The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
1
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
01-10
10.37547/tajet/Volume04Issue12-01
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
07 October 2022
ACCEPTED
18 November 2022
PUBLISHED
30 December 2022
VOLUME
Vol.04 Issue12 2022
CITATION
Radhika Girish Lampuse. (2022). Energy and Financial Performance Analysis
of Monofacial vs. Bifacial Solar Modules. The American Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 4(12), 1
–
10.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume04Issue12-01
COPYRIGHT
© 2022 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Energy and Financial
Performance Analysis of
Monofacial vs. Bifacial
Solar Modules
Radhika Girish Lampuse
Engineering Oriden LLC Pittsburgh, USA
Abstract:
The increasing demand for high-efficiency
solar technologies has brought bifacial solar modules to
the forefront of renewable energy research. This study
evaluates the performance and financial viability of
bifacial solar modules compared to conventional
monofacial modules. By utilizing PVsyst software,
simulations were conducted for an existing solar project
under various configurations, including module type,
inverter type, racking system, inverter load ratio, pitch,
and module elevation, resulting in 200 iterations. The
top 20 iterations for bifacial module type and the
corresponding variants of monofacial module type,
yielding the highest energy output, were selected for
financial analysis based on Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
Results indicate that bifacial modules outperform
monofacial modules in both energy production and
financial returns, making them a compelling choice for
future solar installations. This paper provides insights
into key performance parameters and offers a
comparative framework for evaluating emerging solar
technologies.
Keywords:
bifacial solar modules, monofacial solar
modules, PVsyst, energy performance analysis, financial
analysis, solar energy technology.
Introduction:
The rapid growth of the global solar
industry has driven the need for advanced technologies
that optimize energy yield and reduce the levelized cost
of electricity (LCOE) [1]. Bifacial solar modules, capable
of capturing solar irradiance on both their front and rear
surfaces, have emerged as a promising innovation [2].
Compared to traditional monofacial modules, bifacial
modules offer the potential for higher en- ergy
generation, particularly in environments with reflective
ground surfaces [3]. However, their adoption requires
rigorous analysis to justify the higher initial costs
associated with their deployment.
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
2
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
While the theoretical advantages of bifacial modules
are well-understood, their performance and financial
viability can vary significantly depending on system
design and site-specific conditions [4]. Developers and
investors often encounter chal- lenges in determining
the optimal parameters
—
such as system layout,
racking configurations, and inverter load ratios
—
that
maximize the benefits of bifacial technology. These
complex- ities highlight the need for practical guidance
and analysis to support informed decision-making and
broader adoption of bifacial modules.
The objective of this study is to perform a
comprehensive comparison between bifacial and
monofacial solar modules in terms of energy
production and financial performance. Uti- lizing
PVsyst, a widely used simulation software, evaluation
of
system
performance
under
200
unique
configurations by varying parameters such as module
type, inverter type, racking system, inverter load ratio,
pitch, and module elevation is done. The top-
performing configurations for each module type are
then analyzed for financial viability using Internal Rate
of Return (IRR) as a metric.
This paper contributes to the field by:
•
Demonstrating
the
energy
production
potential of bifacial solar modules under diverse design
conditions.
•
Quantifying financial returns and assessing
whether bifa- cial modules justify their additional
costs.
•
Providing actionable insights into key system
design parameters that maximize the benefits of
bifacial tech- nology.
By presenting an evidence-based comparison, this
study aims to inform developers, engineers, and
stakeholders about the practical benefits and
challenges of adopting bifacial solar modules in
modern photovoltaic systems.
MONOFACIAL VS. BIFACIAL SOLAR MODULES
This section explains the technical and functional
differ- ences between bifacial and monofacial
modules, also sum- marised in Table 1.
A.
Monofacial Solar Modules
Monofacial solar modules are the conventional
photovoltaic panels designed to absorb sunlight
exclusively on their front surface [5]. These modules
have been the industry standard due to their
straightforward design, ease of installation, and lower
upfront cost compared to bifacial modules [5]. Mono-
facial panels are typically mounted in fixed-tilt or
tracking systems that maximize direct sunlight exposure
on the front surface but do not account for reflected
sunlight, known as albedo. As a result, their energy
generation potential is inherently limited to the
irradiance directly received on the front side. Despite
this limitation, monofacial modules remain widely
utilized, especially in applications where simplicity, cost-
efficiency, and reliable performance outweigh the need
for maximizing energy yields through advanced
technologies [5].
