sustainability

Article
Techno-Economic Feasibility of the Use of Floating Solar PV
Systems in Oil Platforms
Chellapillai Veliathur Chinnasamy Srinivasan , Prashant Kumar Soori * and Fadi A. Ghaith

School of Engineering & Physical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Dubai P.O. Box 38103, United Arab Emirates;
cs2021@hw.ac.uk (C.V.C.S.); f.ghaith@hw.ac.uk (F.A.G.)
* Correspondence: p.k.soori@hw.ac.uk

Abstract: Offshore facilities have high energy demands commonly accomplished with local combustion-
based power generators. With the increased commercialization of the marine renewable energy sector,
there is still a need for research on floating photovoltaic installations on their performance and economic
perspective. This paper investigates the techno-commercial feasibility of installing a battery-integrated
floating solar photovoltaic (FPV) system for an offshore oil platform facility in Abu Dhabi. The perfor-
mance analysis of two floating PV design schemes has been evaluated using the PVsyst design tool. The
proposed system’s annual solar energy availability from the PVsyst 7.2.21 output was validated with
MATLAB Simulink R2022b with a deviation of 1.85%. The optimized solution achieved the Levelized
Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of 261 USD/MWh with a Discounted Payback Period of 9.5 years. Also, the
designed system could reduce carbon emissions by 731 tons per year. Furthermore, it was recognized
that the contribution of the marine sector to the construction of floating platforms influences the suc-
cess of floating PV systems. Independently authorized floating PV system designs would guarantee
insurability from the viewpoints of investors and end users.

Keywords: floating photovoltaics (FPV); marine renewable energy; offshore oil platform

1. Introduction
Citation: Veliathur Chinnasamy
Srinivasan, C.; Soori, P.K.; Ghaith, F.A. Combustion-based power generators commonly accomplish the energy required to
Techno-Economic Feasibility of the operate offshore oil rigs. Considering the continuous operation of oil rigs, greenhouse gas
Use of Floating Solar PV Systems in emissions keep raising the burden on the atmosphere. It is estimated that about 3% of
Oil Platforms. Sustainability 2024, 16, global greenhouse gas emissions are from offshore facilities and ships [1]. This necessitates
1039. https://doi.org/10.3390/ using sustainable energy resources to support the operation of offshore oil rigs, which
su16031039 would be a fundamental step toward reducing emissions and making the world’s polluting
Academic Editors: Nuria Novas
oil rings an environmentally friendly location. Wind energy has been the predominant
Castellano and Manuel Fernandez Ros renewable energy type for the marine environment. Although other renewable energy
technologies exist in oceans, such as waves and tides, solar PV technology is seen as a
Received: 30 December 2023 prospective technology to be commercialized in regions like the Persian Gulf, where wind
Revised: 19 January 2024
resource potential is weak and annual solar radiation potential is substantial [2]. As of 2020,
Accepted: 23 January 2024
there are 2.6 GW of floating solar PV installations globally and there is a projection that it
Published: 25 January 2024
could reach 4.8 GW in 2026 [3,4]. The current trend is to move toward offshore applications
considering the space availability and potential of the future energy mix, energy security,
and decarbonization goals. This positive trend toward offshore PV installations requires
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
robust technology to cope with the marine environment.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This paper focuses on investigating the technical and economic feasibility of a solar
This article is an open access article floating system to power specific electrical demands of an oil rig platform, such as office
distributed under the terms and workstations, living quarters, and other accessories.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
2. Literature Review
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ A review of existing literature shows that many studies of floating PV systems have
4.0/). been conducted globally. However, studies on the offshore environment, particularly its

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031039 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15

2. Literature Review
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 2 of 14
A review of existing literature shows that many studies of floating PV systems have
been conducted globally. However, studies on the offshore environment, particularly its
technical and economic feasibility, are still limited. This literature review focuses on a crit-
technical and economic feasibility, are still limited. This literature review focuses on a
ical understanding of the floating PV panel performance in the marine environment, fol-
critical understanding of the floating PV panel performance in the marine environment,
lowed by the current research status of floating PV technologies suitable for the offshore
followed by the current research status of floating PV technologies suitable for the offshore
environment. Further, it examines the methodologies adopted by the researchers in the
environment. Further, it examines the methodologies adopted by the researchers in the
design and performance analysis of floating PV systems.
design and performance analysis of floating PV systems.
A typical floating PV system installation for offshore installations consists of PV pan-
A typical floating PV system installation for offshore installations consists of PV panels,
els, inverters, a floating structure, a mooring, and an anchoring system, as depicted in
inverters, a floating structure, a mooring, and an anchoring system, as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1. It is highlighted by various researchers that critical challenges in marine solar
It is highlighted by various researchers that critical challenges in marine solar applications,
applications,
compared with compared with the
the freshwater freshwaterare
environment, environment,
coping withare coping
severe with
wave andsevere wave
wind loads
and wind loads and resistance to seawater
and resistance to seawater salinity [5]. salinity [5].

Figure 1. Typical floating solar PV system

system components.
components.

From aa performance
From performanceperspective,
perspective,a afloating
floatingsolar
solarsystem
systemis demonstrated
is demonstrated to betoefficient
be effi-
due to the cooling effect of PV panel surfaces connected to the water surface.
cient due to the cooling effect of PV panel surfaces connected to the water surface. In- Increases in
PV panel
creases intemperature reduce the reduce
PV panel temperature power output
the powerandoutput
the panel’s life.panel’s
and the Therefore,
life. evaluating
Therefore,
the PV panel temperature rise is significant for the overall electrical performance.
evaluating the PV panel temperature rise is significant for the overall electrical perfor- The
electrical output of PV panels concerning PV cell temperature is given with
mance. The electrical output of PV panels concerning PV cell temperature is given with Equation (1) [6].
Equation (1) [6].
Pmod = PSTC ·(1 + γ· ∆ T) (1)
Pmod = PSTC ·(1 + γ·∆T) (1)
where Pmod is the PV module’s electrical output, PSTC is the PV panel’s power at test
where Pmod(W),
conditions is theγ PV module’s
is the electrical output,
temperature-specific PSTC is of
coefficient thethe
PVPV panel’s
panelpower
power at −1 ), con-
(Ktest and
∆T is the
ditions (W), γ is the temperature-specific
temperature gradient between the coefficient
operating of temperature
the PV panelofpower (K PV
the solar −1), and
panel ∆T
is
andthethe
temperature
temperature gradient between thewhich
at test conditions, is 25 ◦temperature
operating C (K). of the solar PV panel and
the temperature
Sara Oliveira atet
test
al.conditions,
investigated which is 25 °C
the means of(K).
accounting for the water-cooling effect
on PV Sara Oliveira
panels in theetPVsyst
al. investigated
7.2.21 toolthe[5].means of accounting
The PVsyst for the water-cooling
7.2.21 application tool considers effectthe
default
on heat loss
PV panels factor
in the PVsyst 7.2.212 tool
29 W/m K for[5].
theThe
ventilated type and
PVsyst 7.2.21 15 W/mtool
application 2 K for insulated
considers the
installations
default heat [7].
lossThe research
factor 29 W/m study
2 K examined the changes
for the ventilated type to and
the default
15 W/mheat 2 K loss factor for
for insulated
a free-standing
installations [7].well-ventilated
The research study FSPVexamined
system and thebased
changes on atofield
the experiment
default heatconducted,
loss factor
the default heat losswell-ventilated
factor was changed 2 K [8].
for a free-standing FSPVtosystem
46 W/m and based on a field experiment con-
ducted,Despite the benefits
the default of the
heat loss cooling
factor waseffect,
changednot to
all46
PVW/marray 2 K configurations
[8]. or types avail
the full advantage
Despite of improved
the benefits PV paneleffect,
of the cooling performance
not all PV output. Hence, choosing
array configurations orthe PVavail
types type
based on the intended application and location (besides the
the full advantage of improved PV panel performance output. Hence, choosing the PV offshore oil rig platform) is
essential. Table 1 summarizes the design features of the four established
type based on the intended application and location (besides the offshore oil rig platform) floating PV design
schemes
is set Table
essential. to be commercialized.
1 summarizes the The key findings
design features of ofthetheearlier research conducted
four established floating PV by
various scholars are depicted in Table 2.
design schemes set to be commercialized. The key findings of the earlier research con-
ducted by various scholars are depicted in Table 2.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 3 of 14

Table 1. Summary of floating PV design schemes for offshore installations.

Design Scheme Design Reviews

Aluminum-framed Styrofoam floaters with 10◦ tilt. Designed to withstand
SwimSol Solar
loads up to 2 m wave height. Suitable for near-shore locations to power islands.
Sea Floaters [9]
Equipped with 25 kW marine-grade solar PV panels that occupy 196 m2 .
Moss Maritime Offshore-grade steel-framed platform supported with box-type floaters. Solar
Floating Solar panels are installed at 3 m from the sea surface. Intended to be deployed at
Park [10] remote islands and oil and gas installations.
The flexible open cylinder produces air cushioning to cope with marine
Heliofloat Solar movement. The lightweight and cost-effective platform is for water body
Platform [11] deployment, including offshore marine applications. Made up of
semi-transparent material, allowing sunlight to pass through.
Solarduck Triangular-structured elevated platform connected with 10◦ tilt PV panels.
Floating Solar Lightweight ocean-grade aluminum with a service life of more than 30 years.
Platform [12] Easy integration with oil and gas platforms.

Table 2. The key findings of the earlier research conducted.

Factors Findings
In a field experiment, the heat loss coefficients were compared between ground
and floating panel arrangements [8]. It was evident from the experimental
demonstration that the heat loss factor for the offshore environment would be
Cooling Effect
in the higher range, particularly when the installation type is free-standing.
Accordingly, the related ‘Heat Loss Factor’ in the PVsyst 7.2.21 tool would be
adjusted for the floating PV system type [5].
Based on the review of four patented design schemes concerning their panel
PV Panel geometry types, it is appreciated that the geometry types, which are modular
Geometry and customized to fit different system sizes, should be a potential design
scheme to be considered for floating applications [9–12].
The existing literature research reveals that highly durable material and
Structural
adaptability to scale up the capacity determine the technical and economic
Stability
feasibility [5].

Based on the conducted literature review, the following considerations are applied in
this study:
• The floating panel’s temperature shall correspond to the seawater surface temperature
and not just only with the temperature coefficient and the temperature difference
between standard operating conditions and the ambient temperature. The empirical
equations that factor in sea water surface temperature, incident solar irradiation, and
other aforementioned factors have been considered in this study.
• The PVsyst 7.2.21 software tool does not predict the performance based on the module
temperature in relation to the seawater surface temperature. Instead, the heat loss
factor, which improves air transmission, has to be adjusted to adapt to the offshore
environment. Hence, a suitable validation methodology that factors in the drop
in panel temperature using the MATLAB Simulink R2022b has been performed to
compare the results.
• Different geometries of panel arrays were reported in the literature. In this study, the
most practical arrangements that optimize the energy yield in the holistic context of
economics, mooring systems, and maintenance have been evaluated.

3. Materials and Methods

In this section, the details of the selected case study are described, followed by the
design and selection of floating PV system components, simulation, and validation. PVsyst
was used in the design process for adapting the offshore condition and selecting appropriate
 3.1. Case Study: Overview and Demand Assessment
An offshore jack-up platform, ‘QMS Al Bahia’, in Abu Dhabi, as shown in Figure 2,
was chosen for this case study [13,14]. The platform is located at 24°42′42.9″ N Latitude
and 53°36′57.0″ E Longitude. The case study location was selected with due consideration
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 and the advantages are 4 of 14
• Despite other renewable energy technologies that exist in oceans such as waves and
the tide, solar PV technology is seen as a prospective technology to be commercial-
systemized in regions like
components, the Persian
including Arabian
PV panels, Gulf, where
inverters, wind resource
and battery potential
banks. The is weak
validation of
solar and
energyannual solar radiation
generation potential
was performed is very
using strong Simulink
MATLAB [2]. R2022b.
• The QMS Al Bahia facility includes supplemental loads that require electric power
3.1. Case Study: Overview
all through the year.and Demand Assessment
• An Alloffshore
requested data sources
jack-up were
platform, available
‘QMS for this
Al Bahia’, facility.
in Abu Also,
Dhabi, asregional-specific
shown in Figurere- 2,
search for
was chosen findings were
this case available
study for The
[13,14]. this platform
study [13].is located at 24◦ 42′ 42.9′′ N Latitude
• 53
and ◦ 36′ 57.0
UAE as a′′ country sets decarbonization
E Longitude. goals forwas
The case study location theselected
oil sector;
withaccordingly, this re-
due consideration
and the advantages
search are attract researchers in the UAE and the wider region [15].
study could

Figure2.2.Case
Figure Casestudy
studylocation—QMS
location—QMSAl
AlBahia,
Bahia,Abu
AbuDhabi
Dhabi[14].
[14].

• Despite other renewable energy technologies that exist in oceans such as waves and
the tide, solar PV technology is seen as a prospective technology to be commercialized
in regions like the Persian Arabian Gulf, where wind resource potential is weak and
annual solar radiation potential is very strong [2].
• The QMS Al Bahia facility includes supplemental loads that require electric power all
through the year.
• All requested data sources were available for this facility. Also, regional-specific
research findings were available for this study [13].
• UAE as a country sets decarbonization goals for the oil sector; accordingly, this research
study could attract researchers in the UAE and the wider region [15].
The total energy requirement for the platform is 6.85 MW, and diesel is used as an
energy source [13]. The predominant energy use is for the production platform with
relatively constant loads. The supplemental loads that vary throughout the day are for
the accommodation facilities. Based on the available data, energy demand for different
seasons has been worked out using the PVsyst 7.2.21 demand profiling. The average daily
 Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 The total energy requirement for the platform is 6.85 MW, and diesel is used as an 5 of 14
energy source [13]. The predominant energy use is for the production platform with rela-
tively constant loads. The supplemental loads that vary throughout the day are for the
accommodation facilities. Based on the available data, energy demand for different sea-
demand
sons has beenofworked
the accommodation
out using the PVsyst facility is 2398
7.2.21 demand kWh/day,
profiling. and
The average dailythe daily profiling is depicted
demand of the accommodation facility is 2398 kWh/day, and the daily profiling is de-
in Figure
picted 3 3[13].
in Figure [13].

Figure 3. Annual average daily load profile of accommodation facility [13].

Figure 3. Annual average daily load profile of accommodation facility [13].
3.2. System Design
3.2. Given
Systemthat Design
the selected location is not connected with a grid, the proposed system
includes PV panels, a battery bank, inverters, and a backup diesel generator. PVsyst sim-
Given that the selected location is not connected with a grid, the proposed system
ulation software has been utilized to design the system components for the identified en-
includes
ergy demand.PV panels,
For the a battery
energy demand of 2398 bank,
kWh/dayinverters, and a backup
with one-day autonomy, the esti- diesel generator. PVsyst
mated PV panel software
simulation capacity was has
530 kW. The specifications
been utilized to of PV panels, the
design battery banks, and
system components for the identified
inverters are presented in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, respectively.
energy demand. For the energy demand of 2398 kWh/day with one-day autonomy, the
Table 3. PV panelPV
estimated specification
panelatcapacity
Standard Testing
was Conditions
530 kW. (STCs)—Irradiance: 1000 W/M ; Cell of PV panels, battery banks,
The specifications 2

Temperature: 25 °C; Atmospheric Mass: 1.5.

and inverters are presented in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, respectively.
Module Power 540 W
Maximum Power Voltage (Vmp) and Current (Imp) 41.65 V/12.97 A
Table 3. PV panel specification
Open Circuit at Standard Testing Conditions
Voltage (Voc) 49.50 V (STCs)—Irradiance: 1000 W/M2 ; Cell
25 ◦ C; Atmospheric
Temperature:Short-Circuit Current (Isc) Mass: 1.5. 13.85 A

Table 4. Battery Bank Specifications.

Module Power 540 W
Nominal Capacity 120 Ah
Maximum Power Voltage (Vmp) and Current (Imp)48 V
Voltage
41.65 V/12.97 A
Open Circuit
Nominal CapacityVoltage (Voc) 120 Ah 49.50 V
Short-Circuit Current (Isc) 13.85 A
Table 5. Inverter Specifications.

Max.
Table 4. Battery PV input
Bank power
Specifications. 13,300 W
MPP voltage range for nominal power 280–850 V
Short-circuit current of PV input 48 A
Nominal Capacity 120 Ah
Max. PV input current 37.5 A
Voltage 48 V
As highlighted Nominal Capacity
in the literature review, the feasibility of a floating PV system in an 120 Ah
offshore environment depends on the floating system’s design scheme and its durability
and scalability. Thus, this study evaluated the implementation of two potential floating
Table 5. Inverter Specifications.

Max. PV input power 13,300 W

MPP voltage range for nominal power 280–850 V
Short-circuit current of PV input 48 A
Max. PV input current 37.5 A

As highlighted in the literature review, the feasibility of a floating PV system in an

offshore environment depends on the floating system’s design scheme and its durability
and scalability. Thus, this study evaluated the implementation of two potential floating
systems. Both floating systems’ PV panel layouts have been modelled using PVsyst as
shown in Figure 4.

3.3. System Performance

The performance of the floating PV system for the 530 kWp design capacity has been
simulated using the PVsyst 7.2.21 tool. Since the PVsyst 7.2.21 tool does not have the
option to model the floating PV systems, the tool has been adjusted to adapt the floating
characteristics. The key considerations of the water surface on the system performance
are the temperature of the modules and the reflectivity. The default heat loss factor in
the PVsyst 7.2.21 tool has been adjusted in line with the cooling effect due to the water
surface. Also, the albedo of the water surface was revised to be 0.1. Other modelling
parameters include the shading profile, which was duly considered based on the pitch, tilt,
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 6 of 14

and azimuth angles. The model for Scenario 1 has single orientation tilted at 10◦ , facing
true south, i.e., 0◦ azimuth and with the pitch of 2.2 m. However, the Scenario 2 model
has two orientations, one with 0◦ azimuth and another orientation is 180◦ azimuth, and
both are tilted at 10◦ . The performance of the modelled system was simulated using the
PVsyst 7.2.21 tool by considering losses due to the soiling factor, changes in6 of
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW the15irradiance
level, temperature variations, module efficiency and mismatch, and inverter efficiency to
understand the useful energy supply to the demand. The key output results include the
monthly energy
systems. Both generation,
floating systems’energy lostlayouts
PV panel due tohave
the battery being full,
been modelled usingmissing energy, and
PVsyst as
performance ratio.
shown in Figure 4.

Design Scenario 1
PV panel arrangement—Isometric view

PV panel—Sectional view

Design Scenario 2
PV panel arrangement—Isometric view

Figure 4. Cont.
Sustainability
Sustainability 16, 1039
2024,2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15 7 of 14

PV panel—Sectional view

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Floating
FloatingPV
PVpanel layout
panel configurations.
layout configurations.
3.3. System Performance
The results obtained from the PVsyst 7.2.21 tool have been validated using the mathe-
maticalThemodelling
performance of the
tool floating Simulink
MATLAB PV system R2022b.
for the 530 kWp design capacity has been
simulated using the PVsyst 7.2.21 tool. Since
A simple PV module with a project capacity the PVsyst(530
7.2.21 toolhas
kW) does not modeled
been have the op-
using MAT-
tion to model the floating PV systems, the tool has been adjusted to adapt the floating
LAB Simulink R2022b as shown in Figure 5. Then, the PV output results for different
characteristics. The key considerations of the water surface on the system performance are
irradiation and cell temperatures were computed using the MPPT algorithm [16]. The irra-
the temperature of the modules and the reflectivity. The default heat loss factor in the
diation and ambient
PVsyst 7.2.21 temperature
tool has been adjusted invalues fortheeach
line with hour
cooling (average
effect monthly
due to the data) have been
water surface.
obtained from the PVsyst 7.2.21 meteorological database. The average module
Also, the albedo of the water surface was revised to be 0.1. Other modelling parameters temperature
for each month has been calculated using Equation (2) [17].
include the shading profile, which was duly considered based on the pitch, tilt, and azi-
muth angles. The model for Scenario 1 has single orientation tilted at 10°, facing true
TFPV =and
south, i.e., 0° azimuth 1.8081 + 0.9282T
with the +0.0215G
pitch of a2.2 − 1.221WS
m. However, w +20.0246T
the Scenario model has
w two (2)
orientations, one with 0° azimuth and another orientation is 180° azimuth, and both are
where TFPV
tilted at 10°. is theperformance
The PV moduleoftemperature, Ta is ambient
the modelled system temperature
was simulated (◦ C),
using the G is the inci-
PVsyst
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 8 of 15
dent
7.2.21solar irradiation
tool by (W/m
considering losses ),
due WS is soiling
towthe the wind speed
factor, (m/s),
changes Twirradiance
in the is the seawater
level, surface
temperature (◦ C).
temperature variations, module efficiency and mismatch, and inverter efficiency to under-
stand the useful energy supply to the demand. The key output results include the monthly
energy generation, energy lost due to the battery being full, missing energy, and perfor-
mance ratio.
The results obtained from the PVsyst 7.2.21 tool have been validated using the math-
ematical modelling tool MATLAB Simulink R2022b.
A simple PV module with a project capacity (530 kW) has been modeled using
MATLAB Simulink R2022b as shown in Figure 5. Then, the PV output results for different
irradiation and cell temperatures were computed using the MPPT algorithm [16]. The ir-
radiation and ambient temperature values for each hour (average monthly data) have
been obtained from the PVsyst 7.2.21 meteorological database. The average module tem-
perature for each month has been calculated using Equation (2) [17].
TFPV = 1.8081 + 0.9282T + 0.0215G - 1.221WSw + 0.0246T (2)
w

where TFPV is the PV module temperature, Ta is ambient temperature (°C), G is the incident
solar irradiation (W/m2), WSw is the wind speed (m/s), Tw is the seawater surface temper-
ature (°C).

Figure5.5. Solar
Figure Solar PV
PV array
array model
modelusing
usingMATLAB
MATLABSimulink
SimulinkR2022b.
R2022b.

4.
4. Results
Results and
and Discussion
Discussion
The
The developedmethodology
developed methodologywas wasexecuted
executed forfor
the offshore
the offshoreoiloil
platform
platform‘QMS
‘QMSAl Al
Bahia’
Ba-
in Abu Dhabi and the climatic conditions of the Persian Gulf. The first part of
hia’ in Abu Dhabi and the climatic conditions of the Persian Gulf. The first part of this this section
presents the results
section presents theofresults
the system
of the performance and its design
system performance and itsoptimizations using PVsyst
design optimizations using
7.2.21, followed by the critical discussions of floating PV system structures adapting
PVsyst 7.2.21, followed by the critical discussions of floating PV system structures adapt- to the
offshore marine
ing to the environment.
offshore The third part
marine environment. Thefocuses
third onpartanfocuses
economic
on feasibility
an economicanalysis. The
feasibility
last part discusses the validation of results from PVsyst 7.2.21 and MATLAB Simulink R2022b.
analysis. The last part discusses the validation of results from PVsyst 7.2.21 and MATLAB
Simulink
4.1. R2022b.
Performance Evaluation
The performance
4.1. Performance evaluation of any floating-type photovoltaic system starts with the
Evaluation
analysis of the uplift in the power output due to the temperature effect of the PV panels. As
The performance evaluation of any floating-type photovoltaic system starts with the
analysis of the uplift in the power output due to the temperature effect of the PV panels.
As depicted in Figure 6, the effect of PV cell working temperature on an offshore environ-
ment does impact the efficiency with the maximum difference of 4.1 °C in the month of
November as compared to the ambient temperature [18]. Considering the PV panel effi-
 ing to the offshore marine environment. The third part focuses on an economic feasibility
analysis. The last part discusses the validation of results from PVsyst 7.2.21 and MATLAB
Simulink R2022b.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 4.1. Performance Evaluation 8 of 14

The performance evaluation of any floating-type photovoltaic system starts with the
analysis of the uplift in the power output due to the temperature effect of the PV panels.
As depicted
depicted in Figure
in Figure 6, effect
6, the the effect
of PVofcell
PV working
cell working temperature
temperature on anonoffshore
an offshore environ-
environment
mentimpact
does does impact the efficiency
the efficiency with thewith the maximum
maximum of 4.1 ◦ C inofthe
differencedifference 4.1month
°C in of
theNovember
month of
as comparedas
November tocompared
the ambient totemperature
the ambient[18]. Considering
temperature [18].the PV panel efficiency
Considering of 21.17%
the PV panel effi-
at STC and temperature ◦ C, the offshore environmental conditions
ciency of 21.17% at STCcoefficient of 0.34%/
and temperature coefficient of 0.34%/°C, the offshore environ-
exceed
mentalthe standardexceed
conditions condition efficiencycondition
the standard for November to March.
efficiency for November to March.

40

30
Temperature (°C)

20

10
Ambient Temperature ° C
Seawater Surface Temperature ° C
Panel Temperature ° C
0
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 6. Effect of panel temperature corresponds to the seawater surface and ambient temperature.
Figure 6. Effect of panel temperature corresponds to the seawater surface and ambient temperature.

In comparison
In comparison with withthetheground
groundinstallations as as
installations depicted in Figure
depicted 7, the
in Figure increase
7, the in in
increase
annual energy yield is 2.31%. As stated in the methodology section, besides the
annual energy yield is 2.31%. As stated in the methodology section, besides the panel tem- panel tem-
perature, an additional factor that affects the floating PV system yield is the reflectivity of
perature, an additional factor that affects the floating PV system yield is the reflectivity of
the water surface. It was examined that the yield decreased with a lower albedo compared
the water surface. It was examined that the yield decreased with a lower albedo compared
to with ground installations. The combined effect of panel temperature and reflectivity
to with ground installations. The combined effect of panel temperature and reflectivity
has been simulated using the PVsyst, assuming that the same installation is adapted to the
has been simulated using the PVsyst, assuming that the same installation is adapted to the
ground conditions. Further, analyzing the monofacial panel’s performance with the bifa-
ground conditions. Further, analyzing the monofacial panel’s performance with the bifacial
cial panel, the performance of the fixed-tilt PV panel does not outperform, and thus the
panel, the performance of the fixed-tilt PV panel does not outperform, and thus the bifacial
bifacial panel is not an economical option in the offshore environment. Despite the effi-
panel is not an economical option in the offshore environment. Despite the efficiency gain,
ciency gain, the bifacial technology deployment would be more economically viable
the bifacial
where energy technology
density is deployment
crucial like inwould be more
an urban economically
environment and notviable
for the where energy
offshore
density is crucial
installations. like in an urban environment and not for the offshore installations.

100,000
Solar Energy (kWh)

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Ground installation Floating installation

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Illustration
Illustration of
of the
the solar
solar energy
energy yield
yield of 530 kWp
of 530 kWp floating
floating PV
PV system
system in
in comparison
comparisonwith
with the
the ground installation.
ground installation.

4.2. Floating PV
4.2. PVSystem
SystemDesign
DesignOptimization
Optimization
Results on the design optimizationswere
Results on the design optimizations were utilized forfor
utilized feasibility assessment
feasibility of the
assessment of the
proposed floating PV system at the case study site. Design concepts evaluated include
proposed floating PV system at the case study site. Design concepts evaluated include
• Design Scenario 1: A rectangular array having 10° tilt oriented at 0° azimuth with the
2.2 m pitch.
• Design Scenario 2: A triangular array having 10° tilt, oriented at 0° and 180° azimuth.
The PV panel layout in this study incorporated a total of 980 panels with 540 Wp;
each module capacity consists of 7 series strings and 140 parallel strings. Table 6 illustrates
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 9 of 14

• Design Scenario 1: A rectangular array having 10◦ tilt oriented at 0◦ azimuth with the
2.2 m pitch.
• Design Scenario 2: A triangular array having 10◦ tilt, oriented at 0◦ and 180◦ azimuth.
The PV panel layout in this study incorporated a total of 980 panels with 540 Wp; each
module capacity consists of 7 series strings and 140 parallel strings. Table 6 illustrates the key
performance indicators of the design scheme for the same capacity. Iterations were carried
out for 22◦ tilt (zero loss on annual radiation) to align with the Latitude of the location and
10◦ tilt (0% loss with respect to optimum orientation in summer) to enable self-cleaning,
and based on the evaluation, 10◦ is considered an optimal tilt from a shading and space
utilization perspective. For the same capacity, considering that the Scenario 1 scheme has a
single orientation, the area required for installation is 5107 m2 , while with the two orientations,
the Scenario 2 scheme requires only 3600 m2 . The drop in yield on the Scenario 2 scheme is
due to the increased loss with respect to the optimum orientation, particularly in winter. Also,
it was comprehended that the Scenario 2 system outperforms in the summer months (May,
June, and July) due to the increased incident solar irradiation, as shown in Table 7 [18].

