applied

sciences
Article
Study of the Evolution of the Performance Ratio of Photovoltaic
Plants Operating in a Utility-Scale Installation Located at a
Subtropical Climate Zone Using Mixed-Effects Linear Modeling
Carlos Montes 1,2, * , Roberto Dorta-Guerra 3 , Benjamín González-Díaz 2 , Sara González-Pérez 4 ,
Luis Ocaña 1,2 and Elena Llarena 1

1 Instituto Tecnológico y de Energías Renovables, S. A. (ITER), 38600 Granadilla, Spain

2 Departamento de Ingeniería Industrial, Escuela Superior de Ingeniería y Tecnología,
Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), 38200 La Laguna, Spain
3 Departamento de Matemáticas, Estadística e Investigación Operativa, Facultad de Ciencias,
Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), 38200 La Laguna, Spain
4 Departamento de Didácticas Específicas, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), 38200 La Laguna, Spain
* Correspondence: cmontes@iter.es; Tel.: +34-922-747-700

Abstract: This paper assessed the evolution of the performance ratio (PR) of a utility-scale pho-
tovoltaic (PV) installation that operates at subtropical climate conditions. The period of study
encompassed 8 years, and the PR was calculated according to the ICE 61724 standard with a monthly
resolution. A linear mixed effects model (LME) is a suitable tool for analyzing longitudinal data.
Three LME models were assessed to provide the degradation rate. The “null model” evaluates the
Citation: Montes, C.; Dorta-Guerra, general relationship between PR and time with a monthly declination rate (∆PR%) of 0.0391%/month.
R.; González-Díaz, B.; The “typology model” considered the relationship between PR and, as covariates, time, Manufacturer,
González-Pérez, S.; Ocaña, L.; Technology, and NominalP. Only the ∆PR% related to NominalP was found to be significant, so that,
Llarena, E. Study of the Evolution of
when the nominal power of a type of PV module used for a PV production unit is increased by
the Performance Ratio of
one unit, the ∆PR% of the corresponding unit increases by 0.000897%/month. Finally, the “location
Photovoltaic Plants Operating in a
model” took into account the relationship between PR and, as covariates, time, Edge, and LengthSt.
Utility-Scale Installation Located at a
These last two factors were significant, resulting in an increase of 0.0132%/month for a PV unit
Subtropical Climate Zone Using
Mixed-Effects Linear Modeling. Appl.
located at the edge of the facility and 0.00117%/month and per PV production unit when considering
Sci. 2022, 12, 11306. https://doi.org/ the length of a street, respectively.
10.3390/app122111306
Keywords: solar photovoltaic; performance ratio; PV module degradation; mixed-effect linear modeling
Academic Editors: Doug Arent,
Xiaolei Yang and Adam Warren

Received: 13 October 2022

Accepted: 4 November 2022 1. Introduction
Published: 7 November 2022 The study of the reliability and long-term durability of photovoltaic (PV) modules has
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral a great impact on the energy forecast, the economics of the power plants, and the planning
with regard to jurisdictional claims in of the operation and maintenance activities of the PV systems [1–3].
published maps and institutional affil- Different performance analyses have been carried out with different technologies,
iations. plant topology, and placements [4–9], wherein the results indicate the PV modules have
provided electric power for more than 20 years. However, errors determining degradation
rates can increase financial risks in the PV sector [10].
In outdoor conditions, to determine how long a PV module or system will last is a
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. challenge because they are influenced by several issues, such as the local climate, technology,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. materials, and manufacturing, as much as the installation conditions themselves [11].
This article is an open access article
After more than 40 years of field testing, in different world locations, degradation rate
distributed under the terms and
distribution of the PV power plants have reported around 0.5%/year [10,12,13]. Therefore,
conditions of the Creative Commons
this value has been also adopted to consider long-term crystalline silicon PV module
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
degradation in financial models [14]. Lately, annual degradation rates have been estimated
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
on PV modules, using modern cell technologies as well as encapsulating techniques,
4.0/).

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122111306 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 2 of 14

which reduced the average degradation rate at 0.4%/year [15], wherein values lower than
0.27%/year can be achieved for crystalline silicon technologies, operating in utility-scale
PV facilities subjected to proper operation and maintenance practices [16].
To perform an analysis of the durability, several parameters are required to evaluate
the degradation, such as the I-V curve evolution [15], color change of the PV panels [17], or
the temperature coefficient variation [18], among other approaches. However, the analysis
of the performance ratio (PR) is one of the most widely used methods [11,19–24], mainly
due to its accuracy and non-dependence of external factors.
Since a single set of degradation measurements based on one measurement are not
representative of the population to estimate true degradation of a PV installation, repeated
measures across several groups are necessary. The analysis of the operation data and
performance through linear mixed effects models (LEMs) is a suitable tool for analyzing
longitudinal data to explain the degradations in PV modules/systems [25]. Even more, it
is reasonable to assume a linear degradation model, although some publications use an
exponential degradation model [26] or classical series decomposition [20]; it is shown that
for a typical starting degradation rate, these models do not differ significantly during the
first 10–15 years [27].
In this paper, the performance of 8 years of a 13 MW installation located in the South of
Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain) was analyzed. LEM approaches were used to evaluate the
evolution of the PR of the PV production units in which this facility is articulated, and its
degradation rate, considering the effects of technology, manufacturer, and nominal power
of photovoltaic modules used during its installation, as well as the distribution of said PV
units within the facility. The concept of degradation rate is used in this work, wherein
robust estimation of the true degradation in a specific environment was evaluated [28].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Photovoltaic System
The analysis of the PR and its degradation rate was performed in SOLTEN, a 20 MW
utility-scale PV facility located in the south of Tenerife, Canary Islands, in the municipality
of Granadilla (see Figure 1), which was installed and operated by the Instituto Tecnológico y
de Energías Renovables, S.A. (ITER). The Canary Islands are located in the trade wind zone
on the southeastern side of the Azorean anticyclonic system, but also relatively near to the
West Coast of Africa. As a result, the islands have a subtropical climate, characterized by hot
summers and mild winters with infrequent frost. However, due to the island’s orography,
they are also subjected to other climates that have a local effect, called microclimates [29].
Thus, according to the Köppen climate classification [30], the climate where the PV facility
is located is similar to hot arid desert, with high levels of solar irradiation, but, due to its
closeness to the coast, it is also heavily exposed to a salty and humid environment.
The SOLTEN 20 MW PV facility was developed on a plot of land of 217,775.80 m2
between 2006 and 2008 and is made up of 200 PV generation units. Each unit has 100 kW
of nominal power, occupies an area of about 820 m2 , and is set up at 10◦ tilt and true North–
South orientation. In all units, the PV modules are clamped to light aluminum structures,
totally modular and removable, being formed of pillars, girders, and beams, mounted over
profiles of galvanized steel, embedded on concrete foundations (see Figure 2).
The PV production units were placed in rows, leaving streets between each row of
plants, both to minimize the impact of shadows and to allow their servicing. Since the
plot of land has a diamond-like shape, each row accommodated a different number of
plants, depending on its location. Following the nomenclature adopted by the SOLTEN
maintenance teams, henceforth the term “street” will be used to refer to both a row of PV
units and the transiting path that lies at the south of each row.
The inverters used in all the PV production units are Teide 100 [31], developed and
manufactured by ITER. Teide 100 is a 100 kW rated, transformer-less inverter, especially
designed for facilitating its operation and maintenance, as well as to contribute to maintain
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 3 of 14
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

the grid through the voltage drop during exceptional conditions, such as voltage dips,
according to the Spanish Grid Codes.