B.
Bifacial Solar Modules
Bifacial solar modules are an innovative photovoltaic
tech- nology capable of generating electricity from
sunlight on both their front and rear surfaces. Unlike
traditional monofacial modules, which utilize only the
sunlight falling on their front side, bifacial modules
capitalize on a phenomenon known as albedo
—
the
reflection of sunlight off the ground or nearby surfaces
[3]. This reflected sunlight, captured by the rear surface
of the bifacial module, enhances energy generation,
making the technology particularly appealing for
maximizing solar farm efficiency.
The effectiveness of bifacial modules is highly
dependent on ground surface reflectivity [5]. For
instance, surfaces with high albedo, such as snow, white
sand, or light-colored concrete, reflect more sunlight,
allowing bifacial modules to achieve significantly higher
energy yields. In contrast, surfaces with low albedo,
such as grass, soil, or dark asphalt, reflect less sunlight,
limiting the energy contribution from the rear side.
To fully leverage the potential of bifacial modules,
system design parameters like elevation, tilt angle, and
ground surface type must be optimized [4]. Properly
elevating the modules allows more reflected light to
reach the rear surface, while tilting ensures effective
exposure to both direct and reflected sunlight. These
factors, combined with advanced racking and tracking
systems, make bifacial modules a versatile yet com- plex
technology that requires precise engineering and
analysis for optimal performance.
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
3
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
TABLE I
KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONOFACIAL & BIFACIAL MODULES
ENERGY MODEL METHODOLOGY
A.
Study Design
The framework for this analysis was structured to
evaluate and compare the energy production and
financial viability of bifacial and monofacial solar
modules under diverse system design conditions. A
real-world ground mount solar project was selected as
the basis for the study, ensuring the results were
grounded in practical scenarios. Using PVsyst, a com-
prehensive solar simulation software, energy
performance was analyzed across 200 unique
configurations by systematically varying key system
parameters.
B.
Parameters
1)
Module Type: The module type refers to the
specific photovoltaic technology employed in the
system, in this case, bifacial or monofacial solar
modules. The choice of module type significantly
impacts system performance, with bifacial modules
offering the potential for enhanced energy yields
under optimal design conditions, albeit at a higher
initial cost. For this project’s analysis, modules from
Trina Solar were utilized, specifically their DUOMAX M
series for monofacial modules and DUOMAX Twin
series for bifacial modules.
Both module types were of a constant wattage of
440W to ensure consistency in the comparison.
2)
Inverter Type: This study considers central and
string inverters. Central inverters aggregate DC power
from multiple strings of modules into a single
conversion point, making them cost-effective for large
installations but less adaptable to varying module
performance [5]. String inverters, on the other hand,
convert DC to AC at the string level, allowing for more
precise performance management and flexibility in
system design [5]. The choice of inverter type can
influence energy yield, system efficiency, and overall
cost.
For this analysis, the Chint Power System 125 kW
inverter was selected as the string inverter, while the
TMEIC Solar Ware Ninja 840 kW inverter was used as the
central inverter.
3)
Racking System: The racking system refers to
the structural setup that supports the solar modules and
dictates their orientation. Fixed-tilt racking systems
maintain a static angle, optimized for maximum annual
energy production based on site-specific solar
irradiance [5]. Single-axis tracker systems, in contrast,
adjust module orientation throughout the day to follow
the sun’s path along one axis, significantly increasing
energy capture [5]. The choice between fixed tilt and
tracking systems involves trade-offs between cost,
energy yield, and site-specific feasibility.
To evaluate the relationship between racking type and
en- ergy yield, simulations were analyzed where all
other parame- ters were held constant, and only the
racking type was varied. Fig. 1 illustrates the relationship
between racking types
—
fixed tilt and single-axis
tracker
—
and energy yield, showing that systems with
single-axis trackers outperform those with fixed tilt
configurations. This increased yield is due to the ability
of trackers to follow the sun’s movement throughout
the day, maximizing direct solar irradiance on the
module surface. In contrast, fixed tilt systems remain
static, capturing optimal sunlight only at specific times
of the day, which limits their overall energy generation
potential.
4)
Inverter Load Ratio: The Inverter Load Ratio
(ILR) measures the ratio of installed DC capacity of the
solar mod- ules, to the rated AC capacity of the inverter.
