Performance Comparative Analysis of Monocrystalline and Polycrystalline Single Diode Solar Panel Models using the Five Parameters Method

Rizal Akbarudin Rahman, Aripriharta Aripriharta, Hari Putranto

Abstract


The use of renewable energy as a source of electrical energy
increases every year. Unfortunately, Indonesia does not have many
power plants that utilize renewable energy sources. The most
potential renewable energy in Indonesia is the sunlight with the help
of solar panels that converts solar energy into electrical energy.
However, the environment could affect the solar panel module and
in turn, affect the performance of solar panels or the generated
electric energy. This research calculated the performance of solar
panels with a single-diode model using the Five Parameters method
that required solar panel module specification data, the total
radiation absorbed by the solar panel module, and the temperature
of the environment. The Five Parameters method is a method
modeled after solar panel module performance in the form of the
single-diode equivalent circuit. The Five Parameters method is
reliable in predicting the energy produced by the solar panels when
the input data is limited. The results for using the Five Parameters
in monocrystalline solar panels were Isc = 1.827 A, Imp = 0.662 A,
Voc = 18.221 V, Vmp = 15.019 V, Pmp = 9.955 W. And the results in
polycrystalline solar panels were Isc = 1.926 A, Imp = 0.686 A, Voc =
17.594 V, Vmp = 14.166 V, Pmp = 9.722 W. Based on the results; it
was concluded that the most efficient and optimised types of solar
panels on natural conditions in Sendang Biru Beach was the
monocrystalline solar panel because it produced electrical output
power of 9.955 W. Therefore, there could be a manufacturer of
solar energy power plants to reduce the cost of electricity in the
coastal area, such as in Sendang Biru Beach.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Q. Ma and P. Wang, “Underground solar energy storage via energy piles,” Appl. Energy, vol. 261, p.

, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114361.

J. T. Gao, Z. Y. Xu, and R. Z. Wang, “Experimental study on a double-stage absorption solar thermal

storage system with enhanced energy storage density,” Appl. Energy, vol. 262, p. 114476, Mar. 2020,

doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114476.

A. Boretti, “Production of hydrogen for export from wind and solar energy, natural gas, and coal in

Australia,” Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, p. S0360319919346166, Jan. 2020, doi:

1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.080.

M. H. Ahmadi, M. Ghazvini, M. Sadeghzadeh, M. Alhuyi Nazari, and M. Ghalandari, “Utilization of

hybrid nanofluids in solar energy applications: A review,” Nano-Struct. Nano-Objects, vol. 20, p.

, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.nanoso.2019.100386.

Frontier Energy System and Power Engineering 19

FESPE

Vol. 1, No. 1, January 2019, pp. 14-19

X. Wang, S. Karanjit, L. Zhang, H. Fong, Q. Qiao, and Z. Zhu, “Transient photocurrent and

photovoltage studies on charge transport in dye sensitized solar cells made from the composites of

TiO2 nanofibers and nanoparticles,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 98, no. 8, p. 082114, Feb. 2011, doi:

1063/1.3560057.

C. Ogbonnaya, A. Turan, and C. Abeykoon, “Numerical integration of solar, electrical and thermal

exergies of photovoltaic module: A novel thermophotovoltaic model,” Sol. Energy, vol. 185, pp. 298–

, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2019.04.058.

M. F. Azeumo, C. Germana, N. M. Ippolito, M. Franco, P. Luigi, and S. Settimio, “Photovoltaic

module recycling, a physical and a chemical recovery process,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells, vol. 193,

pp. 314–319, May 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.solmat.2019.01.035.

R. Deng, N. L. Chang, Z. Ouyang, and C. M. Chong, “A techno-economic review of silicon

photovoltaic module recycling,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 109, pp. 532–550, Jul. 2019, doi:

1016/j.rser.2019.04.020.

H. Duwairi and M. Qasem, “Corrugating photovoltaic modules enhances thermal efficiency and power

output,” Sol. Energy, vol. 188, pp. 318–326, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2019.06.018.

L. Yang, Q. Cao, Y. Yu, and Y. Liu, “Comparison of daily diffuse radiation models in regions of

China without solar radiation measurement,” Energy, vol. 191, p. 116571, Jan. 2020, doi:

1016/j.energy.2019.116571.

P. Liu, X. Tong, J. Zhang, P. Meng, J. Li, and J. Zhang, “Estimation of half-hourly diffuse solar

radiation over a mixed plantation in north China,” Renew. Energy, p. S0960148119316337, Oct. 2019,

doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.10.136.

R. Yang, H. Zhang, S. You, W. Zheng, X. Zheng, and T. Ye, “Study on the thermal comfort index of

solar radiation conditions in winter,” Build. Environ., vol. 167, p. 106456, Jan. 2020, doi:

1016/j.buildenv.2019.106456.

S. Duan, “A predictive model for airflow in a typical solar chimney based on solar radiation,” J. Build.

Eng., vol. 26, p. 100916, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100916.

A. Aboulouard et al., “Dye sensitized solar cells based on titanium dioxide nanoparticles synthesized

by flame spray pyrolysis and hydrothermal sol-gel methods: a comparative study on photovoltaic

performances,” J. Mater. Res. Technol., p. S2238785419304119, Dec. 2019, doi:

1016/j.jmrt.2019.11.083.

R. Govindaraj, M. S. Pandian, P. Ramasamy, and S. Mukhopadhyay, “Sol–gel synthesized mesoporous

anatase titanium dioxide nanoparticles for dye sensitized solar cell (DSSC) applications,” Bull. Mater.

Sci., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 291–296, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s12034-015-0874-3.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um049v1i1p14-19

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Frontier Energy System and Power Engineering (FESPE), e-ISSN: 2720-9598

Flag Counter

View My Stats