Figure 1. Geographical location of the SOLTEN PV installation (own elaboration).

The SOLTEN 20 MW PV facility was developed on a plot of land of 217,775.80 m 2

between 2006 and 2008 and is made up of 200 PV generation units. Each unit has 100 kW
of nominal power, occupies an area of about 820 m2, and is set up at 10° tilt and true
North–South orientation. In all units, the PV modules are clamped to light aluminum
structures, totally modular and removable, being formed of pillars, girders, and beams,
mounted over profiles of galvanized steel, embedded on concrete foundations (see Fig-
ure 2).1. Geographical location of the SOLTEN PV installation (own elaboration).
Figure

Figure 1. Geographical location of the SOLTEN PV installation (own elaboration).

The SOLTEN 20 MW PV facility was developed on a plot of land of 217,775.80 m 2

between 2006 and 2008 and is made up of 200 PV generation units. Each unit has 100 kW
of nominal power, occupies an area of about 820 m2, and is set up at 10° tilt and true
North–South orientation. In all units, the PV modules are clamped to light aluminum
structures, totally modular and removable, being formed of pillars, girders, and beams,
mounted over profiles of galvanized steel, embedded on concrete foundations (see Fig-
ure 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Image
Imagedepicting
depictingaatypical
typicaldistribution
distribution
of of
PVPV production
production units
units in SOLTEN
in the the SOLTEN PV instal-
PV installation
lation (own elaboration).
(own elaboration).

production units
The PV production units arewere placed intorows,
connected a SCADAleaving streets between
(Supervisory Controleach
androwDataof
plants, both to
Acquisition) minimize
system, which themonitors
impact ofthe shadows
inverters;andthe to security
allow their servicing.the
equipment; Since the
energy
plot of land
meters; has a2011,
and, since diamond-like
also a weathershape, each located
station row accommodated
at the facilitiesathat
different number
has, among otherof
plants, depending on its location. Following the nomenclature adopted
sensors, a ISO 9060 spectrally flat Class B pyranometer (CMP6 by Kipp and Zonen), which by the SOLTEN
maintenance
was teams, henceforth
placed, oriented, and tilted as thethe
termPV“street” willthe
plants. All be acquired
used to refer
datato both
are a rowstored
securely of PV
units
in and the transiting path that lies at the south of each row.
a database.
FigureThe
As inverters
2.can
Image used
be depicting
seen in
in Figure all the
a typical PV production
3, distribution
SOLTEN 20 PVunits
of MW are Teide
is divided
production in 100
unitstwo [31],
in the developed
phases:
SOLTEN SOLTEN andI
PV instal-
(13 MW)
manufacturedand SOLTEN
by ITER.
lation (own elaboration). II (7
TeideMW), 100which
is a differ
100 kW only in
rated, the way in which
transformer-less the energy
inverter, injected
especially
into the grid
designed for is accounteditsfor.
facilitating Thus, while
operation and SOLTEN
maintenance,I is articulated
as well as around 130 PVtounits,
to contribute grid
each one serviced by a class B in active energy meter (according to European
The PV production units were placed in rows, leaving streets between each row of Directive MID
EN 50470
plants, or class
both 1 according
to minimize to IEC-62053-2)
the impact of shadows thatand
is connected to the
to allow their low-voltage
servicing. Sincegrid,
the
SOLTEN II has
plot of land has70aPV units that areshape,
diamond-like all serviced
each rowby one single energyameter
accommodated instead,
different which
number of
isplants,
connected to the medium
depending voltageFollowing
on its location. grid. Becausethe of this difference,
nomenclature the present
adopted by thestudy
SOLTENhad
to be restrictedteams,
maintenance only to the SOLTEN
henceforth I phase.
the term “street” will be used to refer to both a row of PV
The reason behind this configuration
units and the transiting path that lies at the south around of 100
eachkW row.production units has to do
with theThe inverters used in all the PV production units are Teide and
kind of business model applied during the promotion construction
100 [31], developed of and
the
facilities, which was conceived in order to make use of the most
manufactured by ITER. Teide 100 is a 100 kW rated, transformer-less inverter, especially suitable feed-in tariffs
available
designed at the
for time [32]. its
facilitating Thus, the installation
operation was articulated
and maintenance, as well asasa collective solartofarm,
to contribute grid
 grid, SOLTEN II has 70 PV units that are all serviced by one single energy meter instead,
which is connected to the medium voltage grid. Because of this difference, the present
study had to be restricted only to the SOLTEN I phase.
The reason behind this configuration around 100 kW production units has to do
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 with the kind of business model applied during the promotion and construction of4 of the
14
facilities, which was conceived in order to make use of the most suitable feed-in tariffs
available at the time [32]. Thus, the installation was articulated as a collective solar farm,
wherein the PV generation units (the PV modules; the structures; the inverters; and, for
wherein the PV generation units (the PV modules; the structures; the inverters; and, for
phase I, also the electric meters) were individually purchased by different owners, while
phase I, also the electric meters) were individually purchased by different owners, while
the remaining infrastructure (the transform stations, the high-voltage evacuation lines,
the remaining infrastructure (the transform stations, the high-voltage evacuation lines, the
the communications, the security, and the fire control systems, among other services)
communications, the security, and the fire control systems, among other services) were
were shared by all the owners [33].
shared by all the owners [33].

Figure 3. Aerial
Aerial view
view ofof the
the SOLTEN
SOLTEN 20 20 MW
MW PV installation
installation (left) and a diagram highlighting
SOLTEN
SOLTEN I (13 MW), as well as its distribution in streets and
I (13 MW), as well as its distribution in streets and PV
PV units,
units, as
as aa function
function of
of the
the type
type of
of
module installed (right). Own elaboration.
module installed (right). Own elaboration.

PV Facilities
2.2. PV Facilities under
under Study
Study
explained above,
As explained above, this
this study
study focused
focused on
on the
the SOLTEN
SOLTEN II phase
phase (13(13 MW) that, in
total, has
total, has 130
130 PV production units of 100 kW each. In In this
this phase,
phase, 81.560
81.560 PV
PV modules,
modules,
made with mono or polycrystalline cells and provided by four different
made with mono or polycrystalline cells and provided by four different manufacturers, manufacturers,
ranging from
ranging from 175
175 WW toto 155
155 WW of
of nominal
nominal power,
power, were
were installed.
installed. All
All the
the installed
installed modules
modules
with monocrystalline technology were formed by 72 125 × 125 mm cells
with monocrystalline technology were formed by 72 125 × 125 mm cells connected in se- connected in
series, while the majority of the installed modules that carry polycrystalline cells had
48 156 × 156 mm cells, also associated in series. In both cases, the module fabrication
process applied modern lamination techniques, with encapsulations consisting of solar
glass, interlayer sheets of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), and three-layer backing film, made
of two polyvinyl fluoride films (PVF) that sandwich a polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
layer, usually called TPT (tedlar® -polyester-tedlar® ). It is important to notice that these
photovoltaic modules were not mixed, that is, each of the 130 PV production units was
installed using a single variety of those that were available. Thus, one way to identify one
PV production unit from another could be by considering the manufacturer of the modules
used for its installation, the type of cells that were used for the modules’ lamination (which
we have referred to as “technology” here), and their corresponding nominal power (see
Table 1).
Moreover, the PV production units were installed in straight rows, placed from east to
west, called streets. The number of units per street varied in order to adapt to the available
plot of land. Thus, another way to identify one PV production unit from another could
be by considering its belonging to a determined street, as much as its particular location
within that street. Regarding this topic, it is important to notice that from street 16 to 19,
the eastern side of each street had PV production units that belong to SOLTEN II and,
therefore, the units belonging to SOLTEN I start somewhere in the middle of these streets
(see Table 2).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 5 of 14

Table 1. Distribution of the modules installed in SOLTEN I, considering manufacturer (SW, KC,
YL, ST, DK/ST, and IT); technology (“m” for monocrystalline and “p” for polycrystalline); nominal
power, number of PV production units installed with these modules; and the total number of modules
installed for each type.

Nominal N◦ of PV N◦ of Cell Size

Manufacturer Technology
Power (W) Units Modules (mm)
155 1 684
m 165 24 15,526
175 40 24,529
SW 125 × 125
155 1 684
165 9 5814
175 15 9158
167 7 4522
KC 170 4 2584
p
175 21 12,938
YL 175 1 648 156 × 156

ST 162 5 3190
DK/ST 175 1 616
IT 170 1 667

Table 2. Number of PV production units per street in SOLTEN I. Note that from street number 16 to
19, there are units that belong to SOLTEN I and SOLTEN II. The former are located on the west side,
and the latter on the east side of each street.

Street # SOLTEN I SOLTEN II Total # of PV Units

1 1 0 1
2 2 0 2
3 3 0 3
4 3 0 3
5 4 0 4
6 5 0 5
7 5 0 5
8 6 0 6
9 7 0 7
10 7 0 7
11 8 0 8
12 15 0 15
13 15 0 15
14 15 0 15
15 12 0 12
16 8 5 13
17 5 4 9
18 5 4 9
19 4 4 8

2.3. Performance Ratio Calculation

The IEC 61724 norm constitutes the European Standard that describes the general
recommendations for performance monitoring and analysis of PV systems [19], both for
grid tied and for isolated forms. Thus, in order to provide information on the energy
efficiency and reliability of a PV installation, the standard defines a performance ratio (PR)
as the quotient of the system’s final yield (Yf ) to its reference yield (Yr ), and indicates the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 6 of 14

overall effect of losses on the system output due to both array temperature and system
component inefficiencies or failures, including balance of system components.
The PR is defined as
!
Yf
 
Eout Hi
PR = = / (1)
Yr P0 Gi,re f

where the Eout is the net energy output of the entire PV system (AC in kWh); the P0 is the
rated kW (DC in kWp) of the installed PV array; the Hi is the total in-plane irradiation (in
kWh·m−2 ) during the considered period; and, finally, Gi,ref is the module’s reference plane
of array irradiance (1 kW·m−2 ), which is the irradiance at which P0 is determined.
Thus, since the available data had monthly resolution, the monthly performance ratio,
PRmonthly , or simply PR henceforth, is the performance ratio, evaluated for a reporting
period of one month.

2.4. Data Filtering

From the available data, which encompasses from January 2012 to December 2019,
8 operation years, the monthly performance ratio (PR) was calculated for the 130 PV
production units, following the formulation indicated in the previous section.
The dataset available from the beginning of 2020 to the present was not considered
in this study due to the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic on the island, which resulted
in a reduction in energy consumption. Since the electrical system of Tenerife is islanded,
the energy production must be finely tuned to the expected consumption. This important
task is carried out by Red Eléctrica de España [34]. As a consequence of the reduction
in consumption, this institution began to order curtailments to all the island’s energy
producers, which also affected SOLTEN.
From the 130 PV production units initially sampled, described in Tables 1 and 2, and
to study the effect of the manufacturer on the performance ratio evolution, the units of type
ST (5 plants), DK/ST (1 plant), IT (1 plant), and YL (1 plant) were discarded for not having
sufficient representativeness.
Therefore, the number of plants considered in this study was reduced to 122 and
aggregated depending on their module manufacturer, nominal power, and technology, as
shown in Tables 3–5, respectively. Representativeness of each considered variable is shown
in each table.

Table 3. Distribution of the PV production units, considering the manufacturer’s representativeness.

Manufacturer Technology Nominal Power (W) N◦ of PV Units Representativeness

155 1
m 165 24
175 40
SW 73.77%
155 1
165 9
175 15
p
167 7
KC 170 4 26.23%
175 21

Outlier and extreme points were analyzed by inspecting the box-and-whisker plots
(see Figure 4). PR values greater than 1 were discarded from the study. The absence of
a comprehensive historical record about the operation and maintenance actions carried
out in the facilities made it impossible to ascertain causes to explain the existence of these
anomalous PR values. In some instances, PR values of 1 and above could be attributed to
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 7 of 14

momentary malfunctions on either the electric meters or in the data acquisition and storage
procedures, shifting part of the monthly energy production on a PV production unit onto
the following month.
Table 4. Distribution of the PV production units, considering their nominal power’s representativeness.

Nominal Power (W) Manufacturer Technology N◦ of PV Units Representativeness

m 1
155 SW 1.64%
p 1
m 24
165 SW 27.05%
p 9
167 KC p 7 5.74%
170 KC p 4 3.28%
m 40
SW
175 p 15 62.30%
KC p 21

Table 5. Distribution of the PV production units, considering the technology’s representativeness.

Nominal Power (W) Manufacturer Technology N◦ of PV units Representativeness

155 1
m 165 SW 24 53.28%
175 40
155 SW 1
165 SW 9
167 7
p 46.72%
170 KC 4
21
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 175 8 of 15
SW 15

Figure 4. Monthly PRFigure

of 1304.production
Monthly PRunits
of 130over the period
production unitsJanuary
over the2012–December 2019 installed2019 in-
period January 2012–December
stalled in SOLTEN I. The values that represent potential outliers
in SOLTEN I. The values that represent potential outliers and extreme outliers are marked with and extreme outliers are marked
points
with points (◦) and asterisks (*), respectively. Own elaboration.
(◦) and asterisks (*), respectively. Own elaboration.
2.5. Performance Loss Rate Evaluation Using Mixed-Effects Linear Models
A random coefficients model (mixed-effects linear model) with random intercept
and slope was applied to monthly PR. Three models were defined to evaluate the PR
decline rate over time, or ΔPR%. The first model, denoted as “null model”, was con-
structed to evaluate the ΔPR% when no factors were included. The second model, de-
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 8 of 14

2.5. Performance Loss Rate Evaluation Using Mixed-Effects Linear Models

A random coefficients model (mixed-effects linear model) with random intercept and
slope was applied to monthly PR. Three models were defined to evaluate the PR decline
rate over time, or ∆PR%. The first model, denoted as “null model”, was constructed
to evaluate the ∆PR% when no factors were included. The second model, denoted as
“typology model”, was devised to evaluate the ∆PR% when factors related to the nature
of the modules used in the PV production units were taken into account. To that effect,
three covariates were considered: module manufacturer (Manufacturer), type of cell used in
the modules’ lamination (Technology), and the nominal power of the modules (NominalP)
installed at each PV production unit. The third model, denoted as “location model”, was
conceived to evaluate the ∆PR% when factors related to the situation of the PV production
units, within the facility, were taken into account. Thus, it included two covariates: the edge
effect (Edge), which takes into account whether or not a PV production unit is located at
the facility’s eastern border and, therefore, contemplates the impact of being more exposed
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
to local conditions, such as the prevailing winds that this area has (see Figure 5), 9andof 15
the
length of the street effect (LengthSt), which evaluates the consequences of having a different
number of PV production units per street within the installation.

Diagram
Figure5.5.Diagram
Figure depicting
depicting the
the SOLTENfacility
SOLTEN facility together
together with
with the
the zone
zone considered
considered asas the“edge
the “edge
area” in terms of direct exposure to the prevailing winds. Own elaboration.
area” in terms of direct exposure to the prevailing winds. Own elaboration.

Evaluationofofthe
Evaluation the principal
principal effects
effects and
andinteractions
interactionsofofthese variables
these variablesover time
over allowed
time al-
to calculate the PR decline rate (∆PR%). For this model, the homoscedasticity
lowed to calculate the PR decline rate (ΔPR%). For this model, the homoscedasticity was was assessed
by visual
assessed byinspection of a scatterplot
visual inspection of residuals
of a scatterplot versus fitted
of residuals values.
versus fittedThe assumption
values. The as-of
normality was met, as assessed by the histogram of residuals and by the
sumption of normality was met, as assessed by the histogram of residuals and by the Kolmogorov test
(p > 0.05).
Kolmogorov test (p > 0.05).
Performance Ratio Declination Rate Model
Performance Ratio Declination Rate Model
Let yij be the measured performance ratio (PR) of plant i at time tij in months, where
Let 𝑦 be the measured performance ratio (PR) of plant 𝑖 at time 𝑡𝑖𝑗 in months,
i = 1, . . . 𝑖𝑗, 122 denotes number of PV production units and j denotes the considered period
where 𝑖 = 1, … ,122 denotes number of PV production units and 𝑗 denotes the consid-
ered period with 𝑗 = 1, … , 𝑚𝑖 , where 𝑚𝑖 ≤ 96, that is, from January 2012 until December
2019. The linear degradation model is given by
𝑦𝑖𝑗 = 𝑏0,𝑖 + 𝑏1,𝑖 𝑡𝑖𝑗 + 𝜀𝑖𝑗 (2)
where 𝑏0𝑖 and 𝑏1𝑖 denote the intercept and the gradient of the linear model for plant 𝑖,
respectively, and 𝜀𝑖𝑗 denotes a random effect, and moreover,
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 9 of 14

with j = 1, . . . , mi , where mi ≤ 96, that is, from January 2012 until December 2019. The
linear degradation model is given by

yij = b0,i + b1,i tij + ε ij (2)

where b0i and b1i denote the intercept and the gradient of the linear model for plant i,
respectively, and ε ij denotes a random effect, and moreover,

∗
b0i = β 0 + b0,i
∗
b1i = β 1 + b1,i

where
β 0 = γ00 + γ01 xi1 + . . . + γ0k xik
β 1 = γ10 + γ11 xi1 + . . . + γ1k xik
and xik are the covariates for the “typology” model: xi1 = “Manu f acturer”; xi2 = “Technology”;
xi3 = “NominalP” and “location” model: xi1 = “Edge”; xi2 = “LengthSt”.
The “null” model only assesses the relation between the PR and time.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 15
The intercept and the gradient can be modeled using a bivariate normal distribution,
(b0 , b1 )t ∼ BVN( β, V) with mean vector

𝜷=
β β 0 , 𝛽β 1))t
= ((𝛽

and covariance matrix

and covariance matrix !
σb2 Cov(b0 , b1 )
𝜎 𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑏 )
σb2 , 𝑏
V= 0

𝐕 = Cov(b1 , b0 )
𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑏 , 𝑏 )
1
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 𝜎 10 of 15
Equation (2) can be written as a linear mixed model:
Equation (2) can be written as a linear mixed model:
yij = γ10 + γ11 xi1 + . . . + γ1k x𝑦ik +=γ𝛾
10 tij++𝛾γ11 𝑥xi1+tij⋯++. .𝛾. +𝑥γ1k+xik 𝛾 t 𝑡+ +b𝛾0,i ∗ 𝑥 𝑡∗ + ⋯ + 𝛾 𝑥 𝑡


+ b1,i tij + ε ij (3)
𝜷∗ = (𝛽∗ , 𝛽 ) ij (3)
+ 𝑏 , +𝑏 , 𝑡 +𝜀
The above Equation (3) can be written into matrix form:
and covariance matrix
The above Equation (3) canYbe=written into ∗ matrix form:
i 𝜎 Xi β + Z i bi + ε, 𝑏
𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑏 i ) (4)
𝐕= ∗
𝐶𝑜𝑣(𝑏𝐘 , = 𝑏 )𝐗 𝜷 + 𝐙𝜎𝐛 + 𝜺
(4)
where
where
Equation (2) can be written as a linear mixed model:

t
t ∗∗  ∗∗ ∗∗ t
𝑦 = 𝛾 + 𝛾 𝑥 +i ⋯ + 𝛾  𝑥 + 𝛾 𝑡 +i 𝛾;; b𝐛𝑥i =
Y 𝐘
i == y𝑦i 1 , ,.…. . ,,𝑦y i m ;; ε 𝜺
i == ε𝜀i 1 ,, .… . ., ,𝜀ε i m =𝑡 𝑏+ , 𝛾 ;;𝑥 𝑡
b0,i,⋯,,𝑏b+1,i
∗∗ ∗ t∗
+ b𝑏 ∗𝑏 , , + 𝑏
∗ ,𝑏 ~ 𝑡 BVN(𝟎,
0,i ,, b1,i , ∼ BVN(0, V)
+ 𝜀 𝐕) (3)
ε i𝜀 ∼~MVN(𝟎,
MVN 0, 𝜎 σ𝐈2 I); ;

i
The above Equation (3) can be written ∗∗ into matrix form:
𝕧(𝐛(bi ,,𝜺ε i)) = = 𝟎; 0;