For this analysis, the ILR values of 1.35, 1.5 and 1.75
were evaluated, where higher ratios indicate oversizing
of the DC system relative to the inverter. Oversizing
involves reducing the number of inverters, which
decreases the AC capacity, which in turn lowers the
overall project cost by decreasing the expenditure on
inverters; increasing the ILR up to a point also supports
maximising inverter utilization. However, excessively
high
Key Differences
Feature
Monofacial Module
Bifacial Module
Light Absorption
Front Surface only
Front and rear sur-
faces
Energy Yield
Standard output
Higher due to albedo
gain
Cost
Lower upfront cost
Higher upfront cost
Installation
Standard setup
Requires
optimized
setup
for
rear
exposure
Performance Fac-
tors
Less affected by envi-
ronmental conditions
Highly dependent on
ground reflectivity, el-
evation, and tilt
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
4
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
Fig. 1. Relationship of Racking Type with Yield
ILR values can result in inverter clipping, where energy
is lost because the inverter cannot process all the
incoming power, necessitating a balance in choosing
the ILR based on site- specific irradiance profiles.
To assess the relationship between ILR and energy
yield, simulations were analyzed where all other
parameters were held constant, and only the ILR was
varied. Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between
inverter load ratio (ILR) and energy yield for this
analysis, showing that yield decreases as the ILR
increases among the chosen ILR values. This decline
occurs because higher ILR values lead to more frequent
inverter clipping, where the inverter is unable to process
the excess DC power generated during peak production
periods, resulting in energy losses and reduced overall
system efficiency.
Fig. 2. Relationship of Inverter Load Ratio with Yield
5)
Pitch: Pitch refers to the spacing between rows
of solar modules in a ground-mounted installation,
typically measured in meters; it is a critical design
parameter affecting shading, energy capture, and land
use efficiency [5]. Smaller pitch values increase system
density but risk inter-row shading, which reduces
energy yield, particularly for bifacial modules that rely
on ground reflectivity for rear-side generation. Larger
pitch values reduce shading and improve airflow for
cooling but require more land, potentially increasing
project costs. Optimal pitch selection is essential to
balance these trade-offs and maximize system
performance.
For this analysis, Pitch values ranging from 7 meters to
11 meters were evaluated in 1-meter intervals. To
assess the rela- tionship between pitch and energy yield,
simulations were an- alyzed where all other parameters
were held constant, and only the pitch was varied. Fig. 3
illustrates this relationship between pitch and energy
yield, which in this analysis, highlights a direct
proportionality
where
increased
pitch
values
correspond to higher energy yield due to reduced
shading and improved rear-side irradiance capture for
bifacial modules. However, in reality, this relationship
exhibits diminishing returns, as also seen in Fig. 3;
beyond a certain point, increasing the pitch does not
significantly enhance yield. Additionally, for practical
solar project design, absolute energy production is a
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
5
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
critical factor. Excessively high pitch values, while
reducing shading and improving yield per module,
ultimately lead to fewer modules being installed due to
spatial constraints, resulting in lower overall energy
production.
Fig. 3. Relationship of Pitch with Yield
6)
Module Elevation: Module elevation is the
height at which solar modules are mounted above the
ground. This pa- rameter is particularly relevant for
bifacial modules, as higher elevation increases the
amount of reflected sunlight (albedo) that can reach
the rear surface [5]. However, higher elevation often
involves increased structural costs and potential wind
load challenges. In contrast, lower elevations reduce
costs but limit rear-side energy capture for bifacial
modules. Selecting the appropriate elevation involves
optimizing between energy gains and structural
feasibility based on site conditions.
For this analysis, module elevations ranging from 1
meter to 3 meters were evaluated in 0.5-meter
intervals. To assess the relationship between module
elevation and energy yield, simulations were analyzed
with bifacial module type, where all other parameters
were held constant, and only the mod- ule elevation was
varied. Fig. 4 illustrates the relationship between
module elevation and energy yield, demonstrating that
yield increases with higher module elevation. However,
in reality, this trend is exhibited only up to a certain
point, after which yield remains constant, exhibiting
diminishing returns. This increase is due to improved
ground reflectivity (albedo) reaching the rear side of
bifacial modules and enhanced airflow for cooling at
higher elevations. However, beyond a specific elevation,
the benefits plateau as the system’s ability to capture
additional reflected sunlight is maximized, and further
increases in elevation no longer contribute to significant
energy gains.
Fig. 4. Relationship of Module Elevation with Yield
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The financial analysis for this study was performed on
the top 20 bifacial simulations with the highest energy
yield, along with their corresponding monofacial
counterparts, using an internal proprietary solar project
finance model, developed specifically for evaluating
solar project viability.
The primary financial metric used to evaluate the
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
6
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
viability of a solar project and each simulation iteration
in this case was the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). This
metric served as the key indicator of economic
performance, enabling a direct comparison of the
financial feasibility of bifacial and mono- facial module
configurations under varying design conditions. The
model integrates a comprehensive range of inputs and
assumptions to calculate key financial metrics for each
PVsyst simulation iteration. By varying inputs, the
financial model captured a wide spectrum of potential
scenarios, providing in- sights into the economic trade-
offs and advantages of adopting
bifacial modules over monofacial ones.
This paper discusses the specific inputs of the financial
model that were varied based on the aforementioned
param- eters, while all other inputs are assumed to
align with those relevant to the existing solar project
used for this analysis and deemed unrelated to the
variations explored in this study.
A.
Project Overview Parameters
1)
DC Capacity: The DC capacity, representing the
total installed capacity of the solar modules, was a
parameter that was adjusted in the financial model and
it differed from simulation to simulation based on the
pitch for each simulation variant. Lower pitch values
typically allow higher modules to fit within the
available land area, leading to variations in the DC
capacity across iterations. These changes directly
influenced project costs, as a lower DC capacity
reduced the cost of solar modules but also affected the
potential energy production and financial returns. The
financial model accounted for these capacity
adjustments to evaluate their impact on the project’s
overall Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
2)
Yield: Yield, calculated from the output of
PVsyst sim- ulations for each variant, served as a
critical input for the financial model. It is defined as the
energy generated per unit of installed DC capacity.
Variations in yield were driven by changes in all the
aforementioned parameters including module type,
racking system, inverter load ratios, pitch and module
elevation. Each simulation’s energy yield output was
incorporated into the financial model to calculate
project rev- enues, directly impacting financial metrics
such as IRR. Higher yield led to increased revenue
projections, while the cost implications of the
configurations were balanced to determine financial
viability.
3)
Energy: Energy production, closely tied to yield
and DC capacity, was automatically varied across
simulations as changes in DC capacity and yield
influenced the total energy output. This parameter is
critical in the financial model, as project revenues are
directly based on the total energy units sold. Notably,
scenarios may arise where the variant with the highest
IRR does not correspond to the highest yield
—
defined
as the ratio of energy production to DC capacity
—
but
achieves superior financial performance due to a higher
absolute energy production value.
4)
Degradation: Degradation rates, representing
the annual decline in solar module performance, were
adjusted in the financial model based on the inverter
load ratio (ILR) for each simulation variant. Higher ILR
values typically lead to increased operational stress on
the system, which can accel- erate module degradation
over time. Conversely, lower ILR values result in less
stress, potentially mitigating degradation rates. These
variations in degradation were incorporated into the
financial model to project the long-term energy
production and revenue for each configuration. By
accounting for this relationship, the analysis provided a
more accurate represen- tation of the financial viability
of different system designs, highlighting the trade-offs
between initial performance gains and long-term
durability.
B.
Capital Cost Parameters
1)
Cost per Watt of Modules & Inverter: The cost
per watt of the solar modules and inverters used in this
study was obtained directly from the manufacturers,
ensuring the use of realistic and accurate pricing data.
Module costs varied between monofacial and bifacial
technologies, with bifacial modules having a higher cost
per watt due to their advanced design and additional
manufacturing complexities. Similarly, the cost of
inverters was dependent on the type used - string or
central inverters - though the overall cost varied based
on the system size and configuration. These cost
variations were integrated into the financial model for
each simulation variant to accurately reflect their
impact on project capital expenditures. By factoring in
these manufacturer-provided costs, the analysis
provided
a
realistic
comparison
of
financial
performance across different configurations and
technologies.
2)
Racking Cost: The cost of racking systems was
another key input in the financial model, directly
influenced by the module elevation and system type
(fixed tilt or single-axis tracker) used in each simulation.
Higher module elevations, though beneficial for
increasing yield, required additional structural support,
leading to increased racking costs. Simi- larly, tracker
systems, designed to optimize energy production by
following the sun’s movement, incurred higher costs
com- pared to fixed tilt systems due to their mechanical
complexity. Cost data for the racking systems were
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
7
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
obtained from the manufacturers involved in the
study, ensuring that the financial model reflected real-
world pricing. These costs were varied in the analysis
to account for the trade-offs between higher energy
yields and increased expenditures, providing a
compre- hensive understanding of how racking
configurations impact the overall financial viability of
solar projects.
C.
Operational Cost Parameters
1)
Land Payments: Land payments represent the
cost of renting the land required for the solar project,
typically calculated on a per-acre basis. These costs
were varied in the financial model based on the
acreage determined for each simulation variant.
Configurations with larger ground coverage ratios
(GCR) or higher module elevations often required
more land, directly impacting the rental expenses.
Incorporating these variations provided a clearer
picture of how land payments influence project
economics.
2)
Land Costs: Land costs include expenses
incurred for land maintenance, such as vegetation
control, erosion pre- vention, and other site-specific
requirements. These costs were adjusted in the
financial model to reflect the increased maintenance
demands of configurations requiring larger land areas
or specific vegetation management practices. Properly
accounting for land costs ensures an accurate
representation of operational expenditures.
3)
PILOT Costs: Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT)
costs refer to agreements made with local
governments to com- pensate for tax revenue lost due
to the project, which was calculated with a fixed rate
of $/kWac. These costs were integrated into the
financial model based on the project size and location,
reflecting
realistic
obligations
for
long-term
operational planning.
4)
Inverter Replacement Costs and Timing:
Inverter re- placement costs and their timing were
critical inputs to the financial model, as inverters
typically require replacement during the system’s
operational lifetime. These costs were influenced by
the type of inverter used (string or central) and the
Inverter Load Ratio (ILR) of each simulation vari- ant.
Higher ILR values generally impose greater operational
stress on inverters, potentially shortening their
lifespan and necessitating earlier replacements.
Conversely, lower ILR val- ues result in reduced stress,
allowing inverters to function effectively for longer
periods
before
requiring
replacement.
By
incorporating this relationship into the financial model,
the analysis accounted for variations in long-term
expenditures based on system design, ensuring a
comprehensive evaluation of financial performance.
5)
Operation
&
Maintenance
Costs:
The
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs include
expenses for routine in- spections, cleaning, and
servicing of the solar system. These costs were adjusted
based on the system size, module type, and racking
configuration, as different setups require varying levels
of maintenance. Including these costs in the financial
model allowed for a detailed evaluation of full-stage
operational expenses and their effect on overall
financial performance.
RESULTS
A.
Energy Performance Analysis
The energy performance analysis revealed a consistent
trend where bifacial module variants outperformed
their monofacial counterparts across all iterations. On
average, bifacial modules yielded 5.27% more energy
compared to monofacial modules as showcased in Table
II, demonstrating the inherent advantage of utilizing
both direct and reflected sunlight. This perfor- mance
enhancement can be attributed to the ability of bifacial
modules to capture additional irradiance from the
ground, particularly when the system is configured with
elevated modules or in high-reflectivity environments.
Several key parameters were identified as significant
influ- encers of energy yield. Among these, the choice of
racking system had a substantial impact, with single-axis
tracker systems providing higher yields than fixed tilt
configurations. This is due to the trackers’ ability to
follow the sun’s path throughout the day, thereby
maximizing exposure to direct sunlight. Additionally,
module elevation played a crucial role, with higher
module placements allowing bifacial modules to
capture more reflected sunlight. The inverter load ratio
(ILR) also influenced energy yield, with moderate ILR
values resulting in optimal performance, as excessively
high ILRs led to inverter clipping, reducing potential
energy gains. The simulation variant with the highest
yield had specifications listed in Table III.
B.
Financial Analysis
The financial analysis showed that bifacial modules
gener- ally outperformed their monofacial counterparts
in terms of Internal Rate of Return (IRR), despite the
higher cost per watt associated with bifacial technology.
The highest IRR in Table VI (Sr. No. 5), with an absolute
value of 7.33%, was recorded for a bifacial simulation
variant. The
top-performing
bifacial
iterations
demonstrated a higher IRR percentage, em- phasizing
that the increased energy yield from bifacial modules
outweighed their initial cost premium, making them a
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
8
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
more financially attractive option in certain scenarios.
Interestingly, the simulation with the highest energy
yield was not the one with the highest IRR, as displayed
in Table
V. This was due to the fact that while bifacial modules
provided higher energy production, the overall financial
perfor- mance
—
captured by the IRR
—
was influenced
by additional
TABLE II
YIELDS OF TOP 20 BIFACIAL SIMULATIONS AND CORRESPONDING
MONOFACIAL SIMULATIONS
factors such as system costs, land usage, and inverter
selection among others.
For instance, the configuration with the highest IRR
(variant specifications listed in Table VI) had a slightly
lower yield but more optimized costs, achieved
through a lower pitch that allowed for more modules
to be installed on the same land area, ultimately
leading to higher energy production and DC Capacity,
ultimately into a more favorable IRR. This highlights the
importance of considering both energy performance
and financial efficiency when evaluating the viability of
bifacial technology for solar projects.
CONCLUSION
This study provided valuable insights into the
performance and financial viability of bifacial modules
compared to tra- ditional monofacial modules,
highlighting the potential of bifacial technology to
enhance energy yield and improve finan- cial returns.
The results aligned with current industry trends,
showing that bifacial modules can offer a notable
increase in energy generation, making them a
compelling choice for solar developers looking to
optimize project performance. De- spite their higher
upfront costs, bifacial modules demonstrated higher
Internal Rates of Return (IRR), making them financially
TABLE III
INPUT PARAMETER SPECIFICATIONS OF SIMULATION VARIANT WITH
HIGH YIELD WITH BIFACIAL MODULE
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
9
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
TABLE IV
IRR OF TOP 20 BIFACIAL SIMULATIONS AND CORRESPONDING
MONOFACIAL SIMULATIONS
TABLE V
IRR AND YIELD OF TOP 20 BIFACIAL SIMULATIONS
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
10
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
TABLE VI
INPUT PARAMETER SPECIFICATIONS OF SIMULATION VARIANT WITH
HIGH IRR WITH BIFACIAL MODULE
viable in scenarios where energy yield outweighs the
initial cost premium.
However, the study does have certain limitations. It
was based on a single project, which restricts the
geographical diversity of the analysis and may not
capture the full range of performance potential across
different environments. Addi- tionally, the study
focused on a limited range of environmen- tal
parameters and module configurations, which means
that broader trends or insights might not have been
fully explored. Furthermore, the cost assumptions
used in this study were based on market conditions at
the time, and these costs are subject to fluctuation,
which may influence future financial outcomes for
bifacial technology.
Furthermore, this project, conducted during my tenure
at a solar development company, has provided key
insights that have influenced the company’s decision
to move forward with the procurement of bifacial
modules for future projects. The findings from this
analysis have effectively demonstrated the potential
performance and financial advantages of bifacial
technology, prompting a strategic shift in the
company’s approach to module selection. This study
has contributed to aligning future project plans with
the advancements in solar module technology,
supporting the company’s commitment to integrating
more efficient and cost-effective solutions into its
upcoming developments.
While bifacial technology presents clear performance
ad-
vantages,
particularly
in
high-reflectivity
environments
and
with
optimized
system
configurations, its broader adoption will depend on a
careful assessment of cost factors and site-specific
conditions. Developers and investors should consider
these findings when evaluating new projects, as
bifacial modules can offer substantial financial
benefits, especially when paired with optimal system
designs and configurations. Moving forward, further
studies across diverse geographies and with more
comprehensive parameter ranges will be essential to
refine these insights and further support the integration
of bifacial technology into mainstream solar energy
solutions.
REFERENCES
1.
M. A. Green et al., ”Solar cell efficiency tables
(version 57),” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research
and Applications, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 3-15, 2021
2.
C
. Deline et al., ”Bifacial Solar Advances with the
Times
—and the Sun,” National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Mar. 2020 [On- line]. Available:
https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2020/bifacial
-solar- advances-with-the-times-and-the-sun.html
3.
J. S. Stein, D. S. Riley, M. Lave, C. Hansen, C. Deline,
and F. Toor, ”Outdoor Field Performance from
Bifacial Photovoltaic Modules and Systems,” IEEE
Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 1477-
1493, Nov. 2019.
4.
J. S. Stein et al., ”Bifacial photovoltaic modules and
systems: Experience and results from international
research and pilot applications,” Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, vol. 29,
no. 7, pp. 699-721, 2021.
5.
R. Fu, D. Feldman, and R. Margolis, ”U.S. Solar
Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark
: Q1 2018,”
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-
6A20-72399, Nov. 2018.
