Journal Pre-proof

Evaluation of Factors Governing the Use of Floating Solar System: A Study on Iran's
Important Water Infrastructures

Mohammad Fereshtehpour, Reza Javidi Sabbaghian, Ali Farrokhi, Ehsan Bahrami

Jovein, Elham Ebrahimi Sarindizaj

PII: S0960-1481(20)31928-5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.005
Reference: RENE 14605

To appear in: Renewable Energy

Received Date: 2 July 2020

Revised Date: 22 September 2020
Accepted Date: 1 December 2020

Please cite this article as: Fereshtehpour M, Sabbaghian RJ, Farrokhi A, Jovein EB, Sarindizaj EE,
Evaluation of Factors Governing the Use of Floating Solar System: A Study on Iran's Important Water
Infrastructures, Renewable Energy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.005.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

 1 Evaluation of Factors Governing the Use
2 of Floating Solar System: A Study on
3 Iran's Important Water Infrastructures
4

6 Abstract
7

f
oo
8 The issue of water and energy crisis has been turned into global matters which need to be tackled jointly.
9 Floating solar power plants, in which photovoltaic modules are used on the surface of water
10

11

12
pr
infrastructures, has recently been attracting much interest. In addition to energy generation, this system
provides some additional advantages over the land-based system such as conserving the land and the water
-
and increasing the efficiency of the module. This study first comprehensively reviews the literature and
re
13 then proposes a practical framework to evaluate the potential of using floating solar photovoltaic (FSPV)
lP

14 taking important factors into account. To this end, as a specific application of the proposed framework,
15 five important dam reservoirs in Iran are selected, and the performance of the FSPV plant is analyzed in
na

16 terms of energy generation, evaporation reduction, economic and environmental factors considering
17 different coverage percentages of reservoir’s surfaces. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, results showed
18 the FSPV outperforms other alternatives for energy generation and water-saving. It takes 5~6 years for the
ur

19 investment cost to be returned. Given Iran's vast potential for solar radiation, and its huge energy demand
Jo

20 and critical water situation, results indicated that Iran can effectively harness solar energy through FSPV
21 systems which help conserve the water in addition to support sustainable energy production.
22 Keywords: Floating PV system, Sustainable Energy Production, Solar Power Plant, Water Infrastructures,
23 Evaporation, Water Conservation.

1
24 1. Introduction

25 In recent years, water and energy resources have been tightly linked together. Water

26 resources are utilized in the procedure of electrical energy generation. On the other hand,

27 energy resources are utilized for water supply, transfer, distribution, and also for treating

28 wastewater (Bauer, 2014(. This interdependency between water and energy is the so-called

29 water-energy nexus. In the national and international scales, several water and energy

30 systems have been developed, managed, and regulated to efficiently resolve the water-energy

f
oo
31 nexus (Reinhard et al., 2017).

32 - pr
Water resources systems are used to supply several demands including potable,

agricultural, industrial, and environmental requirements, and satisfy the sustainable

re
33

34 development goals. Reservoir dams in many regions of the world have a significant role in
lP

35 supplying water and generating energy (Javidi Sabbaghian et al., 2016). In Iran, Over the last
na

36 four decades, the capacity of the constructed dams has been increased into more than 50
ur

37 billion cubic meters (BCM), which is almost 42 percent of the freshwater resources of the
Jo

38 country (Mesgaran and Azadi, 2018). Moreover, many hydroelectric power plants have been

39 established inside the country with an annual generation capacity of 53000 Gigawatt hours

40 (GWh), which is about one-fifth of the electrical energy generation of the country (IWRMC,

41 2019). Accordingly, the reservoir dams can effectively control and manage the water deficit

42 crisis across the country and are necessary for generating electricity as well (Fereshtehpour,

43 2016).

44 However, there are challenges related to the reservoir dams especially in the arid or

45 semi-arid regions of the world. In Iran, the most important challenges are the low mean

46 annual precipitation (almost 250 mm/year), climate change, and the long-term increase of the

47 air temperature (about 1.5 degrees of centigrade), which cause a huge amount of evaporation )

2
48 about 3 BCM/year) (IWRMC, 2019). The air temperature, heat flux, mass transfer in the

49 water surface, and wind speed are the most influential factors on the water surface

50 evaporation from reservoir dams. Several techniques have been introduced for reducing the

51 evaporative losses from reservoir dams (Craig et al., 2005). Although these methods are

52 effective to reduce the evaporation from the reservoir dams, there are still some limitations

53 such as high operation and maintenance costs, undesirable environmental impacts, and

54 especially loss of solar energy received by the water body for energy generation.

f
55 Solar energy is of great importance in the water-energy nexus and is one of the most

oo
56 abundant, clean, affordable, and sustainable energy resources in the world, especially in arid

57 - pr
or semi-arid regions. This energy is generated by the global solar radiation on the earth's
re
58 surface including the continents and the water surfaces. The global solar radiation is defined

by the global horizontal irradiance (GHI) and the diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI)
lP

59

60 (Gamarra and Ronk, 2019). The global solar radiation would be 1800 times the global
na

61 primary energy consumption, whereas hydropower plants would supply the global primary
ur

62 consumption for just one year. Therefore, it can be used potentially as a reliable and
Jo

63 comprehensive resource for energy generation in the near future (Dizier, 2018).

64 The potential of receiving solar radiation on the earth's surface depends on the type of

65 surface cover and the climatic conditions. Iran has a desirable potential for utilizing the solar

66 energy generated by solar radiation. The country has a mean annual 300 sunny days (almost

67 2800 sunny hours per year) in the two-thirds of its area and the solar radiation average is

68 about 4.5–5.5 kWh per square meter per day (Daneshyar, 1978; Fadai, 2007).

69 Over recent years, one of the most noticeable strategies for decreasing the undesirable

70 impacts of evaporation from the water surface of the reservoir dams and generating

71 sustainable energy is utilizing photovoltaic panels mounted on a floating platform for natural

3
72 or artificial surface water resources. These systems are creating new opportunities to get the

73 most out of solar energy, particularly in regions that have a high potential of harnessing solar

74 radiation. The installation of PV panels on surface water resources in the world has grown

75 considerably, from an installed capacity of 10 megawatts (MW) at the end of 2014 to 1.1

76 gigawatts (GW) by September 2018 (Abid et al., 2019). Taking into account the success of

77 utilizing floating PV panels in the South Asian region, Abid et al. (2019) suggested that other

78 Central Asian countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, where a large number of

79 water bodies are available, can effectively utilize these systems. Many researchers have

f
oo
80 shown the advantages and disadvantages of floating solar systems in comparison with the

pr
81 land-based ones (Table 1).
-
re
82 Despite the benefits of the FSPV, there is an important concern about the installation

cost of these systems. However, there is evidence that in the next ten years, the global
lP

83

84 average installation cost of the utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) could fall by around
na

85 60% (Barbuscia, 2018). In general, total system costs for utility-scale PV systems are
ur

86 expected to decrease from around 1.8 USD/W in 2015 to 0.8 USD/W in 2025, a reduction of
Jo

87 57% in 10 years. The majority of the decrease in the costs is expected to come from a lower

88 balance of system (BoS) costs.

89

4
 90 Table 1
91 Advantages and disadvantages of Floating Solar PV (FSPV) plant.
92
Advantages Disadvantage
 Preserving land resources (Liu et al., 2017) × High initial installation, structure and 93 I
maintenance costs in comparison with terrestrial
 Higher efficiency (Liu et al., 2017)
(Durkovic´ and Đurišic´, 2017 )
 Not time-consuming installation, easy to n
× Challenges of designing the stable floating PV94
arrange, roll up and transport the modules
panels resisting the natural disasters (Ferrer-
(Abid et al., 2019)
Gisbert et al., 2013; Sahu et al., 2016) 95 rec
 Easy cleaning and dust removal from the
× Adverse effects on panels due to the high
panel (Majid et al., 2014)
humidity (Kumar et al., 2015) ent
 Conserving water due to reducing 96
× Difficult installation on the sea due to the
evaporation (Sharma et al., 2015)
constant change in the position of the solar
 Decreasing algae formation due to less 97 yea
panels (Tsoutsos et al., 2005)
sunlight entering the water body (Abid et
× Water quality degradation when using silicone
al., 2019 & Liu et al., 2017)
modules and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) 98 rs,
 Mitigating environmental problems such as

f
thermoplastic floats (Düzenli et al., 2018)

oo
destruction of ecosystems (Lee et al., 2014)
× Electrical accidents and undesirable effects on
 Synergy with existing electrical 99 sev
the existing ecosystem because of the
infrastructure (Liu et al., 2017)
underwater cables (Düzenli et al., 2018)
 Potential incorporation of FSPV system into

pr
× Undesirable impacts on tourism, fishing, and 100 eral
aquaculture and fish farming (Liu et al.,
navigation.
2017)
× Stress and vibration problems due to the wind,101
 Huge potential for energy production on
-waves, and other external forces, leading to
stu
re
more than 400,000 km2 of man-made
micro-crack formation between modules and
reservoirs throughout the world (Liu et al., dies
thus reduction in electricity production and 102
2017)
lP

durability (Düzenli et al., 2018).

103 hav
na

104 e been conducted to investigate multiple aspects of the FSPV systems including their total

105 costs, environmental impacts, energy generation, and efficiency generally in terms of the
ur

106 potential assessment of floating solar power plants. Choia et al. (2013) evaluated the energy
Jo

107 generation efficiency of the FSPV plant in comparison with the ground-mounted systems and

108 showed that the FSPV system has a higher generation efficiency of more than 10%. Santafé

109 et al. (2014) investigated a floating photovoltaic cover for water irrigation reservoirs based on

110 experimental and theoretical assessment using a prototype of 20 kWh. The case study was the

111 zones near to the Spanish eastern Mediterranean coastline. They concluded that FSPV system

112 can improve the water and energy balances in areas having limited water resources,

113 especially in arid and semi-arid zones. Teixeira et al. (2015) studied the feasibility of a

114 floating PV system operating at a hydropower station for water supply in southern Brazil.

115 Their study demonstrated that there is an initial cost of USD 1715.83/kW and an energy cost

116 of USD 0.059/kWh. Hartzell (2016) evaluated FSPV potential on water management
5
117 infrastructure. They modeled a small pilot installation on Lake Pleasant Reservoir, Arizona.

118 The results showed that hydropower reservoirs could be ideal locations for floating

119 photovoltaic installations within a sustainable development paradigm.

120 Song and Choi (2016) analyzed the potential for FSPV system use on Mine Pit Lakes

121 in Korea in terms of solar site assessment, design of a photovoltaic system, and simulation of

122 a PV system based on economic and GHG emission criteria. Liu et al. (2017) examined the

123 power generation efficiency of the FSPV plant in terms of the variations in temperature and

f
124 cooling effects using a finite element model. The results demonstrated that there is a potential

oo
125 of 160 GW, utilizing floating PV systems covering 2500 km2 water surface in China. This

126 - pr
results in 2×1027 m3/year water saving from evaporation and 1.25×1012 m3/year indirect
re
127 water-saving if water saved from evaporation is being used by hydropower plant.
lP

128 Durkovic´ and Đurišic´ (2017) conducted studies on a large Floating Photovoltaic
na

129 Power Plant (FPPP) with an innovative azimuth angle control method in Montenegro. Proper

130 economic savings and a significant reduction in CO2 emissions at this recommended power
ur

131 plant were the results of this study. Kim et al. (2019) investigated the potential of FSPV use
Jo

132 on 3401 reservoirs in Korea. The results of this study showed an annual power production of

133 2932 GWh. Besides, the annual reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) was estimated at about

134 1294450 tons.

135 A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to derive important aspects

136 of the floating solar PV (FSPV) projects implemented since 2013. The type of the FSPV

137 system, coverage area percentage, their benefits, and costs are summarized in Table 2.

138 Previous studies have shown that floating solar PV (FSPV) plants should be

139 considered as a promising alternative for energy production and to prevent surface

140 evaporation in water bodies due to their significant benefits. To date, there is not a scientific

6
141 paper focusing on the potential assessment of FSPV application in Iran and thus this study

142 can pave the way for future studies.

143 The present study proposes a practical framework to evaluate the multiple aspects of

144 using FSPV systems based on their specific characteristics. The methodology is applied to

145 Iran’s water infrastructures. Five important reservoirs are selected as the representatives of

146 the water infrastructures within the five main basins of Iran and the potential for installing the

147 FSPV plant with different coverage scenarios are investigated in terms of power that could be

f
148 generated, amount of water that can be saved from evaporation and the reduction in CO2

oo
149 emissions. Moreover, a comprehensive economic analysis is carried out to estimate the total

150 - pr
investment, the operation and maintenance (O&M), and the energy production costs for each
re
151 FSPV scenario of the case studies. It is implemented based on the sensitivity analysis on the

variation of the economic parameters including the interest rate, the availability factor for the
lP

152

153 FSPV system, and the exploitation period of the system. Furthermore, the expected years for
na

154 returning the investment costs are estimated for each scenario. To have better insights into the
ur

155 benefits of the FSPV system, a comparative economic analysis is carried out in terms of
Jo

156 energy generation and water-saving with the land-based photovoltaic (LBPV) system and

157 other evaporation mitigation technologies (EMTs), respectively.

158 The paper has been organized as follows: Section 2 proposes the process of the model

159 and illustrates the methodology for evaluating the governing factors such as water-saving,

160 energy generation, economic benefits, and environmental advantages and then introduces the

161 selected study areas for the implementation of floating solar PV in Iran. In section 3, the

162 proposed approach is applied to the study areas and the results are presented and discussed.

163 Finally, in section 4 the conclusions and recommendations for future practical applications

164 are presented.

7
165 Table 2
166 Summary of studies on Floating Solar PV (FSPV) system
Lake area: Coverage area
Location FSPV system Cost Benefits Authors
(% of the lake)
1
USA PWR : 305 Wp 0.4047 km²: 0.4047 km² Value of water saving per EG4: 53 GWh/year McKay
(Silver Lake) (100%) year: $208,000 WS5: 0.32 MCM/year (2013)

f
Spain PVT2: 10° (Fixed) 0.00449 km2: 0.00449 km2 Installation cost: EG: 0.425 GWh/year Santafé et al.

oo
(irrigation water reservoir) PVA3: 0° (Fixed) (100%) $2.37/Wp WS: 0.005 MCM/year )2014(
PWR: 240Wp $242.1/m2 GHGR 6: 72.71 ton/year

pr
Brazil --- Castanhão --- EG: 699.351 GWh/year Sacramento et al.
(three reservoirs – 40 km²: 2 km² (5%) (2015)

-
Castanhão, Orós and Orós

re
Banabuiú) 30.6 km²: 1.53 km² (5%)
Banabuiú
17 km²: 0.85 km² (5%)

lP
Canada Thin film FSPV 9.5 km2: 0.6857 km2 (7.2%) Installation cost: EG: 20.22 GWh/year Trapani and Millar
(McFaulds Lake) $6.62 Million GHGR: 12048.9 ton/year )2016(

na
Operation cost:
ur $40,000/year

Arizona state PVT: 12° (Fixed) 17.118 km2: 0.12 km2 (0.7%) Installation cost: $33.6 EG: 27.65 GWh/year Hartzell
(Lake Pleasant Reservoir) PVA: Sun tracking Million WS: 0.247222 MCM/year (2016)
Jo
PWR: either 43,637
modules with power
275Wp or 48,000 with
250Wp

1 3 5
The maximum electric power (PWR) Photovoltaic Azimuth angle (PVA), Water Saving (WS)
2 4 6
Photovoltaic tilt angle (PVT) Energy Generation (EG); Greenhouse Gas Reduction (GHGR)
167
168
169
170
171
8
172 Table 2
173 Summary of studies on Floating Solar PV (FSPV) (continued)
Lake area: Coverage area (% of
Location FPV system Cost Benefits Authors
the lake)
2 2
India --- 12812.2 km : 2562.44 km (20%) --- EG: 909.05 GWh/year Sharma and Kothari
(large reservoirs) WS:16233 MCM/year (2016)

f
Korea PVT: 40° (Fixed) 0.2254 km2: 0.0876 km2 Installation cost: EG: 0.9716 GWh/year Song and Choi

oo
(Ssangyong Open-Pit PWR: 215.25 Wp (38.9%) $2.73 Million GHGR: 471.21 ton/year (2016)
Limestone Mine pit lake) Operation cost:
$19,040/year

pr
India PVT: 12° 0.0374 km2: 0.0125 km2 (33.3%) Installation cost: EG: 2.658 GWh/year Singh et al.

-
(Karasur village’s lake) PWR: 300Wp $1.6 Million GHGR: 240 ton/year (2017)

re
India --- 0.7198 km2: 0.1439 km2 --- EG: 25.74 GWh/year Mittal et al.

lP
(lake in Kota) (20%) WS: 0.545 MCM/year GHGR: (2017)
23990 ton/year

na
Australia PVT: 25°(Fixed) 3 km2: 0.42 km2 (14%) --- EG: 103.032 GWh/year Rosa-Clot et al.
(Bolivar basin) PVA: Sun tracking WS: 0.672 MCM/year (2017)
PWR: 320Wp
ur
Albania– PVT: 44°(Fixed) 475 km2: 5.23 km2 (1.1%) Installation cost: EG: 186.05 GWh/year Durkovic´ and Đurišic´
Jo
Montenegro border PVA: Sun Tracking $127.8 Million WS: 5.41 MCM/year (2017)
(Skadar Lake) PWR: 300Wp Operation cost: GHGR: 83420 ton/year
$2,120,970/year

174
175
176
177
178
179

9
180 Table 2
181 Summary of studies on Floating Solar PV (FSPV) (continued)
182
Lake area: Coverage area (% of
Location FPV system Cost Benefits Authors
the lake)
China --- 124700 km2: 2500 km2 (2%) --- EG: 160 GW/year Liu et al.
(water surface in the eastern WS: 2 1021 MCM/year (2017)

f
regions)

oo
Brazil PVT: 3° (Fixed) 6369.71 km2: 101.86 km2 (1.6%) Installation cost: EG: 10.5536 GWh/year Silvério et al.
(São Francisco River basin) PWR: 250 Wp (tilt angle = 0°) (2018)

pr
$5726.81 Million
(tilt angle = 5°)

-
$6547.38 Million

re
Portugal PVT: 20° (Fixed) 92200 km2: 0.00335 km2 Installation cost: EG: 0.4557 GWh/year Barbuscia
(Alqueva dam) PVA: 0° (Fixed) $3.51 Million (2018)

lP
PWR: 260 Wp Operation cost:
$19,412.82/year

na
Taiwan PVT: 12° (Fixed) 0.03235 km2: 0.0091 km2 Installation cost: EG: 1.5433 GWh/year Dizier
(site of Sugu, south of PVA: 82&-98° (28.27%) $1.6267 Million (2018)
Taiwan) (two fixed angle) Operation cost
PWR: 295 Wp
ur $28,320/year
Jo
Bosnia and Herzegovina PVT: 35° (Fixed) 13 km2: 0.38025 km2 (less than Installation cost: EG: 36.55 GWh/year Pašalić et al.
(Jablanica Lake) PWR: 210 Wp 3%) $68.37 Million (2018)
Operation cost:
$4.39 Million/year

USA PVT: 11° (Fixed) 21410 km2: 5780.7 km2 --- EG: 786000 GWh/year Spencer et al.
(man-made waterbodies in (27%) WS: 36403 MCM/year (2018)
the contiguous United
States)

183
184

10
185 Table 2
186 Summary of studies on Floating Solar PV (FSPV) (continued)
187
Lake area: Coverage area (% of
Location FPV system Cost Benefits Authors
the lake)
Korea PV: 20° 430.6 km2: 43.06 km2 (10%) Installation cost: EG: 2931.94 GWh/year Kim et al.
(1134 reservoirs which (Fixed) $3,007.29 Million GHGR: 1294450 ton/year (2019)

f
satisfy the condition of FPP PVA: South-facing Operation cost:

oo
in Korea) slope (Fixed) $21.83 Million/year
PWR: 210Wp

pr
Vietnam PVT: 11° (Fixed) 603.5 km²: 91.28 km² (15%) Installation cost: EG: 13700 GWh/year Bui
(three reservoirs – Hoa PVA: 0° (Fixed) $10300 Million WS: 136 MCM/year (2019)

-
Binh, Tri An and Dau Operation cost: GHGR: 11000000 ton/year

re
Tieng) $240 Million/year

India PWR: 320Wp ---: 0.12 km² Installation cost: EG: 14.97 GWh/year Goswami et al.

lP
(Neel-Nirjan Dam located $9.365 Million WS: 0.21 MCM/year (2019)
in Bakreswar) Operation cost: GHGR: 13632.06 ton/year
$221,075.4/year

na
Brazil PVT: 10° (Fixed) 6.17 km²: 5 km² (81%) Installation cost: EG: 835.82 GWh/year Rodrigues et al.
(Gavião reservoir, located PWR: 245Wp $755 Million WS: 2.595 MCM/year (2020)
in the Northeast of Brazil) Operation cost:
ur
$4.674 Million/year
Jo
Turkey PVT: 33° (Fixed) 0.00301 km2 Installation cost: EG: 0.182 GWh/year Temiz and Javani
(Mumcular Dam located in PVA: 0° (Fixed) $0.295 Million (2020)
Aegean Region of Turkey) PWR: 350Wp Operation cost:
$18,203/year

11
188 2. Materials and Methods
189 To accomplish the objectives of this study, a practical framework to evaluate the

190 potential of using the FSPV system is proposed. Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the workflow

191 for the present study. The governing factors for the evaluation of the FSPV system such as (i)

192 energy generation; (ii) evaporation reduction; (iii) environmental issues, and (iv) economic

193 analysis are first investigated and their quantification models are then described. After that,

194 the case studies as a specific application of the methods are presented.

f
oo
- pr
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

195

196 Fig. 1. Schematic explaining the workflow of the present study.

197

12
198 2-1 Energy Generation
199 Hourly energy generation (W ) by the FSPV can be estimated as follows (Durkovic

200 and Đurišic´, 2017):

W  I  A  (1)

201 where I is mean hourly insolation and A is the covered area by the floating panels of

202 efficiency  , which is determined as

f
  module temp inverter (2)

oo
203 where  module is the degree of efficiency of a module, temp is the PV conversion efficiency,

204
- pr
and inverter is the efficiency of the invertor. In this paper based on the selected PV panel1
re
lP

205 (polycrystalline 157 157 mm cell with peak power watts of 260 Wp and module dimensions
na

206 of 1640 992 35 mm),  module and inverter were adopted as 0.1601 and 0.96, respectively.
ur

207 temp is calculated by Eq. (3).

Jo

temp  stc [1  0.0047  (T panel  25 )] (3)

208 Where stc is an efficiency defined for a panel when utilizing it in a standard condition (stc),

209 0.0047 is the temperature coefficient of power of PV panel (-0.47 %/°C) and T panel is the

210 temperature of a PV panel that is estimated according to the following formula:

NOCT  20 (4)
T panel  T amb  ( ) I
0.8

1 The trade name of the module is SSF-P60 produced by Solar Sanat Firouzeh Co. (www.ssf-solar.com)

13
211 Where NOCT is the operation cell temperature that is 44° based on selected PV panel in this

212 study and T amb is the ambient air temperature that was assumed equal to the temperature of

213 dam’s lake area.

214 It should be noted that according to Equation 1 mentioned in the paper, solar energy

215 produced by solar panels is a function of solar radiation intensity, efficiency, and area of the

216 panels and therefore water level fluctuations (Jiang et al., 2018) have no effect on energy

217 production. The significant effect of water level fluctuations may arise in changing the

f
oo
218 optimal angle of floating solar cells installed on the water surface. To avoid this situation,

219 floating solar panels are anchored through mooring systems. This system allows adjusting

220 - pr
water level fluctuations while maintaining its position toward the sun. In addition, in the
re
221 range of water level changes, the minimum water depth should not be less than an appropriate
lP

222 value for the smooth installation and operation of the floating PV.
na

223 2-2 Evaporation estimation

224 Preventing evaporation by the PV plant is not only for the area covered by them but
ur

225 also for the entire lake’s surface. The reduction of water evaporation occurs due to the two
Jo

226 main reasons. The first reason is the reduction in water and air interaction from the covered

227 area which directly affects the evaporation reduction. The second reason is the change in the

228 heat balance of the lake after the power plant being built which causes the lake to be colder

229 and thus reduces the total evaporation throughout the entire lake’s surface (Durkovic´ and

230 Đurišic´, 2017).

231 Estimating evaporation appropriately is essential. However, a large number of

232 parameters influence the process for estimating water evaporation such as air saturation

233 deficit above the surface, wind speed, the amount of solar radiation reaching the water

234 surface, air pressure, and the chemical characteristics of water. The evaporation rate in water

14
235 surfaces has been studied in the literature utilizing different models. Generally, water budget,

236 mass transfer, pan evaporation, Penman-Monteith model, and energy balance method are

237 used to measure evaporation. Furthermore, many empirical relations and equations have been

238 developed incorporating temperature, solar day hours, and solar radiation.

239 Penman’s method is one of the most frequently used methods among many

240 mathematical methods that have been modified in different ways (Penman, 1948; Jensen,

241 2010). Valiantzas (2006) defined this equation in a simplified way using routine weather data

f
242 as follows:

oo
2
R 

 au  0.38  0.54u 
 A
R
- pr  RH 
E 0  0.0511     R S  T  9.5  2.4  S   0.052  T  20  1 
 100

 (5)
re
lP

243 where E0 is the average daily water surface evaporation (mm/day) at the sea level ( z  0 ),

244 and R S is the average sunny hours per day, calculated as follows:
na
ur

 n  (6)
R S  R A   0.5  0.25 
 N 
Jo

245 where n and N are the observed average number of sunny days and the maximum possible

246 number of sunny days for the selected month, respectively. Having geographic width φ, for a

247 selected month ( i ), N can be calculated as follows:

N  4    sin  0.53i  1.65   12 (7)

248 The solar irradiance on the surface of the atmosphere ( R A ) is approximated as

249 follows:

23.5
R A  3Nsin  0.131N  0.95    (8)
180

15
 23.5
R A  118N 0.2 sin  0.131N  0.2   
180

250 where α denotes the reflection coefficient called albedo. It is related to the water surface that

251 ranges from 0 to 1 and is supposed to be 0.08 in this study. T is the average of extreme

252 temperatures (T min ,T max ) for the analyzed month (◦C):

T max T min (9)

T 
2

253 Daily mean ‎percentage of relative air humidity is represented by R H and u is the

f
oo
254 average value of wind speed (m/s) at an altitude of 2 m above the water surface. Eq. (6) is

255
- pr
adjusted empirically for higher altitudes z (m) (Valiantzas, 2006):
re
E  E 0  0.00012  z (10)
lP

256 The daily volume of water evaporated can be determined by multiplying the amount
na

257 of evaporation ( E ) by area of the lake ( A ):

ur

V  m 3 / day   E  m / day   A Lake  m 2  (11)

Jo

258 To find out how much water can be saved by implementing the FSPV system, the

259 amount of evaporation ( E ) is multiplied by the FSPV coverage area ACA as follows:

V  m 3 / day   k  E  m / day   ACA  m 2  (12)

260 Where k is a reduction factor determined by the type and platform's reflective functionality,

261 its coverage level with panels, and the panel’s performance. This coefficient decreases the

262 evaporation volume due to the fact that a portion of solar irradiance passes through panels

263 and reaches the water surface.

264 2.3 Economic analysis

16
265 One of the most important issues that should be considered to evaluate the

266 implementation of FSPV system for water infrastructures is the economic analysis (Zhou et

267 al., 2009). In this paper, the overall cost for producing 1 MWh electrical energy is considered

268 as the economic criterion. To this end, first, the most important factors including the coverage

269 area of each scenario, the relevant annual electrical energy generation, and the nominal

270 capacity of the FSPV power plant that affect the overall energy production cost are

271 determined. Then, the parameters of economic cost such as the interest rate, the exploitation

272 period, and the availability factor of the system are specified to estimate the initial cost (the

f
oo
273 total investment cost), and the running cost (O&M cost). Finally, the overall energy

pr
274 production cost for each scenario on the selected case studies is calculated (Ali, 2017;

275
-
Durkovic and Durisic, 2017). Moreover, the sensitivity analysis of the results based on the
re
276 variations of the economic parameters is carried out. In addition, to better investigate the
lP

277 economic aspect of using the FSPV system, a comparative economic analysis is implemented
na

278 considering the energy generation and water-saving factors. In this manner, the economic

279 benefits of the FSPV system is compared with the LBPV system and other EMTs. The
ur

280 proposed process of economic analysis is presented in Fig. 2.

Jo

281 In this study, three physical and one chemical methods for water saving are compared with

282 the FSPV system. The four methods are (1) the Evaporation Control System E-VapCap as a

283 floating cover; (2) the NetPro cabled shade cover as a suspended cover; (3) the Raftex as a

284 modular cover; and (4) the Water$avr as a monolayer. The summary of the properties of

285 these methods is presented in Table 3 (Craig et al., 2005; Youssef and Khodzinskaya, 2019).

286

287

288

17
289

290 Table 3
291 Summary of EMTs’ performance and the related economic properties
292
Capital
Evaporation Durability O&M cost
Category Product Description cost
reduction (%) (Expected life) ($/ha/year)
($/m2)
Heavy duty polyethylene
Physical
product including
method E-
wrapped bubble with a 95% 12 years 7$ 337.5 $
(Floating VapCap
white surface and UV
cover)
stabilized layers
Physical High tension cable
method incorporating long life
NetPro 75% 30 years 8$ 337.5 $

f
(Suspended plus black monofilament

oo
cover) shade cloth
Physical
A fully enclosed
method 342 $
(Modular
cover)
Raftex rectangular plastic pipe
frame
White powdered product
-80%

pr 5 years 4.5 $
re
Chemical comprised of hydrated
method Water$avr lime with an alcohol flow 30% 3 days 0.053 $ 1243 $
lP

(Monolayer) that forms a film on the

water surface
na
ur
Jo

293
294 Fig. 2. The proposed workflow for the economic analysis process of the FSPV plant.

295 The overall energy production cost (EPC) for the FSPV system is calculated as follows

296 (Masters, 2004; Durkovic and Durisic, 2017):

 IR  1  IR t 
   IC tot FSPV USD 
 
 USD   1  IR   1 
t
 USD 
EPC FSPV     OMC FSPV   (13)
 MW h  AF  E tot  MW h   MW h 

18
297 where EPC FSPV is the total price for producing 1 MWh electrical energy by the FSPV

298 system, which is called the overall energy production cost (USD / MWh ). In Eq. (13), IR is

299 the interest rate that is considered as an internal rate of return (IRR), t is the exploitation

300 period of the FSPV plant that is also named the amortization period ( year ), and A F is the

301 availability factor that is related to the availability of grid during the exploitation period.

302 IC tot FSPV and OMC FSPV denote the total investment cost as the total initial cost (USD ) and

303 the O&M cost as the running cost during the operation period ( USD / MWh ), respectively.

f
304 E tot is the annual production of electrical energy from the FSPV plant ( MWh ).

oo
pr
305 In order to calculate the overall energy production cost for each scenario based on Eq.

306
-
(13), first, the effective economic parameters in this equation should be determined. The
re
307 interest rate, which refers to the internal rate of return (IRR) (Desideri and Asdrubali, 2019),
lP

308 is considered as an integer number in the interval of [0,24] in term of percentage. The
na

309 sensitivity analysis is accomplished over the entire range of interest rate percentage

310 (Durkovic and Durisic, 2017). The exploitation period of the FSPV system, which is started
ur

311 from the end of the construction phase and terminated at the end of the operation phase, is
Jo

312 considered between 20-25 years (Sahel Ettehad Co., 2020; Durkovic and Durisic, 2017).

313 Accordingly, the sensitivity analysis is carried out for the six cases of exploitation period

314 including 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 years. Moreover, the availability factor of the FSPV

315 system, which is related to the availability of the grid and maintaining the existing desirable

316 conditions of efficiency of the FSP panel during the exploitation period, is analyzed with the

317 six values including 0.70, 0.75, 0.80, 0.85, 0.90 and 0.95 (Masters, 2004; Durkovic and

318 Durisic, 2017).

319 The total investment cost of the FSPV system ( IC tot FSPV ) for each scenario is

320 calculated as follows:

19
 ICtot,FSPV  USD  Cinvertor,FSPV  Cpanel,FSPV  Cstructure,FSPV  Cinstallation,FSPV (14)

321 where C invertor ,FSPV is the invertor cost (USD ), C panel ,FSPV is the panel cost (USD ),

322 C structure ,FSPV is the floating structure cost (USD ) and C installation ,FSPV is the installation cost

323 (USD ). Each of these costs should be determined for each of the FSPV scenarios. The four

324 items of the total investment cost in Eq. (14) could be estimated according to the economic

325 data obtained from the consultant companies that have knowledge and experience in the

326 design, construction, and exploitation processes of installing FSPV (Sahel Ettehad Co.,

f
oo
327 2020). It is noteworthy that the scale and type of FSPV plant affect the overall costs (Ferrer-

328 Gisbert et al., 2013).

329
- pr
The following considerations have been taken into account in order to estimate the total
re
330 investment cost of the FSPV system: (1) the information about the utilized cell material
lP

331 (crystalline silicon), module cover (glass), array type (fixed open rack), azimuth ( 180 ) and
na

332 the optimal tilt ( 25 for some of the case studies and 30 for the others) are determined; (2)
ur

333 the annual produced energy for the FSPV system ( E tot ) is estimated for each coverage
Jo

334 percentage scenario; (3) for each coverage scenario of each case study, the relevant nominal

335 capacity of the FSPV is calculated by dividing E tot by the annual average sunny hours; (4)

336 according to the energy generation results and the economic information, the total investment

337 cost for unit power of FSPV power plant (1 MWp) is estimated about 650000 (USD / MWh )

338 (Sahel Ettehad Co., 2020); (5) with respect to the nominal capacity of the FSPV system as

339 well as the overall investment cost for unit power, the total investment cost ( IC tot ,FSPV ) is

340 calculated.

341 In the energy generation approach of comparative economic analysis, the overall energy

342 production cost (EPC) for a land-based PV system is calculated as follows:

20
  IR  1  IR  t 
   IC tot,LBPV  USD 
 
 USD   1  IR   1 
t
 USD 
EPCLBPV     OMCLBPV   (15)
 MWh  AF  E tot,eq  MWh   MWh 

343 where EPC LBPV is the total cost for producing 1 MWh electrical energy by a land-based PV

344 system, which is called the overall energy production cost (USD / MWh ). In Eq. (15),

345 ICtot,LBPV and OMCLBPV indicate the total investment cost (USD ) and the O&M cost of the

346 land-based system during the operation period (USD / MWh ), respectively. E tot ,eq is the

f
oo
347 equivalent annual electrical energy produced by the FSPV plant that should be produced by

348 the LBPV one ( MWh ).

349
- pr
The total investment cost of the LBPV system ( ICtot,LBPV ) for each scenario is
re
lP

350 calculated as follows:

ICtot,LBPV  Cinverter,LBPV  C panel,LBPV  Cstructure,LBPV  Cinstallation,LBPV

na

 
(16)
Cland,LBPV
ur
Jo

351 where Cinverter,LBPV , C panel ,LBPV , C structure ,LBPV , C installation ,LBPV and C land ,LBPV are the

352 inverter cost (USD ), the panel cost (USD ), the floating structure cost (USD ), the

353 installation cost (USD ), and the land acquisition cost (USD ) of the LBPV system.

354 When considering water-saving factor for comparative economic analysis, the overall

355 evaporation mitigation cost (EMC), is calculated as follows:

 IR  1  IR t 
   CCEMT  USD 
 
 USD   1  IR   1 
t
 USD 
EMC  3    OMCEMT  3  (17)
 M  k  V  M 
3
 M 

21
356 where EMC is the total price for mitigating 1 m3 of water from evaporation by EMT project

357 depending on the type of project, which is called the overall evaporation mitigation cost

358 (USD / M3 ). In Eq. (17), CC EMT and OMCEMT are the total capital cost (USD ) and the

359 O&M cost of the EMT project during the operation period ( USD / M3 ), respectively.

360 Moreover, k is the reduction factor, depending on the type of EMT project and V is the

361 annual volume of the saved water from evaporation ( m3 ).