𝐘 = 𝐗 𝜷 1+ 1 𝐙 𝐛ti1∗ + 𝜺 (4)
 .. 𝑡.. 
X𝐗i = Z
= 𝐙 = ⋮.
i = ⋮.
where
 
11 𝑡ti mi
𝐘 = 𝑦 ,…,𝑦 ; 𝜺 = 𝜀 ,…,𝜀 ; 𝐛∗ = 𝑏 ∗, , 𝑏 ∗, ;
andand𝐈 Iisi isaa𝑚
mi by m 𝑚i identity
identitymatrix. ∗
𝑏matrix. ∗ Under Under this,this, Yi 𝐘 hashas
a multivariate
a multivariate normal distribu-
normal distri-
, ,𝑏 , ~ BVN(𝟎, 𝐕)
tion with mean vector
bution with mean vector X i β 𝐗 𝜷 and covariance );
and covariance
𝜀 ~MVN(𝟎, 𝜎 𝐈
𝒕 2
Σi =𝚺𝕧(𝐛 ,)𝜺=) )Z
(=Y∗i𝕧(𝐘 == 𝟎;𝐙 it𝐕𝐙
i VZ +𝒊σ+ I𝜎
i 𝐈 (5)(5)

3. Results and Discussion 1 𝑡

3. Results and Discussion 𝐗 = 𝐙 = ⋮ ⋮
As can be seen in Table 6, the value obtained for the mean slope of the PR (or ∆PR%)
1 𝑡 for the mean slope of the PR (or ΔPR%)
As can be seen in Table 6, the value obtained
of the PV production units or the considered period at a monthly resolution, without
of the PV production units or the considered period at a monthly resolution, without
and 𝐈 is aany
considering 𝑚 factor
by 𝑚oridentity
covariable (null model),
matrix. 𝐘 has a multivariate
was 0.0391%/month.
Under this, This isnormal
a remarkable
distri-
considering any factor or covariable (null model), was 0.0391%/month. This is a re-
result
bution because,
with meanto our 𝐗 𝜷 anditcovariance
knowledge,
vector has not been reported with such accuracy and with
markable
this result because,
level of resolution thus to
far.our knowledge,
Considering it hasintervals
yearly not beeninstead,
reportedthewith such accuracy
resulting value
) 𝒕
and with this level of resolution 𝚺 =
thus𝕧(𝐘
far.
of the ∆PR% was 0.4692%/year. This is also relevant = 𝐙 𝐕𝐙 +
Considering 𝜎 𝐈
𝒊 because it means that, despitethe
yearly intervals instead, (5)
there-
sulting value of the ΔPR% was 0.4692%/year. This is also relevant because it means that,
despite the challenging conditions in which the studied PV production units operate, in
3. Results and Discussion
terms of exposure to high levels of irradiation and under quite harsh climatic environ-
As can
ments, the be seen inΔPR%
obtained Table 6,perthe value
year obtained
is slightly for the
lower thanmean slope ofwhich
0.5%/year, the PRis(or
theΔPR%)
median
ofvalue
the PV production units or the considered period at a monthly resolution,
reported by Jordan and Kurtz after analyzing 2000 degradation rates, available withoutin
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 10 of 14

challenging conditions in which the studied PV production units operate, in terms of

exposure to high levels of irradiation and under quite harsh climatic environments, the
obtained ∆PR% per year is slightly lower than 0.5%/year, which is the median value
reported by Jordan and Kurtz after analyzing 2000 degradation rates, available in the
literature, which were measured on individual modules or entire systems [13].

Table 6. ∆PR estimation for the three mixed models: null model without covariates; typology model
with covariates Manufacturer, Technology, and NominalP; and the location model with covariates Edge
and LenghtSt. SE: standard error; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.

Estimation
Model Covariates SE p-Value 95% CI
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW ∆PR (month) 11 of 15

Null Time −3.910 × 10−4 1.673 × 10−5 <0.001 −4.230 × 10−4 −3.580 × 10−4
Time −2.370 × 10−4 6.257 × 10−5 <0.001 −3.600 × 10−4 −1.150 × 10−4
Table 6.−∆𝑃𝑅
Manufacturer 5.118estimation
× 10−5 for4.811 the ×
three
10−5mixed models:
0.287 null model without
−1.450 × 10−covariates;
4 4.312typology
× 10−5
Typology model with covariates Manufacturer, Technology, and NominalP; and the location model
Technology 1.271 × 10 − 5 4.204 × 10 − 5 0.762 −6.968 × 10 − 5 9.511 × 10−co-
with 5

NominalP variates Edge and LenghtSt.

−8.977 × 10 − 6 SE: standard
3.289 × 10 − 6error; 95% CI:
0.00695% confidence interval.
−1.542 × 10 − 5 −
−2.529 × 10 6
Time −3.960 × 10−4 × 10−5
Estimation
5.130 <0.001 −4.970 × 10−5 −2.960 × 10−4
Model Covariates
− − SE p-Value − 95% CI
Location Edge 1.320 × 10 4
∆𝐏𝐑 ×
5.062 (𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡)
10 5 0.009 3.292 × 10 5 2.310 × 10−4
− 5 − 6 − 5 10− 6
LengthSt Null−1.177 × 10
Time 3.755 × 10
−3.910 × 10−4 1.673 0.002 −1.913
× 10−5 <0.001 × 10× 10−4 −
−4.230 4.412 ×
−3.580 × 10 −4

Time −2.370 × 10−4 6.257 × 10−5 <0.001 −3.600 × 10−4 −1.150 × 10−4
WhenManufacturer
considering the−5.118
PR of×the10−5PV4.811 × 10−5 units,
production 0.287this−1.450
time by× 10 −4 4.312 × 10−5
taking into account
Typology
the moduleTechnology
manufacturer 1.271 × 10 −5
(Manufacturer, 4.204 × 10
in this −5 0.762
case two −6.968 × 10−5“SW”
manufacturers: 9.511 × 10
and −5
“KC”),
the technology (Technology,
NominalP that ×is,10whether
−8.977 −6 3.289 the
× 10modules
−6 0.006were laminated
−1.542 × 10 with
−5 −2.529monocrys-
× 10−6
talline “m”Time
or polycrystalline “p”
−3.960 × 10cells), and ×the
−4 5.130 10nominal
−5 <0.001power (NominalP,
−4.970 ranging
× 10−5 −2.960 × 10from
−4

155 to 175 W)
Location Edge as covariates, that is,
1.320 × 10 the
−4 typology
5.062 × 10 model,
−5 the results
0.009 3.292 × 10indicate
−5 that although
2.310 × 10 −4

the effect of the manufacturer

LengthSt −1.177 and
× 10−5technology
3.755 × 10were
−6 not significant,
0.002 −1.913 × 10when the nominal
−5 −4.412 × 10−6
power of a type of PV module used is increased by one unit, the variation of the PR of the
corresponding
Although thisPV may
production unit
look like per elapsed
a rather smallmonth
number,decreases
accordingby 0.000897% (seeand
to this result Tableby6).
Although this may look like a rather small number, according to this result and by
considering it on an annual basis, its effect adds up so that, throughout the considered
considering it on an annual basis, its effect adds up so that, throughout the considered
period, a PV production unit that has 175 W modules was, on average, 0.2153%/year be-
period, a PV production unit that has 175 W modules was, on average, 0.2153%/year below
low one who was made with 155 W ones (see Figure 6). In economic terms and by con-
one who was made with 155 W ones (see Figure 6). In economic terms and by considering
sidering the tariff granted by the regulation in force at the time of completion of the in-
the tariff granted by the regulation in force at the time of completion of the installation [35],
stallation [35], this means that by the year 2019, a PV production unit that has 175 W
this means that by the year 2019, a PV production unit that has 175 W modules earned, on
modules earned, on average, EUR 11.02/kW less than one that has 155 W.
average, EUR 11.02/kW less than one that has 155 W.

Figure 6. Variation of the PR for PV production units made with modules of 155 W to 175 W per
Figure 6. Variation
elapsed month. Ownof the PR for PV production units made with modules of 155 W to 175 W per
elaboration.
elapsed month. Own elaboration.
Now, taking into account how large the SOLTEN I facility is, where it was placed,
andNow, taking
the way thatinto
the account how large
PV production thewere
units SOLTEN I facility
distributed is,the
in it, where it was
location placed,
model was
and the way that the PV production units were distributed in it, the location model was
implemented with the covariates: Edge (to distinguish between PV production units that
were placed at the easternmost border of the facility from those who were not in this po-
sition) and LengthSt (to evaluate the impact of having different number of PV production
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 11 of 14

implemented with the covariates: Edge (to distinguish between PV production units that
were placed at the easternmost border of the facility from those who were not in this
position) and LengthSt (to evaluate the impact of having different number of PV production
units per street). Thus, considering the Edge covariate, it was found that the monthly ∆PR%
of a PV production unit located at the easternmost edge (or border) was 0.0132% higher
than those not located at such position (or no border) (see Table 6).
Figure Moreover,
7. Variation by of the PR for a PV this
considering production
result unit
on alocated
yearlyorperiod,
not placed at the
this edge perbecomes
difference elapsed
month.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Own elaboration.
0.1584% (see Figure 7). Again, in economic terms, this means that, by the year 2019, 12 ofa 15
PV
production unit located at the easternmost border earned, on average, EUR 8.11/kW less
thanFinally,
one nottaking
locatedinto account
at such the LengthSt covariate, the results indicate that the
a position.
number of PV production units per street also influences their ΔPR%. In fact, ΔPR% in-
creases, on average, by 0.00117% per month for each PV unit that increases the length of
the street (see Table 6 and Figure 8).
As before, this is an effect that also adds up; thus, for instance, a street that has 10 PV
production units was, on average 0.1264%/year above one who has just one PV unit. In
economic terms, this means that, by 2019, having a street with 10 PV production units is
supposed to earn, on average, EUR 6.41/kW less than having one made with only a single
PV unit.
The last two results reflect the effect of exposure to the prevailing winds, which are
the trade winds that blow from the northeast most of the year in this area. On the one
hand, those winds help to transport particles of dust and ambient humidity, which be-
come fixed mainly to those PV production units who are more exposed (which are the
ones located by the easternmost border of the installation), contributing to their soiling.
On the other hand, those winds also provide a cooling mechanism to the PV production
Figure
units that7. Variation of the PR the
is more efficient for afewer
PV production unitare
units there located or not placed
per street. Thus, at the edge
a good per elapsed
practice for
Figure
month.7. Variation
Own of the
elaboration. PR for a PV production unit located or not placed
the operation and maintenance of these PV production units would be to take special at the edge per elapsed
care
month. Own elaboration.
in cleaning those that have their east side free of obstacles. In addition, a more convenient
Finally, taking into account the LengthSt covariate, the results indicate that the number
way to install new photovoltaic units in this geographical area would be to locate them in
of PV production
Finally, takingunits
intoper street also
account the LengthSt their ∆PR%.
influencescovariate, the In fact, ∆PR%
results indicateincreases,
that the on
the shortest possible streets or, if this is not feasible, to group them within the same street,
average,ofby
number PV0.00117%
production per month
units per for street
each PV unit
also that increases
influences the length
their ΔPR%. of theΔPR%
In fact, street in-
(see
soTable
that 6there
and are free8).
Figure spaces between them.
creases, on average, by 0.00117% per month for each PV unit that increases the length of
the street (see Table 6 and Figure 8).
As before, this is an effect that also adds up; thus, for instance, a street that has 10 PV
production units was, on average 0.1264%/year above one who has just one PV unit. In
economic terms, this means that, by 2019, having a street with 10 PV production units is
supposed to earn, on average, EUR 6.41/kW less than having one made with only a single
PV unit.
The last two results reflect the effect of exposure to the prevailing winds, which are
the trade winds that blow from the northeast most of the year in this area. On the one
hand, those winds help to transport particles of dust and ambient humidity, which be-
come fixed mainly to those PV production units who are more exposed (which are the
ones located by the easternmost border of the installation), contributing to their soiling.
On the other hand, those winds also provide a cooling mechanism to the PV production
units that
Figure is more efficient
8. Variation of the PRthe
for fewer units there
PV production unitsare per street.
in streets Thus,1 to
that have a good practice
15 units for
per elapsed
the operation
Figure
month.8. Own and
Variation maintenance of these PV production units would be to take special
of the PR for PV production units in streets that have 1 to 15 units per elapsed
elaboration. care
in cleaning
month. Ownthose that have their east side free of obstacles. In addition, a more convenient
elaboration.
way toAs before,
install newthis is an effect units
photovoltaic that also adds
in this up; thus, forarea
geographical instance,
wouldabe street that has
to locate them10inPV
production
the units was,
shortest possible on average
streets or, if this0.1264%/year
is not feasible,above onethem
to group who within
has justtheone PV unit.
same street,In
soeconomic
that thereterms,
are freethis means
spaces that, bythem.
between 2019, having a street with 10 PV production units is
supposed to earn, on average, EUR 6.41/kW less than having one made with only a single
PV unit.
The last two results reflect the effect of exposure to the prevailing winds, which are
the trade winds that blow from the northeast most of the year in this area. On the one hand,
those winds help to transport particles of dust and ambient humidity, which become fixed
mainly to those PV production units who are more exposed (which are the ones located by
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 12 of 14

the easternmost border of the installation), contributing to their soiling. On the other hand,
those winds also provide a cooling mechanism to the PV production units that is more
efficient the fewer units there are per street. Thus, a good practice for the operation and
maintenance of these PV production units would be to take special care in cleaning those
that have their east side free of obstacles. In addition, a more convenient way to install new
photovoltaic units in this geographical area would be to locate them in the shortest possible
streets or, if this is not feasible, to group them within the same street, so that there are free
spaces between them.

4. Conclusions
In this work, a study of the monthly declination rate of the PR (or ∆PR%) of a utility-
scale photovoltaic installation that operates in a subtropical climate (located on the south-
east coast of Tenerife, Canary Islands) during a period of 8 years is presented.
Three models were defined. The “null model” directly considers the relationship
between PR and time, which resulted in a ∆PR% of 0.0391%/month. This is a very relevant
result because, to our knowledge, a monthly decline rate of the PR for PV installations has
not been reported in the literature. Moreover, on an annual basis, this figure translates
to 0.4692%/year, which is slightly below the degradation rates reported when analyzing
individual modules or entire PV systems operating elsewhere, despite having the installa-
tion working in considerably harsh conditions, both in terms of irradiation and climatic
exposure. This is an interesting result for energy stakeholders interested in sustainable
energy investments, since it indicates the suitability of establishing these types of facilities
in this kind of environment.
Considering that during the construction of the facilities, modules of different types
were used, the “typology model” studied the relationship between PR and, as covariates,
three factors (Manufacturer, Technology, and NominalP) and time. The results indicated
that only the ∆PR% related to NominalP was significant, so that when the nominal power
of a type of PV module used is increased by one unit, the variation of the PR of the
corresponding PV production unit per elapsed month decreases by 0.000897%. Thus, for
instance, a PV production unit that was built with 175 W modules presents, on average, a
∆PR% 0.2153%/year lower than one that was built with modules of 155 W.
Taking into account the geographical situation of the facility, its size, and the distri-
bution of the PV production units within it, the “location model” considers the relation
between PR and, as covariates, two factors (Edge and LengthSt) and time. The results
indicated that both covariates were significant. Thus, for the Edge one, the variation of the
PR of a PV production unit located at the easternmost edge (or border) per elapsed month
was, on average, 0.0132% larger than for one not located at such position. Again, on an
annual basis, this value translates to 0.1584%/year. The result for the LenthSt covariate
indicated that for each PV unit that increases the length of a street, the variation of the PR
increases, on average, by 0.00117% per elapsed month. As before, this result adds up; thus,
for instance, a street with 10 PV units has, on average, a ∆PR% of 0.1264%/year higher
than a street that has just one unit. These results were related to the exposure to the local
conditions, particularly to the prevailing winds, and suggested ways to improve the PR of
PV production units, both for those that are already in operation and for those that could
be installed in this (or a similar) place in the future.
Finally, the obtained results were translated to economic terms, in order to quantify
their impact so that they could be useful for those stakeholders interested in investing in
this type of sustainable energy.
A future line of research will address the effects of the curtailment orders on the
energy produced, issued by REE. In this line, we will extend the present study beyond
2019 in terms of energy not produced by renewable sources, as well as their economic and
environmental costs, taking into account not only the results presented in this article but
the changes in the energy legislation in the Canary Islands.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 13 of 14

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.M., R.D.-G., B.G.-D., S.G.-P., L.O. and E.L.; methodology,
C.M., R.D.-G., B.G.-D., S.G.-P., L.O. and E.L.; software, R.D.-G.; validation, C.M., R.D.-G., B.G.-D.,
S.G.-P., L.O. and E.L.; formal analysis, C.M. and R.D.-G.; investigation, C.M., R.D.-G., B.G.-D., S.G.-P.,
L.O. and E.L.; resources, C.M., L.O. and E.L.; data curation, C.M. and R.D.-G.; writing—original
draft preparation, C.M. and R.D.-G.; writing—review and editing, C.M., R.D.-G., B.G.-D., S.G.-P.,
L.O. and E.L.; visualization, C.M., R.D.-G., B.G.-D., S.G.-P., L.O. and E.L.; supervision, B.G.-D. and
S.G.-P.; project administration, E.L.; funding acquisition, C.M., L.O. and E.L. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research and the APC has been funded by Interreg (V-A-Spain-Portugal (Madei-ra-
Açores-Canarias-MAC) 2014–2020), grant number: MAC2/1.1a/395.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This work has been developed within the MACLAB-PV project framework,
which has been co-financed by the INTERREG Madeira-Azores-Canarias Territorial Cooperation
Programme (MAC) 2014-2020. Second Call. Axis 1—Enhancing research, technological development,
and innovation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Dag, H.I.; Buker, M.S. Performance Evaluation and Degradation Assessment of Crystalline Silicon Based Photovoltaic Rooftop
Technologies under Outdoor Conditions. Renew. Energy 2020, 156, 1292–1300. [CrossRef]
2. Gxasheka, A.R.; van Dyk, E.E.; Meyer, E.L. Evaluation of Performance Parameters of PV Modules Deployed Outdoors. Renew.
Energy 2005, 30, 611–620. [CrossRef]
3. Osterwald, C.R.; Adelstein, J.; del Cueto, J.A.; Sekulic, W.; Trudell, D.; McNutt, P.; Hansen, R.; Rummel, S.; Anderberg, A.;
Moriarty, T. Resistive Loading of Photovoltaic Modules and Arrays for Long-Term Exposure Testing. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl.
2006, 14, 567–575. [CrossRef]
4. Polverini, D.; Field, M.; Dunlop, E.; Zaaiman, W. Polycrystalline Silicon PV Modules Performance and Degradation over 20 Years.
Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2013, 21, 1004–1015. [CrossRef]
5. Chamberlin, C.E.; Rocheleau, M.A.; Marshall, M.W.; Reis, A.M.; Coleman, N.T.; Lehman, P.A. Comparison of PV Module
Performance before and after 11 and 20 Years of Field Exposure. In Proceedings of the 2011 37th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists
Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 19–24 June 2011; pp. 101–105.
6. da Fonseca, J.E.F.; de Oliveira, F.S.; Prieb, C.W.M.; Krenzinger, A. Degradation Analysis of a Photovoltaic Generator after
Operating for 15 Years in Southern Brazil. Sol. Energy 2020, 196, 196–206. [CrossRef]
7. Pozza, A.; Sample, T. Crystalline Silicon PV Module Degradation after 20 Years of Field Exposure Studied by Electrical Tests,
Electroluminescence, and LBIC. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2016, 24, 368–378. [CrossRef]
8. Dhimish, M. Thermal Impact on the Performance Ratio of Photovoltaic Systems: A Case Study of 8000 Photovoltaic Installations.
Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2020, 21, 100693. [CrossRef]
9. Gopi, A.; Sudhakar, K.; Keng, N.W.; Krishnan, A.R. Comparison of Normal and Weather Corrected Performance Ratio of
Photovoltaic Solar Plants in Hot and Cold Climates. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2021, 65, 53–62. [CrossRef]
10. Dhimish, M. Performance Ratio and Degradation Rate Analysis of 10-Year Field Exposed Residential Photovoltaic Installations in
the UK and Ireland. Clean Technol. 2020, 2, 170–183. [CrossRef]
11. Kaaya, I.; Lindig, S.; Weiss, K.-A.; Virtuani, A.; Sidrach de Cardona Ortin, M.; Moser, D. Photovoltaic Lifetime Forecast Model
Based on Degradation Patterns. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2020, 28, 979–992. [CrossRef]
12. Liu, Z.; Castillo, M.L.; Youssef, A.; Serdy, J.G.; Watts, A.; Schmid, C.; Kurtz, S.; Peters, I.M.; Buonassisi, T. Quantitative Analysis of
Degradation Mechanisms in 30-Year-Old PV Modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2019, 200, 110019. [CrossRef]
13. Jordan, D.C.; Kurtz, S.R. Photovoltaic Degradation Rates—An Analytical Review. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2013, 21, 12–29.
[CrossRef]
14. Richter, M.; Tjengdrawira, C.; Vedde, J.; Green, M.; Frearson, L.; Herteleer, B.; Jahn, U.; Herz, M.; Köntges, M. Technical Assumptions
Used in PV Financial Models Review of Current Practices and Recommendations Technical Assumptions Used in PV Financial Models
Review of Current Practices and Recommendations; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2017.
15. Ishii, T.; Masuda, A. Annual Degradation Rates of Recent Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl.
2017, 25, 953–967. [CrossRef]
16. Pascual, J.; Martinez-Moreno, F.; García, M.; Marcos, J.; Marroyo, L.; Lorenzo, E. Long-Term Degradation Rate of Crystalline
Silicon PV Modules at Commercial PV Plants: An 82-MWp Assessment over 10 Years. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2021, 29,
1294–1302. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11306 14 of 14

17. Rosillo, F.G.; Alonso-García, M.C. Evaluation of Color Changes in PV Modules Using Reflectance Measurements. Sol. Energy
2019, 177, 531–537. [CrossRef]
18. Piliougine, M.; Oukaja, A.; Sidrach-de-Cardona, M.; Spagnuolo, G. Temperature Coefficients of Degraded Crystalline Silicon
Photovoltaic Modules at Outdoor Conditions. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2021, 29, 558–570. [CrossRef]
19. Choi, S.; Ishii, T.; Sato, R.; Chiba, Y.; Masuda, A. Performance Degradation Due to Outdoor Exposure and Seasonal Variation in
Amorphous Silicon Photovoltaic Modules. Thin Solid Films 2018, 661, 116–121. [CrossRef]
20. Makrides, G.; Zinsser, B.; Schubert, M.; Georghiou, G.E. Performance Loss Rate of Twelve Photovoltaic Technologies under Field
Conditions Using Statistical Techniques. Sol. Energy 2014, 103, 28–42. [CrossRef]
21. Alshare, A.; Tashtoush, B.; Altarazi, S.; El-khalil, H. Energy and Economic Analysis of a 5 MW Photovoltaic System in Northern
Jordan. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2020, 21, 100722. [CrossRef]
22. Fuster-Palop, E.; Vargas-Salgado, C.; Ferri-Revert, J.C.; Payá, J. Performance Analysis and Modelling of a 50 MW Grid-Connected
Photovoltaic Plant in Spain after 12 Years of Operation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 170, 112968. [CrossRef]
23. Kumar, N.; Pal, N. Location and Orientation Based Performance Analysis of 4.98 KWp Solar Photovoltaic System for Isolated
Indian Islands. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102138. [CrossRef]
24. Chikh, M.; Berkane, S.; Mahrane, A.; Sellami, R.; Yassaa, N. Performance Assessment of a 400 KWp Multi- Technology Photovoltaic
Grid-Connected Pilot Plant in Arid Region of Algeria. Renew. Energy 2021, 172, 488–501. [CrossRef]
25. Yang, D. Simulation Study of Parameter Estimation and Measurement Planning on Photovoltaics Degradation. Int. J. Energy Stat.
2015, 03, 1550013. [CrossRef]
26. Chuang, S.-L.; Ishibashi, A.; Kijima, S.; Nakayama, N.; Ukita, M.; Taniguchi, S. Kinetic Model for Degradation of Light-Emitting
Diodes. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 1997, 33, 970–979. [CrossRef]
27. Vázquez, M.; Rey-Stolle, I. Photovoltaic Module Reliability Model Based on Field Degradation Studies. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl.
2008, 16, 419–433. [CrossRef]
28. Laird, N.M.; Ware, J.H. Random-Effects Models for Longitudinal Data. Biometrics 1982, 38, 963–974. [CrossRef]
29. Dethier, V.G. Climates in Miniature. A Study of Micro-Climate and Environment. T. Bedford Franklin. Q. Rev. Biol. 1956, 31,
215–216. [CrossRef]
30. Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci. 2007, 11, 1633–1644. [CrossRef]
31. ITER, S.A. Inversor Teide 100. Available online: https://www.iter.es/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Ficha-técnica-Inversor-
Teide-100.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2022).
32. Ministerio de Economía Real Decreto 436/2004, de 12 de Marzo. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=
BOE-A-2004-5562 (accessed on 12 October 2022).
33. Linares, A.; Llarena, E.; Montes, C.; Gonzalez-Diaz, B.; Friend, M.; Cendagorta, M. Three Years Operating 24 MW PV Grid-
Connected Facilities in Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). In Proceedings of the 24th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy
Conference and Exhibition, Hamburg, Germany, 1 September 2009.
34. Red Eléctrica. Available online: https://www.ree.es/es (accessed on 12 October 2022).
35. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio. Real Decreto 661/2007, de 25 de Mayo, Por El Que Se Regula La Actividad de
Producción de Energía Eléctrica En Régimen Especial. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2007-1
0556 (accessed on 12 October 2022).