Table 6. Illustration of Simulated Performance Data for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 Design Scheme.

Scenario 1 Scheme Scenario 2 Scheme

Tilt Angle (◦ ) 10◦ 10◦
0◦(Orientation #1)
Azimuth (◦ ) 0◦
180◦ (Orientation #2)
Energy Production (MWh/yr) 905 896
Specific Yield (kWh/kWp) 1708 1690
Capacity Factor 19.50% 19.30%

Table 7. Results for Annual Incident Solar Radiation and Output for Proposed Design Scenarios.

Scenario 1 Scheme Scenario 2 Scheme

Month Incident Irradiation Energy Incident Irradiation Energy
kWh/m2 kWh kWh/m2 kWh
January 132.9 59,916 115.5 53,880
February 140.0 62,874 126.6 58,900
March 171.3 75,257 161.5 74,190
April 193.9 83,423 188.5 85,020
May 218.4 91,988 218.7 96,330
June 211.8 88,953 214.7 94,270
July 204.8 85,259 206.3 90,100
August 196.3 81,569 193.2 84,330
September 187.6 79,087 178.2 78,690
October 176.8 75,616 160.8 71,860
November 146.6 64,733 127.6 58,070
December 127.3 56,804 109.2 50,310
Year 2107.7 905,479 2000.8 895,950

In addition to increasing the performance of the system with various design inter-
ventions to boost yield and reduce losses, it is acknowledged that a good operation and
maintenance strategy is developed to ensure the soiling and module availability loss is
kept at the minimum rate [19].

4.3. Floating PV System Structure

Noting that the structural integrity evaluation is beyond the scope of this study, the
design schemes considered for feasibility have been critically reviewed on their adaptability
for the offshore environment. Based on the available information in the literature, five key
aspects are critically reviewed and presented in Table 8. From an overall perspective, both
designs intend to cope with the offshore conditions by addressing the dynamic marine
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 10 of 14

environment. From an economic point of view, the service life and maintenance costs play
a significant role in the implementation of offshore floating PV systems.

Table 8. Floating PV system structure review.

Aspects Design Scenario 1 [11] Design Scenario 2 [12]

Lightweight flexible cylindrical Rigid triangular flexible structure
material dampens wave energy with lightweight material utilizes
Buoyancy
rather than absorbing as with the benefit of multidirectional
other floating system designs. waves for self-balancing.
Semi-transparent material. No The aluminum used to frame the
Material information is available on the floating platform is ocean-grade
service life of the material. with 30 years of service life.
The system utilizes the
The triangular floating structure
conventional mooring system,
Mooring reduces the number of mooring
and as such, no specific
lines and mooring forces.
information is available.
The elevated platforms allow
The platform is elevated to avoid
lower salt deposition. Smaller
Maintenance any wave-related maintenance
floating area reduces the marine
activities.
growth on the structure.
The elevated open system enables
Semi-transparent material allows better air and sunlight
Environmental
penetration of sunlight. transmission to ensure safety of
marine life.

4.4. Economics and Environment

An economic analysis was carried out to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the proposed
floating PV system. The economic indicators selected for the study are
• Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE);
• Net Present Value (NPV);
• Discounted Payback Period (DPP).
The first step in an economic analysis is estimating capital investment and operational
expenses for the service life. For the solar PV-based project, a 25-year project lifespan is
considered [20]. The cost of solar PV system components was taken from reliable sources
such as the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), International Energy Agency
(IEA), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and other research journals. The
entire cost of the floating PV system was determined to be USD 2,559,774 after considering
the cost of the floating system, soft costs, and operational expenses. Cost estimation is
provided in Table 9.

Table 9. Cost estimation of the proposed floating PV system.

Capital Costs
Solar PV Panel and Inverters [21] USD 467,990
Battery Bank [20] USD 1,535,475
Floating System [22] USD 111,300
Anchoring and Mooring [22] USD 145,750
Cables and Accessories USD 16,686
Soft Costs (Engineering, Project Management, Approvals) USD 13,624
Total Cost USD 2,290,825
Maintenance and Decommissioning Costs
Maintenance Cost [23] USD 7950/year
Decommissioning Costs [24] USD 70,199
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 11 of 14

Table 9. Cont.

Capital Costs
Total Cost USD 268,949
Overall Cost
Total Cost during a Lifetime of 25 Years USD 2,559,774

4.4.1. Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)

The cost of electricity production from the proposed floating solar PV system was
estimated with the costs associated with the initial and operational components. The
sensitivity analysis was carried out to comprehend how the LCOE varies with discount
rates for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 systems. In line with the IEA guidelines, to account for
the risk and uncertainty, discount rates of 3%, 7%, and 10% have been considered in the
LCOE calculations. Further, the annual PV efficiency loss was assumed to be 0.5% for the
first 10 years and 1% for the remaining 15 years. The slight variation in LCOE values is
dependent on the energy production with both systems. Although Scenario 1’s LCOE is
slightly lower than Scenario 2, the optimal anchoring system could reduce costs. However,
in this study, the cost components for both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 were assumed to be
constant in the absence of specific information, particularly for the floating, anchoring, and
mooring system where the cost estimation was based on [21], which stipulates specific cost
in USD/kWp [21]. It was noted that the battery storage costs constitute 67% of total capital
costs, and further, they add to the operational costs. The analysis showed that the LCOE of
the battery-integrated floating PV system is at the level of 261–349 USD/MWh, which is
aligned with the case study conducted for off-grid solar PV in Indonesia with the LCOE
range from 290 to 310 USD/MWh [25].

4.4.2. Net Present Value (NPV) and Discounted Payback Period (DPP)
Net Present Value accounts for the cash inflows and outflows over the project life and
with a positive NPV, the project is considered to be economically successful. The NPVs
of the Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 floating PV system for the discount rate of 3% are USD
46,764,051 and USD 46,164,267, respectively. The DPP is the span of time when a project’s
NPV value equals zero. For both the scenarios, the DPP is less than 10 yrs.

4.4.3. Environmental Considerations

The estimated carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emission reduction with the implementation of
the floating PV system design is 18,286 tons for the 25-year lifetime with the specific CO2
emission reduction potential of 34.5 tons/kWp. The system proposed has the solar energy
contribution of 96.2% and the remaining 3.8% missing energy would be fed using the diesel
generator [18]. The elevated platform scheme is considered a better option for protecting
marine life by not having a structure that blocks sunlight and air transmission and limiting
the contact of material on the water’s surface.

4.5. Validation of Solar Energy Generation

As described in performance evaluation and system optimization sections, the PVsyst
7.2.21 tool was used to estimate the monthly solar energy production from the floating
PV system of a capacity of 530 kWp. The obtained results from PVsyst 7.2.21 have been
validated with the mathematical tool ‘MATLAB Simulink R2022b’ and are presented in
Table 10. The results from the Simulink model were based on the Maximum Power Point
Tracking (MPPT) algorithm and offshore factors such as reduced panel temperature and
incident solar irradiation. The developed PVsyst 7.2.21 model was validated by comparing
the output from the MATLAB Simulink R2022b model. The results from MATLAB Simulink
R2022b are a good match with PVsyst 7.2.21 results, with an annual deviation of 1.85 and
1.88% for the Scenario 1 and the Scenario 2 systems as illustrated in Figure 8.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 12 of 14

Table 10. Comparison of results from PVsyst 7.2.21 and MATLAB Simulink R2022b.

Design Scenario 1 Design Scenario 2

Results from PVsyst 7.2.21 Software
Energy Production (MWh/yr) 905 896
Specific Yield (kWh/kWp) 1708 1690
Capacity Factor 19.50% 19.30%
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16
Results from MATLAB Simulink R2022b Model
Energy Production (MWh/yr) 923 911
Specific Yield (kWh/kWp) 1741 1719
Capacity Factor 19.87% 19.63%
Capacity Factor
Deviation from PVsyst 7.2.21 1.85%
19.87% 19.63%
1.68%
Deviation from PVsyst 7.2.21 1.85% 1.68%

120
Energy Generation (MWh)

100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month

Design Scenario 1 - PVSyst Design Scenario 1 - Simulink

120
Energy Generation (MWh)

100

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Design Scenario 2 - PVSyst Design Scenario 2 - Simulink

Figure 8.8. Comparison

Figure Comparison of
of energy
energy generation
generation output
output for
for design
design scenarios
scenarios from
from PVsyst
PVsyst7.2.21
7.2.21and
and
MATLAB Simulink R2022b.
MATLAB Simulink R2022b.

5.5.Conclusions
Conclusions
Thispaper
This paperprovided
provided an an approach to evaluate
evaluate the
theperformance
performanceof offloating
floatingPVPVsystems,
systems,
which are applicable to the marine environment within offshore oil platforms.
which are applicable to the marine environment within offshore oil platforms. The influ- The
influencing
encing parameters
parameters such as such as the
the panel panel temperature,
temperature, heatincident
heat loss factor, loss factor, incident
irradiation, and
irradiation,
albedo and albedo
pertaining pertaining to
to the performance of the performance
floating PV systems of were
floating PV systems
investigated. Thewere
main
investigated.
findings of theThe main findingsanalysis
techno-economic of the of
techno-economic analysis of 530
530 kWp battery-integrated kWp PV
floating battery-
for an
integrated
offshore oil floating
platformPVarefor an offshore oil platform are
•• FloatingPV
Floating PVconfiguration
configuration
hashas
an an additional
additional energy
energy yieldyield of compared
of 2.3% 2.3% compared to
to ground
ground installations.
installations.
• The capacity factor of the simulated design options is in the range of 19.3% to 19.5%,
which is aligned with the typical capacity factor for solar PV systems worldwide.
• The available patented floating PV designs were intended to cope with the dynamic
offshore conditions; however, in the economic sense, the material service life and
maintenance costs do play a significant role in the implementation of offshore
floating PV systems.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 13 of 14

• The capacity factor of the simulated design options is in the range of 19.3% to 19.5%,
which is aligned with the typical capacity factor for solar PV systems worldwide.
• The available patented floating PV designs were intended to cope with the dynamic
offshore conditions; however, in the economic sense, the material service life and
maintenance costs do play a significant role in the implementation of offshore floating
PV systems.
• The studied floating PV system could reduce CO2 emissions by 731 tons per year.
• The optimized solution achieved the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of 261 USD/MWh
with a Discounted Payback Period of 9.5 years. Although the LCOEs of the designed
battery-integrated system were found to be higher than a typical on-grid solar PV sys-
tem commonly installed over lakes or dams to support a national energy portfolio, an
offshore environment essentially requires an energy storage solution. Also, the calculated
NPVs favor the implementation as battery technology increases the LCOE and lowers
the payback.
• The results obtained from PVsyst simulation were found to be aligned with the mathe-
matical model with a maximum deviation of 1.89%.
The elevated floating platform with an optimized panel layout and anchoring/mooring
system determines the success for offshore implementation. Moreover, patented designs
provided by maritime experts could pave the path to successful implementation. Inter-
national design standard development could potentially further ease the penetration and
acceptance of investors. The proposed floating solar PV projects ideally fit the United Arab
Emirates (U.A.E) due to its high yearly solar intensity and less windy/stormy climate,
which might result in a potentially revolutionary green energy architecture. Making the
most polluting oil rigs in the world more environmentally friendly would be a positive
move. Additional research studies based on the real-time measurements from offshore
demonstration projects would provide insights into the efficiency improvements and the
energy losses due to the environmental conditions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.K.S., C.V.C.S. and F.A.G.; methodology, P.K.S. and
C.V.C.S.; software, C.V.C.S. and P.K.S.; validation, C.V.C.S., P.K.S. and F.A.G.; formal analysis, C.V.C.S.;
investigation, C.V.C.S.; resources, C.V.C.S.; data curation, C.V.C.S.; writing—original draft preparation,
C.V.C.S.; writing—review and editing, F.A.G. and P.K.S.; visualization, C.V.C.S. and P.K.S.; project
administration, P.K.S. and F.A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Wang, Z.; Carriveau, R.; Ting, D.S.-K.; Xiong, W.; Wang, Z. A review of marine renewable energy storage. Int. J. Energy 2019, 43,
6108–6150. [CrossRef]
2. Bahaj, A.S.; Mahdy, M.; Alghamdi, A.S.; Richards, D.J. New approach to determine the Importance Index for developing offshore
wind energy potential sites: Supported by UK and Arabian Peninsula case studies. Renew. Energy 2020, 152, 441–457. [CrossRef]
3. IRENA. Offshore Renewables: An Action Agenda for Deployment; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates, 2021.
4. Kennedy, R. pv-magazine.com. PV Magazine. 19 January 2022. Available online: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/01/19
/floating-pv-could-reach-4-8-gw-globally-by-2026/ (accessed on 1 January 2023).
5. Oliveira-Pinto, S.; Stokkermans, J. Assessment of the potential of different floating solar technologies. Energy Convers. Manag.
2020, 211, 112747. [CrossRef]
6. Woyte, A.; Richter, M.; Moser, D.; Reich, N.; Green, M.; Mau, S.; Beyer, H.G. Analytical Monitoring of Grid-Connected Photovoltaic
Systems; The International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2014.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1039 14 of 14

7. PVsyst. Default Heat Loss Factors. 2022. Available online: https://www.pvsyst.com/help/thermal_loss.htm#:~:text=The%20

heat%20loss%20factor%20is,,%20or%20a%20gain%20beloiw (accessed on 18 April 2023).
8. Liu, H.; Krishna, V.; Leung, J.L.; Reindl, T.; Zhao, L. Field experience and performance analysis of floating PV technologies in the
tropics. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2018, 26, 957–967. [CrossRef]
9. Rosa-Clot, M.; Tina, G.M. Submerged and Floating Photovoltaic Systems; Academic Press: London, UK; Elsevier: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2018.
10. Magazine, P. 3 May 2021. Available online: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/05/03/floating-structure-design-for-offshore-
pv/ (accessed on 25 March 2022).
11. Haider, M. HELIOFLOAT—A Floating Lightweight Platform; TU Wien—Research Marketing: Vienna, Austria, 2016.
12. SOLARDUCK. Flexibly Interconnected Semi-Sub Triangular Structures. Artificulated Floating Structure; SOLARDUCK: Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 2020.
13. QMS. Quality Marine Services. 8 December 2018. Available online: https://zmiglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/
QMS-AL-BAHIA.pdf (accessed on 7 January 2023).
14. Finder, V. Vesselfinder. 1 January 2023. Available online: https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=9828041 (accessed on 1 January 2023).
15. ADNOC. Decarbonizing Our Operations. Available online: https://www.adnoc.ae/sustainability-net-zero/decarbonizing-our-
operations-overview (accessed on 4 December 2023).
16. Mathworks. MPPT Algorithm. Available online: https://www.mathworks.com/solutions/electrification/mppt-algorithm.html#:
~:text=Maximum%20power%20point%20tracking%20(MPPT,changing%20solar%20irradiance,%20temperature,%20and
(accessed on 16 January 2024).
17. Taye, B.Z.; Nebey, A.H.; Workineh, T.G. Design of floating solar PV system for typical household on Debre Mariam Island. Cogent
Eng. 2020, 7, 1829275. [CrossRef]
18. PVsyst. Simulation of Floating PV System for an Offshore Environment; Pvsyst: Abu Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2023.
19. Setiawan, F.; Dewi, T.; Yusi, S. Sea Salt Deposition Effect on Output and Efficiency Losses of the Photovoltaic System; a case study
in Palembang, Indonesia. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1167, 012028. [CrossRef]
20. The International Energy Agency. Projected Cost of Generating Electricity 2020 Edition; The International Energy Agency: Paris,
France, 2021.
21. IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021; IRENA: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2021.
22. Trapani, K.; Millar, D.L.; Smith, H.C. Novel offshore application of photovoltaics in comparison to conventional marine renewable
energy technologies. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 879–888. [CrossRef]
23. Ramasamy, V.; Margolis, R. Floating Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2021 Installations on Artificial Water Bodies; National
Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2021.
24. The International Energy Agency. Decommissioning of Solar PV System; The International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2020.
25. Sinaga, R.; Tuati, N.F.; Beily, M.D.E.; Agusthinus, S. Modeling and analysis of the solar photovoltaic levelized costof electricity
(LCoE)—Case study in Kupang. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1364, 012066. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.