacity of FPVs. A sensitivity analysis of the LCOE, accounting for potential future reductions in FPV capital costs, indicated that a 30% reduction in Capex would make bifacial FPV with fixed structures the most competitive system at the given location, resulting in a 19.9% reduction in LCOE compared to fixed monofacial GPV.
In conclusion, the researchers emphasized that leveraging non-evaporated water at FPV system sites could lead to revenues exceeding $3/kW for irrigation and surpassing $4/kW for hydroelectricity generation, underscoring the added value of active cooling and non-evaporated water in floating systems. The detailed findings of the study are available in the report titled "Economic comparison of floating photovoltaic systems with tracking systems and active cooling in a Mediterranean water basin," published in Energy for Sustainable Development. The research team involved experts from the University of Catania, Sapienza University of Rome, and the University of Florence. The researchers also noted that while the chosen Sicilian site may represent conditions typical of other Mediterranean locations, adjustments would be necessary for site-specific conditions in future investigations.