362 To estimate the comparative economic criterion of B / C for the FSPV system for each

f
oo
363 scenario and each case study, the sum of direct annual benefit from electricity sales and

364 indirect annual benefit from reducing evaporation is calculated and divided by the overall

365
- pr
annual cost of the FSPV system. The benefit of evaporation reduction is estimated based on
re
366 the amount of annual water saved from evaporation ( V ). The indirect annual benefit of
lP

367 utilizing the FSPV system is equivalent to the overall annual cost of supplying the volume of

water annually evaporated before installing the FSPV system. The same procedure is also
na

368

369 applied to determine the B/C ratio of the LBPV system and other EMT projects.
ur
Jo

370 In order to estimate the O&M costs for the LBPV and FSPV systems, recent studies have

371 been considered. The international renewable energy agency (IREA) suggested 6.5

372 USD / kWyear as the fixed annual O&M costs in evaluating the cost-efficiency for PV

373 systems (IREA, 2012). Hammad et al. (2015) considered 12 SD / kWp / year as the annual

374 O&M costs for a 20 MWp PV power plant. Bolinger and Seel (2015) expressed that the

375 mean O&M costs of the ground PV power plants have been gradually decreased from about

376 19 USD / MWh in 2011 to about 8 USD / MWh in 2014. In 2016, according to the USA

377 energy information administration, the O&M costs for one-axis solar tracker power plant

378 related to a 20 MWp power are slightly higher compared with the O&M costs of a fixed

379 inclination and azimuth angle with the same power (USA energy information administration,

22
380 2016). Whaley (2016) investigated the annual O&M costs of large and small PV power plant

381 systems and recommended 0.5% and 1% of initial costs for the small and large systems,

382 respectively. Durkovic and Durisic (2017) recommended 10 USD / MWh as O&M costs for

383 FSPV systems, which is considerably higher than the O&M costs for large-scaled ground PV

384 power plants. In this paper, regarding the previous studies and the recommendations of the

385 Iranian consultant companies, the O&M cost is estimated almost 1% of the initial costs (total

386 investment costs). Consequently, the annual benefit and the required years for returning the

387 investment costs could be estimated (Sahel Ettehad Co., 2020). Furthermore, the sensitivity

f
oo
388 analysis process on the economic results is accomplished based on the variations of the

pr
389 economic parameters.
-
2.4 Environmental impact analysis
re
390
lP

391 As the operation of the FSPV is associated with some environmental consequences,

392 besides its advantages, mitigating negative effects is one of the governing factors in building
na

393 procedures (Durkovic and Durišic, 2017). Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a common tool for
ur

394 the evaluation of the human activities’ potential outcomes (Hou et al., 2015; Raouz, 2017).
Jo

395 Environmental impacts of constructing FSPV include the primary energy return on

396 investment, global warming potential, and eutrophication potential.

397 The total life cycle energy input of the FSPV station is calculated using Eq. 18 in

398 which i denotes the life cycle stages from manufacturing to dismantling.

(18)
E tot  E i , i  1,, n
i 1

399 The energy payback time (EPBT), represents the required time to produce the same

400 amount of energy that was consumed for FSPV construction (Raouz 2017). For the

401 estimation of EPBT, 𝐸tot is the total energy input during the construction of the FSPV station

402 and 𝐸yr is the annual energy production:

23
 E tot (19)
EPBT 
E yr

403 Another index for addressing environmental issues in FSPV analysis is the

404 environmental impact indicator. This indicator includes eutrophication potential and global

405 warming potential (GWP) regarding the GHG reduction. A significant advantage of FSPV is

406 related to the algae bloom containment. This problem can be alleviated by covering the basin

407 partially and reducing the light below the surface (Cazzaniga et al., 2018).

f
The impact of the FSPV system on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is

oo
408

409 estimated using Eq. 20. It is obtained based on the generated greenhouse gases within a

410 - pr
fossil-fuel energy system producing the same amount of electricity generation (Durkovic and
re
411 Durišic, 2017)
lP

G t  E s  G  1  β  (20)

412 where G t represents the annual reduction of GHG (tCO2/year), Es is annual energy
na

413 production (MWh/year), G is a standard value of GHG emissions for the country of the
ur

414 study area (tCO2/MWh), and  is a dimensionless parameter denoting the average loss rate
Jo

415 related to the power transmission and distribution systems.

416 2.5 Study Area

417 Based on the divisions made by the Ministry of Energy in Iran, the catchment area of

418 the country includes six main basins equal to the total area of the country, each of which is

419 itself divided into small basins. These six main basins are 1- Khazar basin, 2- Persian Gulf

420 and Oman Sea basin, 3- Urmia Lake basin, 4- Central plateau (Markazi) basin, 5- Hamoon

421 basin, 6- Sarakhs basin.

422 Currently, there are 383, 365, 104, 314, 71, and 40 dams in the Khazar, Persian Gulf,

423 Urmia, Markazi, Hamoon and Sarakhs basins, respectively, under operation, implementation

24
424 and study. A total of 647 reservoirs having a volume of more than 48 BCM are in operation,

425 with the Persian Gulf catchment area accounting for the largest share in the reservoir volume.

426 Besides, 683 dams are in two stages of implementation or study. If they reach the stage of

427 operation, 75 BCM will be added to the current capacity. These capacities indicate the high

428 potential for developing FSPV systems in Iran. In this study, to evaluate a portion of this

429 capacity, the five important dams in five main basins with the largest area of the reservoir are

430 selected, namely Aras, Karkheh, Shahid Kazemi, Doroudzan, Doosti dams (Fig. 3). It should

431 be noted that while the annual evaporation volume in Hamoon basin is significant, no dam

f
oo
432 has been selected from this basin since there is not enough data for conducting the research.

pr
433 However, the results of this study could effectively pave the way for the application of FSPV

434 in Hamoon basin in future.

-
re
To have better insights into the application of the FSPV power plant, several scenarios
lP

435

436 of the coverage percentage of dam’s lake such as 2, 10, 20, 50, and 80% are adopted.
na

437 Although the implementation of the scenarios 50% and 80% is economically and
ur

438 administratively unjustifiable, these scenarios can better highlight the theoretical potential for
Jo

439 harvesting the solar energy from the surface of water bodies.

440 Fig. 3 represents the location of the selected dams within the six solar radiation zones,

441 which has been specified by Iran's Renewable Energy Organization

442 (http://www.satba.gov.ir/). The amount of solar radiation varies in different parts of the world

443 and has the highest amount in the solar belt of the earth. Iran is also located in areas with high

444 radiation and studies show that the use of solar equipment in Iran is appropriate and can

445 provide part of the country's energy needs. Having 300 sunny days in more than two-thirds of

446 the country and average radiation of 4.5~5.5 kWh/m2day, Iran has been introduced as one of

447 the countries with high potential in the field of solar energy. As can be seen in Fig. 3, Iran has

448 been divided into six areas based on the potential of solar radiation. The central and southern

25
449 regions of the country receive a higher amount of solar radiation, whereas the cities in the

450 northern part near the Caspian Sea absorb the lowest amount of radiation. Three of the

451 selected dams namely Aras, Doosti, and Shahid Kazami are located at regions with minimum

452 solar irradiation of 3.8 kWh/m2day. Karkheh and Doroudzan dams receive solar radiation at a

453 higher intensity of at least 4.5 and 5.2 kWh/m2day, respectively. The specific characteristics

454 of the selected dams are briefly explained in Table 4.

f
oo
- pr
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

26
455

456

457

f
oo
458

pr
459

-
re
460 .

lP
Min Solar Irradiation
461

462
na
ur
Jo
463

464

465

466

27
467 Fig. 3. Map of potential solar radiation in the main basins of Iran and the location of the selected dams.

468 Table 4
469 Summary of the features of the selected dams for implementing FSPV.
470

f
Shahid

oo
Items Unit Doosti1 Aras2 Karkheh3 Doroudzan4
Kazemi5
Longitude 61.16154 45.40222 48.12611 52.41815 46.52917
Location Deg

pr
Latitude 35.94946 39.09167 32.49139 30.20783 36.42194
Agricultural- Agricultural-

-
Agricultural- Agricultural- Electricity Electricity Agricultural-
Project target -

re
Drinking Electricity generation generation- generation- Drinking
Flood control Drinking

lP
Height above foundation m 79 40 127 60 50

Reservoir area at NWL1 Ha 4932 15200 21000 5500 4150

na
Total storage of reservoir at NWL MCM 1250 1254 5600 960 650
GW/h
Annual energy generation
ur - 86 394 45.5 -
Ha
Cultivated area 32440 69152 344615 102000 66165
Jo

Watershed area Km2 14440 41800 43183 4372 6890

Annual basin yield MCM 1070 8800 4829 974.4 1390

Annual adjustable ouflow MCM 410 650 4200 526 605

1
471 Mozafari et al. (2012); Majidi et al. (2015); Ghandehari et al. (2020)
2
472 https://ww.azarwater.ir/; http://daminfo.wmr.ir
3
473 Haghiabi et al. (2009)
4
474 Goodarzi et al. (2014)
5
475 Emami et al. (2019).

28
476 3. Results and Discussion

477 3.1. Energy Production

478 3.1.1. Mean hourly insolation (I)
479 NREL information network and the PVWatts calculator

480 (https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) were used to calculate the amount of I (kWh/m2day) for each

481 of the studied dams at the monthly scale. The results can be seen in Fig. 4. For

calculating I, the specifications considered in the PVWatts tool were based on the SSF-

f
482

oo
483 P60 solar cell provided by Solar Sanat Firouzeh company (http://www.ssf-solar.com/)

484

485 separately.
- pr
)See Table 5). It should be noted that the optimal tilt angle for each dam is calculated
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

486
487
kWh
488 Fig. 4. Solar radiation on selected dams ( )
m 2day
489

29
490
491
492
493 Table 5
494 System information for dams in PVWatts software.
Module Tilt
Dams Cell Material Array type Azimuth(deg)
Cover (deg)
Doosti Crystalline Silicon Glass Fixed (open rack) 180 30
Aras Crystalline Silicon Glass Fixed (open rack) 180 30
Karkheh Crystalline Silicon Glass Fixed (open rack) 180 25
Doroudzan Crystalline Silicon Glass Fixed (open rack) 180 25
Shahid Kazemi Crystalline Silicon Glass Fixed (open rack) 180 30

f
495 As can be seen in Fig. 4, based on the annual average, Doroudzan dam has the

oo
496 highest solar radiation among the other dams, which corresponds to the position of this

497 - pr
dam in the radiant region of southern Iran (Fig. 2). Although Doosti dam located
re
498 northeastern Iran has the most solar radiation among the studied dams in the spring and

summer, it is in second place based on the average annual solar radiation. Karkheh dam
lP

499

500 is in the third place after Doosti Dam with average annual radiation of 5.13
na

501 kWh/m2day. Shahid Kazemi and Aras dams, which are located in northwestern parts of
ur

502 Iran, have the lowest amount of solar radiation among the selected dams.
Jo

503 3.1.2. Yearly energy production

504 As mentioned earlier, the total annual energy production values in the studied

505 dams with different coverage percentages were calculated which can be seen in Fig. 5.

30
 f
oo
506
507
508 pr
Fig. 5. Annual energy production of PV panels in different dams (10 6 kWh).
-
re
509 As can be seen in Fig. 5, the electricity generated by the selected dams is in line
lP

510 with the lake area behind the dams. Accordingly, Karkheh dam has the highest amount

of electricity with an annual production of 972.4 GWh and 38900 GWh for 2% and
na

511

512 80% coverages, respectively. It is noteworthy that the generated electricity resulted
ur

513 from 2% coverage is approximately similar to the energy that is currently generated by
Jo

514 the hydropower plant at Karkheh dam. Shahid Kazemi dam has the lowest amount

515 among the selected dams which is 161.5 GWh and 6500 GWh for 2 and 80% coverage,

516 respectively. In order to evaluate the electricity generated by the FSPV in comparison

517 with the common ways of energy generations, the equivalent fuels required to generate

518 that amount of energy has been calculated. To generate every kWh of electricity in Iran,

519 2157 kcal of energy is burned. Accordingly, burning every cubic meter of gas in Iran's

520 thermal power plants produces 4 kWh and each barrel of crude oil produces about 680

521 kWh of electricity. As can be seen in Table 6, in Karkheh and Shahid Kazemi dams,

522 which have the highest and lowest electricity generation, only 2% coverage of the lake's

31
523 surface can generate power equivalent to burning 243 and 40 MCM Gas and 1,400,000

524 and 238,000 barrels of crude oil in Iran's thermal power plants.

525 Table 6
526 Comparison of electricity generated by the solar panel system compared to conventional fossil fuel
527 methods.
FSPV coverage percentages
Type of energy Dam
2% 10% 20% 50% 80%
Doosti 235.71 591.47 972.41 282.79 161.49
Aras 1178.53 2959.22 4862.03 1413.94 807.44
Energy generated
Karkheh

f
(106 kWh) 2357.06 5918.43 9724.07 2827.89 1614.88

oo
Doroudzan 5892.64 14796.08 24310.17 7069.71 4037.20
Kazemi 9428.23 23673.73 38896.27 11311.54 6459.51
Doosti 5.08E+11 2.54E+12 5.08E+12 1.27E+13 2.03E+13

Equivalent thermal value

(kCal)
Aras
Karkheh
1.28E+12
2.10E+12
- pr 6.38E+12
1.05E+13
1.28E+13
2.10E+13
3.19E+13
5.24E+13
5.11E+13
8.39E+13
re
Doroudzan 6.10E+11 3.05E+12 6.10E+12 1.52E+13 2.44E+13
Kazemi 3.48E+11 1.74E+12 3.48E+12 8.71E+12 1.39E+13
lP

Doosti 58.93 294.63 589.26 1473.16 2357.06

Aras 147.87 739.80 1479.61 3699.02 5918.43
Equivalent fossil fuel
Karkheh 243.10 1215.51 2431.02 6077.54 9724.07
na

(Gas) (MCM)
Doroudzan 70.70 353.49 706.97 1767.43 2827.89
Kazemi 40.37 201.86 403.72 1009.30 1614.88
ur

Doosti 0.35 1.74 3.47 8.69 13.90

Aras 0.87 4.36 8.73 21.81 34.90
Jo

Equivalent fossil fuel

Karkheh 1.43 7.17 14.34 35.84 57.34
(Oil) (106 No. Barrels)
Doroudzan 0.42 2.08 4.17 10.42 16.68
Kazemi 0.24 1.19 2.38 5.95 9.52
528

529 3.2 Evaporation reduction

530 Covering part of the dam reservoirs has been shown to be an effective way of

531 reducing water evaporation. Furthermore, by changing the heat balance due to the

532 reflection of the part of the solar energy from the PV panels, the evaporation rate will

533 be reduced from the entire reservoir’s surface )Durkovic´ and Đurišic´, 2017( . For the

534 five selected dams, the monthly evaporation is calculated using the simplified

535 Penman’s model and shown in Fig. 6. As can be seen, the maximum evaporation occurs

32
536 in July for Doosti and Karkheh Dams. In July, the water level in Doosti and Karkheh

537 dams decreases more than 400 mm which is an average of 14 mm/day. For all dams,

538 the monthly evaporation in November, December, January, and February is less than

539 100 mm with December having the smallest rate. The maximum and minimum total

540 water evaporation in the selected year are 2742 mm and 1686 mm related to the

541 Karkheh and Aras dams, respectively.

f
oo
542 Fig. 7 shows the yearly increase in the available volume of water behind the

543 selected dams after building FSPV under five coverage scenarios. Due to some energy

544 - pr
reflection from the platform, k in Eq. (12) is assumed to be 0.6. As expected, building
re
545 FSPV on the Karkheh reservoir can provide a vast amount of water annually by
lP

546 preventing evaporation. However, to make the results more meaningful, the evaporation

547 reduction is divided by the adjustable volume of water (AVW) for each dam. AVW
na

548 refers to the capacity of the dam to fulfill the downstream demands. As can be seen,
ur

549 Aras and Doosti dams have the highest ratio for all coverage scenarios which indicates
Jo

550 the significance of implementing FSPV to prevent evaporation. Theoretically speaking,

551 covering 80% of Aras Dam with FSPV could potentially satisfy 18.9% of the

552 downstream demands.

33
 f
oo
553
- pr
re
554 Fig. 6. Monthly evaporation of the selected dams.
lP
na
ur
Jo

34
 f
oo
- pr
re
ER
(MCM)
lP
na

EA
(%)
ur

555
Jo

556 Fig. 7. The annual increase in the available volume of water in the selected reservoirs
557 after building FPVP (left axis) and the ratio of evaporation volume of each dam to the
558 corresponding adjustable water volume (EAR) (right axis)

559 3.3 Economic Aspects

560 3.3.1 Cost-Benefit Results

561 Regarding the second step of the proposed economic analysis workflow (Fig. 3)

562 and based on Eq. (14), Table 7 shows the results of the four components of the

563 investment costs of the FSPV system (the invertor, the panel, the floating structure, and

564 the installation costs), the annual benefit, and the required years for returning costs.

565

35
566 Table 7
567 The components of investment costs (USD Million), the annual benefit and the required
568 years for returning costs when implementing FSPV systems.

FSPV Years
Case coverage Floating Installation Annual required for
Invertor cost Panel cost
study percentage structure cost cost benefit returning
scenario investment
Sc.1:2% 6.19 25.38 14.57 6.92 9.38 6
Sc.2:10% 30.93 126.90 72.87 34.61 46.92 6
Doosti

Sc.3:20% 61.86 253.80 145.75 69.21 93.84 6

Sc.4:50% 154.66 634.51 364.37 173.03 234.60 6

f
oo
Sc.5:80% 247.45 1015.22 582.99 276.85 375.36 6
Sc.1:2% 6.33 25.95 14.90 7.08 11.26 5

pr
Doroudzan

Sc.2:10% 31.63 129.77 74.52 35.39 56.29 5

Sc.3:20% 63.26 259.54 149.04 70.78 112.58 5
-
re
Sc.4:50% 158.15 648.85 372.60 176.94 281.46 5
Sc.5:80% 253.04 1038.16 596.17 283.11 450.34 5
lP

Sc.1:2% 25.56 104.86 60.22 28.60 38.71 6

Sc.2:10% 127.79 524.30 301.08 142.98 193.57 6
Karkheh

na

Sc.3:20% 255.59 1048.59 602.15 285.95 387.14 6

Sc.4:50% 638.96 2621.48 1505.39 714.87 967.85 6
ur

Sc.5:80% 1022.34 4194.37 2408.62 1143.80 1548.56 6

Jo

Sc.1:2% 17.53 71.93 41.30 19.61 23.55 6

Sc.2:10% 87.71 359.85 206.65 98.13 117.81 6
Aras

Sc.3:20% 175.42 719.70 413.29 196.26 235.63 6

Sc.4:50% 438.55 1799.26 1033.23 490.66 589.07 6
Sc.5:80% 701.69 2878.81 1653.16 785.05 942.51 6
Sc.1:2% 4.44 18.21 10.46 4.97 6.43 6
Sc.2:10% 22.19 91.03 52.28 24.82 32.15 6
Kazemi

Sc.3:20% 44.38 182.06 104.55 49.65 64.29 6

Sc.4:50% 110.94 455.16 261.38 124.12 160.73 6
Sc.5:80% 177.51 728.26 418.20 198.60 257.17 6

569 As can be inferred from Table 7, for all scenarios, among the four items of the

570 investment costs of the FSPV system, the highest cost is related to the panels and then

571 the floating structure. The lowest cost is obtained for the invertor. Furthermore, the

36
572 required time for returning the investments is estimated to be between 5~6 years

573 depending on the annual benefit and the amount of the investments. It is expected that

574 the costs of items in the investment part will increase by increasing the area covered by

575 the FSPV system.

576 The total investment costs of the FSPV system ( ICtot,FSPV ) are calculated using

577 Eq. (14) and the results are illustrated in Fig. 8. Moreover, the corresponding O&M

f
oo
578 costs ( OMCFSPV ) are represented in Fig. 9.

- pr
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

579

37
580 Fig. 8. The total investment costs ($ Million) for the FSPV scenarios of the case
581 studies.

f
oo
- pr
re
lP
na

582
ur

583 Fig. 9. The O&M costs ($ Million) for the FSP scenarios of the case studies
Jo

584 As can be expected from Figs. 8 and 9, the total investment and O&M costs are

585 increased by the rise of the area covered by the FSPV systems. The highest investment

586 and O&M costs are related to Karkheh water infrastructure as it has the largest

587 reservoir area among the case studies in the NWL and thus needs more material for

588 FSPV coverage including the panel, the floating structure and installation items.

589 Furthermore, because of the higher energy produced in this dam, the higher invertor

590 cost is required.

591 3.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis on Economic Results

38
592 Regarding the steps 3 and 4 of the economic analysis process (Fig. 3), the

593 overall energy production cost for each FSPV scenario of the water infrastructures is

594 calculated based on Eq. (13). The results are analyzed concerning the variations of the

595 effective economic parameters such as the interest rate, the availability factor, and the

596 exploitation period for the FSPV scenarios. Fig. 10 shows the overall energy production

597 costs of the FSPV system ( EPC FSPV ) for the 20% coverage percentage in the

conditions of t  25 , AF  0.95 based on the variations of the interest rate ( IR ):

f
598

oo
- pr
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

599
600 Fig. 10. The variations of energy production costs based on the interest rate values

39
601 It is revealed that the increase in the interest rates caused a significant rise in the

602 energy production cost for the FSPV system. Indeed, if the higher internal rate of return

603 is requested, the higher cost is required for producing electrical energy by the FSPV

604 system. According to the results, the private or public investor could investigate the

605 economic justification for such an investment. As can be seen, among the studied water

606 infrastructures, the case study of Aras with considerable reservoir area and the least

607 annual sunny days has the highest energy production cost.

f
oo
608 In Fig. 11, the overall energy production costs of the FSPV system ( EPC FSPV )

609
- pr
for the 20% coverage percentage in the conditions of t  25 and IR  0.16 are
re
610 presented based on variations of the availability factor ( A F ). As can be seen, the
lP

611 availability of the grid and the existence of desirable conditions for the FSPV panel

612 during the exploitation period lead to a lower price for producing electrical energy.
na
ur
Jo

40
 f
oo
- pr
re
lP

613
na

614 Fig. 11. The variations of energy production costs based on the availability factor
615 values.
ur

616 The overall energy production costs of the FSPV system ( EPC FSPV ) for the
Jo

617 20% coverage percentage in the conditions of AF  0.95 and IR  0.16 are

618 represented in Fig. 12 based on the variations of the exploitation period ( t ). It can be

619 seen that the increase in the exploitation period caused a negligible decrease in the

620 energy production cost. In the case study of Kazemi dam, increasing the exploitation

621 period leads to a considerable decrease in the energy production cost.

41
 f
oo
- pr
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

622

623 Fig. 12. The energy production costs based on the variation of the exploitation period.

624

625 3.3.3 Comparative cost-benefit analysis

626 To justify the use of the FSPV system with the other methodologies from two

627 perspectives of energy generation and water-saving, a comparative economic analysis

628 was implemented based on the B/C ratio.

42
629 From the perspective of energy generation, the FSPV system was compared

630 with the LBPV system. First, by using Eq. (16), the four components of the investment

631 costs of the LBPV system were determined for the 20% coverage percentage as the

632 representative scenario under the conditions of AF  0.95 , t  25 , and IR  0.16 .

633 Then, based on Eq. (15), the overall energy production cost ( EPC LBPV ) for the

634 corresponding scenario of the case studies in the same conditions was obtained. Finally,

f
635 the B / C ratio was calculated for the LBPV. The results are shown in Table 8 for all

oo
636 case studies.

637
638
Table 8
- pr
The comparative economic results of the FSPV and LBPV systems for the case studies
re
639 under 20% coverage.
640
lP

Total annual investment Total annual direct and Energy

PV and O&M costs indirect benefits production cost
Case study B/C
System
(Million $) (Million $) ($/MWh)
na

Doosti 92.34 94.53 41.12 1.024

Doroudzan 94.42 112.78 35.05 1.194
ur
FSPV

Karkheh 381.49 402.65 41.18 1.055

Jo

Aras 261.83 235.78 46.44 0.900

Kazemi 66.24 64.37 43.05 0.972
Doosti 88.43 93.84 39.38 1.061
Doroudzan 92.40 112.59 34.30 1.218
LBPV

Karkheh 367.39 387.14 39.66 1.054

Aras 255.34 235.63 45.28 0.923
Kazemi 65.98 64.29 42.88 0.975

641 As can be seen, the total annual investment and O&M costs of the FSPV

642 system, depending on the region, have been obtained just between 2% and 4% higher

643 than the corresponding costs of the LBPV system. It is due to the fact that the floating

644 structure cost and the installation cost for the FSPV system are considerably higher than

645 the mounting structure costs in the LBPV system. It should be noted that the inverter

43
646 and panel costs of the LBPV system are slightly more than the corresponding costs of

647 the FSPV system. Land acquisition is an additional component that becomes important

648 when establishing the LBPV system. This component imposes a significant cost on the

649 overall cost of the system. The highest difference between the total costs of the FSPV

650 and the LBPV systems belongs to the Doosti and Karkheh dams and the lowest

651 difference is related to the Kazemi dam. Furthermore, it is found that the annual benefit

652 for the FSPV system is greater than the LBPV system, because the FSPV system

f
oo
653 benefits from both the electricity sales and annual evaporation reduction. Results

654

655
- pr
showed that the Karkheh dam has the highest difference between the annual benefit of

the FSPV and the LBPV systems. The lowest difference is related to the Kazemi dam.
re
656 Besides, the energy production cost for the FSPV system is a little higher than the
lP

657 corresponding cost for the LBPV system. The difference is about 2~4%. The highest
na

658 difference between the energy production cost of the FSPV and the LBPV systems is
ur

659 related to the Doosti and Karkheh dams and the lowest difference is related to the

660 Kazemi dam.

Jo

661 According to the cost-benefit analysis, there is no significant difference between

662 the FSPV and LBPV system. The maximum difference of B/C ratio is associated with

663 the Doosti dam (0.035), while the minimum difference is related to the Karkheh dam

664 (0.0009) that is so negligible. However, from the perspective of energy generation and

665 the importance of the evaporation reduction, and the desirable environmental impacts

666 of the FSPV system in comparison with the LBPV system, it is recommended to

667 develop the use of FSPV system for water infrastructures, especially in the arid and

668 semi-arid regions of the world.

44
669 From the perspective of water-saving, the FSPV system was compared with the

670 four EMT projects. Based on the economic properties shown in Table 4, the total

671 capital costs ( CC EMT ) and the O&M costs ( OMCEMT ) of the EMT projects were

672 estimated for the 20% coverage scenario of the case studies under the conditions of

673 t  25 and IR  0.16 . Then, based on Eq. (17), the overall evaporation mitigation cost

674 ( EMC ) for the corresponding scenarios in the same conditions was calculated. Finally,

f
675 the B / C ratio was determined for the EMT projects as shown in Table 9.

oo
676

677
- pr
re
lP

678
na

679
ur

680
Jo

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

45
688 Table 9
689 The comparative economic results of the FSPV system and EMT project for the case
690 studies under 20% coverage.

Total annual investment and O&M Total annual direct and indirect
EMT costs benefits
Case study B/C
type
(Million $) (Million $)

Doosti 92.34 94.53 1.024

Doroudzan 94.42 112.78 1.194
FSPV

Karkheh 381.49 402.65 1.055

Aras 261.83 235.78 0.900

f
Kazemi 66.24 64.37 0.972

oo
Doosti 22.98 0.66 0.029
Physical EMT
(E-VapCap)

Doroudzan 25.63 0.19 0.007

Karkheh
Aras
97.86
70.83
- pr 14.73
0.14
0.151
0.002
re
Kazemi 19.34 0.07 0.004
Doosti 13.28 0.52 0.039
lP
Physical EMT

Doroudzan 14.80 0.15 0.010

(NetPro)

Karkheh 56.53 11.63 0.206

na

Aras 40.91 0.11 0.003

Kazemi 11.17 0.06 0.005
ur

Doosti 36.74 0.56 0.015

Physical EMT

Doroudzan 40.97 0.16 0.004

Jo
(Raftex)

Karkheh 156.43 12.41 0.079

Aras 113.22 0.12 0.001
Kazemi 30.91 0.06 0.002
Doosti 262.75 0.21 0.001
Chemical EMT
(Water$avr)

Doroudzan 293.00 0.06 0.0002

Karkheh 1118.75 4.65 0.004
Aras 809.76 0.05 0.0001
Kazemi 221.10 0.02 0.0001
691

692 With respect to the economic comparison results between the FSPV system and the

693 four EMT projects in Table 9, it can be seen that the sum of the capital and annual

694 O&M costs of the FSPV system is considerably higher than the corresponding costs of

695 the physical EMT projects (E-VapCap, NetPro, and Raftex). Contrary to the physical

46
696 EMT projects, the chemical approach (Water$avr) has the higher capital and annual

697 O&M costs than the FSPV system does. The chemical approach has a completely short-

698 time expected life (2~3 days) and needs to be refurbished every three days which

699 imposes extremely higher capital and O&M costs than the FSPV system. As expected,

700 since the FSPV system has both direct (electricity supply/sales) and indirect

701 (evaporation reduction) benefits, its annual benefit is greater than all types of the

702 aforementioned EMTs. Therefore, when it comes to the investigation of B/C ratio, there

f
oo
703 is a significant difference between the FSPV system and the EMTs for all case studies

704

705
- pr
which highly justifies the use of the FSPV system. Among the case studies, two

reservoirs of Doroudzan dam (1.194) and Karkheh (1.055) have the highest economic
re
706 efficiency, while the Aras dam has the least economic value (0.900). Furthermore, for
lP

707 the NetPro physical EMT project, the Karkheh water infrastructure has the most
na

708 economic justifiability (0.206) due to its considerable indirect annual benefit related to
ur

709 the evaporation mitigation.

3.4 Environmental Issues

Jo

710

711 Since there is no FSPV power plant built on the studied dams yet, the average

712 total life cycle energy input is considered as 183 106 MJ in the context of the cradle to

713 grave procedure based on the previous studies in the Asia (Fu et al. 2015; Palanov

714 2014). Table 10 shows the energy payback time for each dam under different coverage

715 scenarios.

716

717

718

47
719 Table 10
720 The energy payback time for different FSPV coverage scenarios on studied dams.

EPBT (Year)
Coverage
% Doosti Aras Karkheh Doroudzan Kazemi
2% 0.776 0.309 0.188 0.647 1.133
10% 0.155 0.062 0.038 0.129 0.227
20% 0.078 0.031 0.019 0.065 0.113
50% 0.031 0.012 0.008 0.026 0.045
80% 0.019 0.008 0.005 0.016 0.028
721

f
oo
722 According to Table 10, the EPBT range of variation for Kazemi dam is 1 year

723 (about 0.03~1.13) which is the widest range among the case studies. The highest EPBT

724
- pr
corresponds to Kezemi dam, and it is followed by the Doosti, Doroudzan and Aras
re
725 dams, respectively. Installing FSP systems on the lake of Karkheh dam is highly
lP

726 recommended, where it takes less than 0.2 years to pay back the energy consumed

during its lifecycle stages. According to the results, wherever in Iran the FSPV
na

727

728 system is installed, the EPBT would be less than its lifespan (here, less than 1.5
ur

729 years). Thus, regarding the energy payback point of view, the development of these
Jo

730 systems in Iran is practical and beneficial.

731 The effect of FSPV systems on GHG emission reduction is an important

732 environmental issue. In this context, values for G (tCO2/MWh) and  (dimensionless)

733 were estimated as 0.65 and 0.13, respectively (World Bank, 2020). The annual

734 reduction of CO2 emissions is shown in Table 11. According to the results, the

735 installation of floating PV systems can significantly contribute to the reduction of

736 greenhouse gas emissions at least 118 ktCO2 annually at 2% reservoir surface coverage.

737

48
738 Table 11
739 The reduction of CO2 emissions on selected dams.

Gt (ktCO2)
Coverage % Doosti Aras Karkheh Doroudzan Kazemi
2% 173.126 434.437 714.233 207.708 118.613
10% 865.629 2173.545 3571.164 1038.541 593.064
20% 1731.258 4347.089 7142.328 2077.082 1186.128
50% 4328.146 10867.723 17855.821 5192.705 2965.320
80% 6925.033 17388.356 28569.313 8308.328 4744.512

740 In the context of eutrophication, the Doroudzan dam has the highest potential

f
oo
741 because of having the highest solar radiation and this is followed by Doosti and

742

743
- pr
Karkheh dams which are threatened by algal blooms. The Aras and Kazemi dams have

the least value for eutrophication potential. Therefore, installing PV systems can highly
re
744 affect the eutrophication status and protect water quality from excessive algae growth
lP

745 in the Dorudzan dam.

na

746 Although the estimation of the environmental cost is not considered in this
ur

747 paper, the benefit of CO2 reduction is calculated. Based on the previous studies, the
Jo

748 benefit of GHG Emission Mitigation is about $2 (Wang et al., 2013), $6 (Zeinalzadeh

749 et al 2013) and $7.3 (Alphabeta, 2018) per ton of GHG for China, Iran, and Singapore,

750 respectively. Considering on average the 4.78 $/ton for CO2 reduction in the study area,

751 the benefits of using FSPV systems under different scenarios are presented in Table 12.

752

753

754

755

49
756 Table 12
757 The benefit of reduction of CO2 emissions ($ Million) on selected dams.

758

The benefit of GHG reduction ($)

Karkhe Kaze
Coverage % Doosti Aras h Doroudzan mi
2% 0.83 2.1 3.4 0.99 0.56
10% 4.13 10.4 17.1 4.7 2.8
20% 8.3 20.8 34.1 9.9 5.6
50% 20.7 52.0 85.4 24.8 14.1
80% 33.1 83.1 136.6 39.7 22.7
759

f
oo
760 As FSPV systems significantly reduce the CO2 emission where coverage

761 - pr
percentage is high, the benefit of this reduction is remarkable. Theoretically speaking,
re
762 the highest benefit of $136.6 Million is obtained when covering 80% of Karkheh
lP

763 reservoir by the FSPV system. It can be proved that if the benefits resulted from the

764 reduction of GHG are added to the cost-benefit analysis, implementation of the FSPV
na

765 system would highly be justified. However, Sustainable development would eventually
ur

766 lead to an increase in demand for more environmental-friendly processes,

Jo

767 infrastructures, and products. Thus, environmental evaluation of FSPV systems as an

768 infrastructure in the context of renewable energy is essential, especially in arid and

769 semi-arid areas.

770 3.4.1 Environmental impacts after use or damage

771 Floating PV systems have a certain environmental impact (see Table 1); the

772 environmental damage of these systems has not been studied much. Using FSPV may

773 cause adverse impacts on the biodiversity of water ecosystems (Sudhakar, 2019).

774 Although FSPV systems could successfully help reduce evaporation, preventing direct

775 sunlight reaching the aquatic species may change the ecological cycle (Song, 2018). To

50
776 ensure the safety of the electricity grid, the transformer station is equipped with a

777 lightning protection system. Therefore, it is necessary to have regular inspections right

778 after floods or heavy rain; otherwise, electricity equipment may be damaged under

779 extreme weather conditions (ERM, 2018).

780 On the other hand, one of the major concerns in the solar energy industry is the

781 shorter outdoor lifetime of the plastic components in the photovoltaic (PV) modules

f
oo
782 (Andrady et al., 2019). Based on the UV radiation, water quality could be significantly

783 deteriorated by the Silicone modules and thermoplastic floats. Then, over extended

784 - pr
periods, water ecosystems undergo a risk caused by these fragmented wastes in micro
re
785 and nano-scale size (Andrady et al., 2019). To mitigate this biodiversity threat, an
lP

786 artificial shelter for aquatic life can be created.

na

787 The operating life of the PV panels is about 20 years and in operation phase,

788 does not cause pollution (ERM, 2018), but the warranty for the material is usually
ur

789 limited to 5 years due to damages from improper installation or maintenance, snow, and
Jo

790 storm, corrosion and degradation risks, etc. (Sampaio and González, 2017). When

791 damage occurs, as all junctions of the structure are connected using bolts, they can be

792 replaced in case of local damage in the structure and floating object (Choi and Lee,

793 2014). Damaged and replaced floats are collected and stored in the non-hazardous

794 waste storage area and regularly transferred to the competent waste recycling contractor

795 (ERM, 2018). However, modules that have failed during transportation, installation, or

796 operation are collected and treated as hazardous solid waste (ERM, 2018). During the

797 decomposition phase, PV cells can be recycled to prevent environmental contamination

51
798 due to toxic materials contained within the cell, including cadmium, arsenic, and silica

799 dust (Hernandez et al., 2014).

800 As the efficiency is the main issue of FSPV, these systems are endangered by

801 exposure to humidity, salinity, excessive temperature, environmental stress cracking,

802 dusting and shading (George & Patel, 2019; Setiawan et al., 2019). The high-salt

803 environment can cause damage due to partial shading and dusting on the PV module,

f
oo
804 and damage the wiring and the balance of system (BOS) of the PV power plant by the

805 corrosion. However, the salt contamination of the air causes corrosion as long as there

806 - pr
is no crack in the sealing of the metal part of BOS (Setiawan et al., 2019). Saltwater
re
807 corrosion is not normally a problem since most floating PV is sited on freshwater
lP

808 bodies such as lakes and reservoirs (Sahu et al. 2016). It is the salty atmosphere that

809 significantly affects the efficiency resulting in the partial shading from salt crystal
na

810 dusting (Setiawan et al., 2019).

ur

811 In the context of recycling and disposal of the FSPV system, managing
Jo

812 hazardous chemicals utilized in different processes of these systems is a major

813 challenge. These chemicals may or may not be disposed properly based on the waste

814 management principles in the origin. Under normal operating conditions these materials

815 will not be released. In countries having a robust disposal system, encapsulation with

816 ethyly vinyl acetate (EVA) is usually utilized to reduce leaching. Chemical spills from

817 the floating facilities may contaminate the groundwater or the ground surface and deep-

818 water reservoirs which will affect the living activities of flora and fauna and are a major

819 concern (Hernandez et al 2014; Song, 2018). The salt-water might also cause

820 degradation challenges in relation to corrosion (Suzuki et al., 2015). Salt shading may

52
821 decrease the average output power up to 1.38 Watt in three days period compared to the

822 normal condition. This value can be higher based on the degree of exposer to salt-

823 containing environments (Setiawan et al., 2019).

824 O&M activities will need to be carried out more frequently, in order to keep power

825 production unaffected, while ensuring that water quality is not affected (Oliviera,

826 2020). Moreover, having good O&M practices is a key factor in survivability and pre-

f
oo
827 and post-storm measures can be applied to minimize damage and recovery time

828 (IRENA, 2019).

829 4. Conclusions - pr
re
830 Over the past 10 years, a new technology called floating PV has attracted much
lP

831 interest because of its eco-environmental advantages, particularly when it comes to

832 large-scale installing on dams’ lakes and reservoirs. This study first provides a
na

833 comprehensive literature review on the application of FSPV and then evaluates the
ur

834 technical, economic, and environmental potential of installing FSPV plants on five
Jo

835 important water infrastructures in Iran, namely Aras, Karkheh, Doosti, Doroudzan, and

836 Shahid Kazemi dams.

837 According to the present study, installing an FSPV plant over one square

838 kilometer of the lake’s surfaces of the selected dams could annually generate 194~257

839 GWh of electrical energy. Given the fact that the per capita annual electricity

840 consumption in Iran is 2727 kWh, the results show that covering only one square

841 kilometer of each dam with floating solar panels could meet the electricity needs of, on

842 average, about 90,000 people. One of the most beneficial ecological consequences of

843 the development of FSPV is the reduction in water evaporation. This system, if

53
844 implemented on the selected dams covering for instance 10% of each lake, would save

845 up to collectively 70.7 MCM water per year which meets the annual domestic water

846 demands of a city with one million residents. Moreover, regarding with the economic

847 evaluation results, the energy production cost is calculated based on the four items of

848 invertor, panel, structure and installation costs at 10~94 ($/MWh) depending on the

849 coverage percentage of the reservoirs’ area, interest rate, availability factor, and

850 exploitation period. Furthermore, the economic outcomes indicate that the investment

f
oo
851 costs for energy production return in 5 to 6 years. In terms of environmental

852

853
- pr
advantages, results indicated that the least EPBT value is for Karkheh dam as the most

desirable case, where it takes less than 0.2 years to pay back the energy consumed
re
854 during its lifecycle stages. The proposed FSPV would contribute to a reduction of CO2
lP

855 emission more than 118 ktCO2 annually.

na

856 The study conducted here is a preliminary effort to highlight the significance of
ur

857 installing FSPV on Iran’s reservoir surfaces based on the most important governing
Jo

858 factors. Other aspects need to be thoroughly explored in future works. In addition, a

859 detailed investigation should be undertaken into all possible electrical links, including

860 the possibility of integrating FSPV with hydroelectric power plants. In conclusion,

861 FSPV is opening up a new investment path, where many factors lead to the reduction of

862 costs and the enhancement of the environment.

863 Acknowledgment:

864 The authors would like to thank Dr. Vladan Durkovíc for his valuable help at the early stages of

865 developing the methodology. They are also grateful for the comments and supports provided by Mr.

866 Vahid Fatouraee, the head manager of Sahel Ettehad Manufacturing Co., and Mr. Sadjad Rezaee, the

867 implementation manager of Simorgh Electronic Asrar Co.

54
868 References:

869 Abid M, Abid Z, Sagin J, Murtaza R, Sarbassov D, Shabbir M. Prospects of floating photovoltaic
870 technology and its implementation in Central and South Asian Countries. Int J Environ Sci Technol
871 2019;16:1755–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-2080-5.

872 Alizadeh osalou Z, Mohsenpourazari A, Nekuiefard A, Seidgar M, Mohebbi F, Abbaspour anbi A. The
873 study of Changes in the composition of inorganic compounds of phosphate and nitrate in the lake
874 behind Shahid Kazemi Dam (West Azarbaijan province). J Wetl Ecobiol 2018;10:89–96. (In Persian).
875 http://jweb.iauahvaz.ac.ir/article-1-724-fa.html

f
876 Alphabeta, The Great Energy Transition: Challenges and opportunities for transformation, 2018.

oo
877 https://alphabeta.com/our-research/the-great-energy-transition-challenges-and-opportunities-for-
878 transformation/

879 pr
Andrady, A L, Pandey, K K, & Heikkilä, A M. Interactive effects of solar UV radiation and climate
-
re
880 change on material damage. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 2019; 18(3), 804-825.
lP

881 Barbuscia M. Economic viability assessment of floating photovoltaic energy. Work Pap 2018;1:1–11.

882 Bauer D, Philbrick M, Vallario B, Battey H, Clement Z, Fields F. The water-energy nexus: Challenges
na

883 and opportunities. US Dep Energy 2014.

884 https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_153127.pdf
ur

885 Bolinger M, Seel J. Utility-Scale Solar 2014: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and
Jo

886 Pricing Trends in the United States (No. LBNL-1000917). Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National
887 Laboratory 2015.

888 Bui PA. Assessing the Technical, Economic, and Environmental Feasibility of Floating Solar Power
889 Generation on Water Reservoirs in Vietnam 2019:146. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/etd/345

890 Cazzaniga R, Cicu M, Rosa-Clot M, Rosa-Clot P, Tina GM, Ventura C. Floating photovoltaic plants:
891 Performance analysis and design solutions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:1730–41.
892 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.269.

893 Choi, Y K, & Lee, Y G. A study on development of rotary structure for tracking-type floating
894 photovoltaic system. International journal of precision engineering and manufacturing, 2014;15(11),
895 2453-2460.

896 Choi, YK, Lee NH, and Kim, KJ. 2013. Empirical Research on the Efficiency of Floating PV Systems
897 Compared with Overland PV Systems. In Proceedings, The 3rd International Conference on Circuits,

55
898 Control, Communication, Electricity, Electronics, Energy, System, Signal and Simulation,
899 2013;25:284-289

900 Craig I, Geen A, Scobie M, and Schmidt E. Controlling evaporation loss from water storages – National
901 Centre for Engineering in Agriculture University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, NCEA
902 Publication No 1000580/1. 2005.

903 Daneshyar M. Solar radiation statistics for Iran. Sol Energy 1978;21:345–9.
904 https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(78)90013-0.

905 Dizier A. Techno-economic analysis of floating PV solar power plants using active cooling technique A

f
906 case study for Taiwan 2018:68. https://kth.diva-

oo
907 portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1290021/FULLTEXT01.pdf

908

909 pr
Do Sacramento EM, Carvalho PCM, De Araújo JC, Riffel DB, Da Cruz Corrêa RM, Neto JSP. Scenarios
for use of floating photovoltaic plants in Brazilian reservoirs. IET Renew Power Gener 2015;9:1019–
-
re
910 24. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2015.0120.

Durkovíc V, Durišíc Ž. Analysis of the potential for use of floating PV power plant on the skadar lake for
lP

911

912 electricity supply of aluminium plant in montenegro. Energies 2017;10:1505.

913 https://doi.org/10.3390/en10101505.
na

914 Duzenli M, Kocar G, Eryasar A. a Review of Floating Solar Power Plants. FROM Sci Ed 2018:281–8.
ur

915 Emami S, Choopan Y, Parsa J. Dam Seepage Prediction Using RBF and GFF Models of Artificial Neural
Jo

916 Network; Case Study: Boukan Shahid Kazemi’s Dam. J Rehabil Civ Eng 2019;7:15–32.
917 https://doi.org/10.22075/JRCE.2018.13986.1254

918 ERM. Proposed Loan and Administration of Loans Da Nhim - Ham Thuan - Da Mi Hydro Power Joint
919 Stock Company Floating Solar Energy Project, 2019; 51327-001.

920 Fadai D. Utilization of renewable energy sources for power generation in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy
921 Rev 2007;11:173–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2005.01.011.

922 Fereshtehpour, M. Application of Floating Solar Panels on Dam’s reservoir, Sharif Event on Water and
923 Energy Nexus, 1- 3 March, 2016, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian).
924 https://www.civilica.com/Paper-ENERWAT01-ENERWAT01_007.html.

925 Ferrer-Gisbert C, Ferrán-Gozálvez JJ, Redón-Santafé M, Ferrer-Gisbert P, Sánchez-Romero FJ,

926 Torregrosa-Soler JB. A new photovoltaic floating cover system for water reservoirs. Renew Energy
927 2013;60:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.04.007.

56
928 Fu Y, Liu X, Yuan Z. Life-cycle assessment of multi-crystalline photovoltaic (PV) systems in China. J
929 Clean Prod 2015;86:180–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.057.

930 Gamarra C, Ronk JJ. Floating Solar: An Emerging Opportunity at the Energy-Water Nexus. Float Sol An
931 Emerg Oppor Energy-Water Nexus 2019;10:32–45.
932 https://journals.tdl.org/twj/index.php/twj/article/download/7050/pdf

933 George, G., & Patel, P. Floating PV systems – an overview design considerations. PVTech Power
934 Report: Floating Solar, PV Tech Power. 2019;(18), 3–6.

935 Ghandehari, A, Davary K, Omranian Khorasani H, Vatanparast M, and Pourmohamad Y. Assessment of

f
936 Urban Water Supply Options by Using Fuzzy Possibilistic Theory. Environ Process (2020): 1-24.

oo
937 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-020-00441-8.

938

939 Doroudzan Dam, Iran. J pr

Goodarzi E, Shui LT, Ziaei M. Risk and uncertainty analysis for dam overtopping - Case study: The
Hydro-Environment
- Res 2014;8:50–61.
re
940 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2013.02.001.
lP

941 Goswami A, Sadhu P, Goswami U, Sadhu PK. Floating solar power plant for sustainable development: A
942 techno-economic analysis. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2019;38:e13268.
943 https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13268.
na

944 Haghiabi AH, Mastorakis NE. Water resources management in Karkheh basin-Iran. Proc 3rd Int Conf
ur

945 Energy Dev - Environ - Biomed EDEB’09 2009:114–21.

Jo

946 Hammad M, Ebaid MSY, Halaseh G, Erekat B. Large scale grid connected (20MW) photovoltaic system
947 for peak load shaving in Sahab Industrial District. Jordan J Mech Ind Eng 2015;9:45–59.
948 http://jjmie.hu.edu.jo/vol9-1/JJMIE-114-14-01%20Proof%20Reading.pdf

949 Hartzell TS. Evaluating potential for floating solar installations on Arizona water management
950 infrastructure 2016:1–60. http://hdl.handle.net/10150/608582

951 Hernandez, R. R., Easter, S. B., Murphy-Mariscal, M. L., Maestre, F. T., Tavassoli, M., Allen, E. B., ...
952 & Allen, M. F. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renewable and sustainable energy
953 reviews. 2014; 29, 766-779.

954 Hou G, Sun H, Jiang Z, Pan Z, Wang Y, Zhang X, et al. Life cycle assessment of grid-connected
955 photovoltaic power generation from crystalline silicon solar modules in China. Appl Energy
956 2016;164:882–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.023.

957 International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: COST

57
958 ANALYSIS SERIES,Volume:1:PowerSector,Issue3/5,HydroPower. vol. 1. International Renewable
959 Energy Agency: Bonn, Germany,; 2012. https://www.irena.org/publications/2012/Jun/Renewable-
960 Energy-Cost-Analysis---Hydropower

961 IRENA. Future of Solar Photovoltaic: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-
962 economic aspects (A Global Energy Transformation: paper), International Renewable Energy Agency,
963 Abu Dhabi. 2019.

