Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Techno-economic evaluation of a floating PV system for a wastewater treatment facility
KTH, School of Industrial Engineering and Management (ITM), Energy Technology.
2019 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (Two Years)), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

An increasing capacity of floating photovoltaic technology (FPV) has been deployed in the past five years, showing an alternative to countries with small surface areas to take advantage of man-made water bodies to install solar power. Furthermore, regions where land area is primarily geared towards other uses such as agriculture or are located in large urban centers are also a target for these installations, as land costs tend to be a relevant share of the investment on a solar energy project. It is advertised that FPV is a more efficient solar technology, bringing along extra benefits such as the reduction of water evaporation and decrease in algae growth. Based on previous studies on the field as well as industry information, this thesis aims to analyze if a floating photovoltaic project is more profitable and cost-competitive than the ordinary ground-mounted PV for a waste water treatment facility located in Windsor, California. For that, three scenarios are studied: Business-as-Usual, in which the extra benefits of FPV are neglected, a scenario in which the extra benefits are included and a scenario in which external land is required to build the ground-mounted PV. The initial approach consisted of modelling in MATLAB a 3-MW-power plant, both floating and ground-mounted, to analyze the difference in lifetime electricity generation, capacity factors and cell temperature. Then, an evaporation and algae growth models were proposed with the objective to quantify the potential savings a floating PV would provide. Finally, an economic analysis was performed to showcase the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) and Net Present Value (NPV) and used to compare both power plants. Although, for the location chosen, on a yearly basis the cell temperature of the floating system is on average 14.97% lower and the capacity factor is 2.54% higher, the LCOE is higher and the NPV is lower than the ground-mounted counterpart for the BAU and extra benefits scenario. In the land-purchase scenario, when considering extra benefits, the FPV becomes more profitable than the ground-mounted design when over 70% of external land area is required to build the project, whereas neglecting extra benefits, FPV becomes more profitable when 85% of external land area is needed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2019.
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-254441OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-254441DiVA, id: diva2:1332527
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2019-06-28 Created: 2019-06-28

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(3278 kB)103 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 3278 kBChecksum SHA-512
ba8b7c68089ece52842f03d924633860487bc538907adf931e764ece8a19d16d3fa969f2c8cb28502109721286238526dde670e81014a7a8d8840f79c87818c7
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Energy Technology
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 103 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 640 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf