Table 1 Comparison of proposed approach with related studies
From: Techno-economic analysis for the role of single end energy user in mitigating GHG emission
Literature | Sun tracking mode | Size of PV system | Locations | Geographical location data source | Location selection tool | Location selection parameter | PV plant orientation angle selection | Analysis | Key findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Proposed approach | Fixed | 10-kW, single-end energy user system | 11 | NASA | MATLAB/Simulink | Annual average daily solar radiation and temperature | Helioscope | Cost, financial and GHG | 6.9tCO2 equivalent per annum-GHG reduction. Capital cost 7337$ with 5-year payback time |
[3] | Single axis | 10-MW, power plant | 8 | NASA | RET screen | Annual average daily solar radiation | Tilt angle: location’s latitude | Financial, GHG, and sensitivity | 17,938tCO2 equivalent per annum- GHG reduction. The capital cost of one-axis tracking system 50 million $ with an equity payback period of 18.5 years Sensitivity analysis suggests the capital cost of 35million $ will make project financially feasible |
[7] | Fixed | 100-MW power plant | 25 | NASA | All locations | Average daily solar radiation | – | Cost, financial and GHG | 41,195 tCO2/year with 215million$ net present value (NPV) recovered in 11.6 years at the best location among 25 |
[27] | Fixed | 1-MW power plant | 14 | Geospatial Toolkit and NASA Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy | All locations | Average daily solar radiation | Tilt angle: locations latitude and azimuthal angle zero | Economic/financial, sensitivity GHG | The initial cost of 326,571,728 BDT with a maximum internal rate of return (IRR) 11.4% at best location (Dinajpur), and mitigates 1588tCO2/year |
[28] | Dual axis | 30-MW power plant | 22 | NASA | All locations | Average daily solar radiation | – | Financial, cost, risk, sensitivity, and GHG | 198.48million $ initial cost mitigates 67,700 tCO2 per year with NPV reached to 11 million with 13.7% IRR after incentives in the best location |
[31] | Fixed | 6-MW power plant | 6 states | NASA | All states | Daily solar radiations | Tilt angle 15 fixed | Financial, GHG, sensitivity, and risk | 14,400,000$ project mitigates 5,425.5tCO2 with 13.6 years payback time with 8.9 IRR and 2,632,454$ NPV at best location |
[32] | Fixed | 5-MW power plant | 24 | NASA | All locations | Average daily solar radiations and grid accessibility | Tilt angle: locations latitude (south) and azimuthal angle zero | Financial and GHG | 17,752,179$ initial cost mitigates 2583tCO2 with simple 7.3 years payback time with NPV 10,083,063$ at best location |
[33] | One Axis | 10-MW power plant | 1 | NASA and Solar Energy Database of the proposed location | Single location | Azimuth angle zero | Cost, financial, sensitivity, and GHG | 92million$ initial cost mitigates 10,000 tons of GHG with 47million $ NPV after adding benefits of reducing GHG |