964 IWRMC (Iran Water Resources Management Company). An overview of water resource management in
965 IR of Iran. Tehran: Report to Ministry of Energy. http://www.wrm.ir. Accessed 10 Dec 2019.

f
966 Javidi Sabbaghian R, Zarghami M, Nejadhashemi AP, Sharifi MB, Herman MR, Daneshvar F.

oo
967 Application of risk-based multiple criteria decision analysis for selection of the best agricultural
968 scenario for effective watershed management. J Environ Manage 2016;168:260–72.
969 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.038. - pr
re
970 Jensen M. Historical Evolution of ET Estimating Methods: A Century of Progress. CSU/ARS
971 Evapotranspiration Work., vol. 12, 2010, p. 1–17.
lP

972 https://coagmet.colostate.edu/ET_Workshop/pdf/1_Jensen.pdf

973 Jiang, Z.; Li, R.; Li, A.; Ji, C. Runoff forecast uncertainty considered load adjustment
na

974 model of cascade hydropower stations and its application. Energy 2018, 158, 693–
ur

975 708.
Jo

976 Kim SM, Oh M, Park HD. Analysis and prioritization of the floating photovoltaic system potential for
977 reservoirs in Korea. Appl Sci 2019;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9030395.

978 Kumar V, Shrivastava RL, Untawale SP. Solar Energy: Review of Potential Green & Clean Energy for
979 Coastal and Offshore Applications. Aquat Procedia 2015;4:473–80.
980 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.062.

981 Lee YG, Joo HJ, Yoon SJ. Design and installation of floating type photovoltaic energy generation system
982 using FRP members. Sol Energy 2014;108:13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.06.033.

983 Liu L, Wang Q, Lin H, Li H, Sun Q, Wennersten R. Power Generation Efficiency and Prospects of
984 Floating Photovoltaic Systems. Energy Procedia 2017;105:1136–42.
985 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.483.

986 Ludin, A, N. Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Systems in the APEC Region. Life Cycle
987 Assessment Analytical Report. APEC Energy Working Group, 2019.

58
 988 Majid ZAA, Ruslan MH, Sopian K, Othman MY, Azmi MSM. Study on performance of 80 watt floating
989 photovoltaic panel. J Mech Eng Sci 2014;7:1150–6. https://doi.org/10.15282/jmes.7.2014.14.0112.

990 Majidi M, Alizadeh A, FaridHosseini A, Vazifedoust M. Lake and Reservoir Evaporation: Energy
991 Balance Estimations, Evaluation of Combination and Radiation- Temperature Methods. Iran J Irrig
992 Drain n.d. 2015;8:602–15.(In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.v0i0.33253

993 Masters GM. Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems. John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
994 https://doi.org/10.1002/0471668826.

995 Mckay A. Floatovoltaics : Quantifying the Benefits of a Hydro -Solar Power Fusion. Pomona Sr Theses

f
996 2013;Paper 74. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/pomona_theses/74

oo
997 Mesgaran MB, Azadi P. A National Adaptation Plan for Water Scarcity in Iran. Working Paper 6,
998

999
Stanford Iran 2040 Project,

pr
Stanford University; 2018.
https://www.academia.edu/download/57499017/A_National_Adaptation_Plan_for_Water_Scarcity_in
-
re
1000 _Iran.pdf
lP

1001 Mittal D, Saxena BK, Rao KVS. Floating solar photovoltaic systems: An overview and their feasibility at
1002 Kota in Rajasthan. Proc IEEE Int Conf Circuit, Power Comput Technol ICCPCT 2017.
1003 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCPCT.2017.8074182.
na

1004 Mozafari M, Raeisi E, Zare M. Water leakage paths in the Doosti Dam, Turkmenistan and Iran. Environ
ur

1005 Earth Sci 2012;65:103–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1069-x.

Jo

1006 Oliveira-Pinto, S., & Stokkermans, J. Marine Floating Solar Plants: An overview of potential, challenges
1007 and feasibility. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Maritime Engineering (pp. 1-39).
1008 Thomas Telford Ltd. 2020.

1009 Palanov Nikola. Life-cycle assessment of Photovaltaic systems -Analysis of environmental impact from
1010 the production of PV system including solar panels produced by Gaia Solar. Life-Cycle Assess
1011 Photovaltaic Syst -Analysis Environ Impact from Prod PV Syst Incl Sol Panels Prod by Gaia Sol
1012 2014:160. http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/7471285/file/7471400.pdf

1013 Pašalić S, Akšamović A, Avdaković S. Floating photovoltaic plants on artificial accumulations—

1014 Example of Jablanica Lake. 2018 IEEE Int. Energy Conf., IEEE; 2018, p. 1–6.
1015 https://doi.org/10.1109/ENERGYCON.2018.8398765

1016 Penman HL. Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc R Soc London Ser A Math
1017 Phys Sci 1948;193:120–45. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1948.0037

1018 Raouz K. Environmental Impact Assessment of a Photovoltaic Power Station in Stockholm Khalid

59
1019 Raouz 2017. http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1115077

1020 Redón Santafé M, Torregrosa Soler JB, Sánchez Romero FJ, Ferrer Gisbert PS, Ferrán Gozálvez JJ,
1021 Ferrer Gisbert CM. Theoretical and experimental analysis of a floating photovoltaic cover for water
1022 irrigation reservoirs. Energy 2014;67:246–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.01.083

1023 Reinhard S, Verhagen J, Wolters W, Ruben R. Water-food-energy nexus; A quick scan. Wageningen
1024 Economic Research; 2017. https://doi.org/2017-096.

1025 Rodrigues IS, Ramalho GLB, Medeiros PHA. Potential of floating photovoltaic plant in a tropical
1026 reservoir in Brazil. J Environ Plan Manag 2020:1–24.

f
1027 https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1719824.

oo
1028 Rosa-Clot M, Tina GM, Nizetic S. Floating photovoltaic plants and wastewater basins: An Australian
1029

1030
- pr
project. Energy Procedia 2017;134:664–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.585.

Sahu A, Yadav N, Sudhakar K. Floating photovoltaic power plant: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
re
1031 2016;66:815–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.051.
lP

1032 Sampaio, P. G. V., & González, M. O. A. Photovoltaic solar energy: Conceptual framework. Renewable
1033 and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2017;74, 590-601.
na

1034 Setiawan, F., Dewi, T., & Yusi, S. Sea Salt Deposition Effect on Output and Efficiency Losses of the
ur

1035 Photovoltaic System; a case study in Palembang, Indonesia. In Proceeding in 2nd Forum in Research,
1036 Science, and Technology, Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol.1167).2018.
Jo

1037 Sharma AK, Kothari DP. Floating solar PV potential in large reservoirs in India. Int J 2016;2:97–101.
1038 http://www.ijirst.org/articles/IJIRSTV2I11050.pdf

1039 Sharma P, Muni B, Sen D. Design parameters of 10 KW floating solar power plant. Proc. Int. Adv. Res.
1040 J. Sci. Eng. Technol. (IARJSET), Natl. Conf. Renew. Energy Environ. (NCREE-2015), Ghaziabad,
1041 India, vol. 2, 2015.
1042 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/13cc/78fd898a1f63b3b4eb5ec31e2b10b889bd05.pdf

1043 Silvério NM, Barros RM, Tiago Filho GL, Redón-Santafé M, Santos IFS dos, Valério VE de M. Use of
1044 floating PV plants for coordinated operation with hydropower plants: Case study of the hydroelectric
1045 plants of the São Francisco River basin. Energy Convers Manag 2018;171:339–49.
1046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.095.

1047 Singh AK, Boruah D, Sehgal L, Ramaswamy AP. Feasibility study of a grid-tied 2MW floating solar PV
1048 power station and e-transportation facility using ‘SketchUp Pro’ for the proposed smart city of

60
1049 Pondicherry in India. J Smart Cities 2019;2:49–59. https://doi.org/10.18063/jsc.2016.02.004.

1050 Song J, Choi Y. Analysis of the potential for use of floating photovoltaic systems on mine pit lakes: Case
1051 study at the Ssangyong open-pit limestone mine in Korea. Energies 2016;9:1–13.
1052 https://doi.org/10.3390/en9020102.

1053 Song, L. Y., Yadav, R., & Liang, H. C. Research on Eco-friendly Solar Energy Generation in Taoyuan
1054 Pond. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Manufacturing (ICAM) (pp. 264-267).
1055 2018.

1056 Spencer RS, Macknick J, Aznar A, Warren A, Reese MO. Floating Photovoltaic Systems: Assessing the

f
1057 Technical Potential of Photovoltaic Systems on Man-Made Water Bodies in the Continental United

oo
1058 States. Environ Sci Technol 2019;53:1680–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b04735.

1059

1060
- pr
Sudhakar, K. SWOT analysis of floating solar plants. Sol. Photoenergy Syst. MOJ, 2019;3-6.

Suzuki, S., Nishiyama, N., Yoshino, S., Ujiro, T., Watanabe, S., Doi, T., Masuda, A., & Tanahashi, T.
re
1061 Acceleration of potential-induced degradation by salt-mist preconditioning in crystalline silicon
lP

1062 photovoltaic modules. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, 2015; 54(8S1), 08KG08.
1063 https://doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.54.08KG08
na

1064 Teixeira LE, Caux J, Beluco A, Bertoldo I, Louzada JAS, Eifler RC. Feasibility Study of a Hydro PV
1065 Hybrid System Operating at a Dam for Water Supply in Southern Brazil. J Power Energy Eng
ur

1066 2015;03:70–83. https://doi.org/10.4236/jpee.2015.39006.

Jo

1067 Temiz M, Javani N. Design and analysis of a combined floating photovoltaic system for electricity and
1068 hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2020;45:3457–69.
1069 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.12.226.

1070 Trapani K, Millar DL. Floating photovoltaic arrays to power the mining industry: A case study for the
1071 McFaulds lake (Ring of Fire). Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2016;35:898–905.
1072 https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12275.

1073 Tsoutsos T, Frantzeskaki N, Gekas V. Environmental impacts from the solar energy technologies. Energy
1074 Policy 2005;33:289–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(03)00241-6

1075 Valiantzas JD. Simplified versions for the Penman evaporation equation using routine weather data. J
1076 Hydrol 2006;331:690–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.06.012.

1077 Wang, W., Shi, Y., Zhang, C., Hong, S., Shi, L., Chang, J., ... & Wang, P. Simultaneous production of
1078 fresh water and electricity via multistage solar photovoltaic membrane distillation. Nature
1079 communications, 2019;10(1), 1-9.

61
1080 Whaley C. Best practices in photovoltaic system operations and maintenance. National Renewable
1081 Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States); 2016. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1336898

1082 World Bank, 2020. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/eg.elc.loss.zs

1083 Youssef YW, and Khodzinskaya A. A Review of Evaporation Reduction Methods from Water Surfaces.
1084 In Proceedings, The E3S Web of Conferences 97, 05044, 2019;3:1-10.

1085 Zeinalzadeh, R., Sadeghi, Z., Dehghanpour, M., Ghaedi, M. Economic and Environmental Assessment of
1086 Photovoltaic Systems: A Case Study of Southeastern Iran. Journal of Energy Economics Studies,
1087 2012;No. 33, 115-49 (In Persian).

f
oo
1088 Zhou X, Yang J, Wang F, Xiao B. Economic analysis of power generation from floating solar chimney

1089 power plant. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:736–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.02.011

- pr
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

62
CRediT author statement

Mohammad Fereshtehpour: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Writing- Original draft

Reviewing and Editing Reza Javidi Sabbaghian: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Writing-
Original draft preparation. Ali Farrokhi: Investigation, Visualization, Data Curation, Resources. Ehsan
Bahrami Jovein: Methodology, Software, Writing- Original draft preparation Elham Ebrahimi Sarindizaj:
Methodology, Investigation, Writing- Original draft preparation.

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Evaluation of Factors Governing the Use of
Floating Solar System: A Study on Iran's
Important Water Infrastructures
a b c
Mohammad Fereshtehpour ,*, Reza Javidi Sabbaghian , Ali Farrokhi , Ehsan
d e
Bahrami Jovein , Elham Ebrahimi Sarindizaj

a,
* Postdoctoral researcher, Department of Water Science and Engineering, Ferdowsi University of
Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran, [email protected]

of
b
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran.

ro
c
Research Assistant, Department of Civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University of Mashhad,
Mashhad, Iran.
d -p
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, University of Torbat Heydarieh, Torbat
Heydarieh, Iran.
re
e
Ph.D. candidate, School of Civil Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
lP
na
ur
Jo
 Evaluation of Factors Governing the Use of
Floating Solar System: A Study on Iran's
Important Water Infrastructures

of
ro
Highlights:
-p
re
A comprehensive literature review of the floating solar photovoltaic system (FSPV)
A practical framework to evaluate the governing factors that justify using FSPV
lP

Analyzing the FSPV in terms of energy, evaporation, economy, and environment

Comparing FSPV with land-based system and evaporation mitigation technologies
na

Applying the methodology to the five important reservoir dams in Iran

ur
Jo
Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo