Content uploaded by Samuel Oliver Effiom
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Samuel Oliver Effiom on May 16, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Applied Engineering and Technology ISSN 2829-4998
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74 60
https://doi.org/10.31763/aet.v2i2 aet@ascee.org
Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system
in Nigeria: a case study of the ikang river
project
Samuel Oliver Effiom a,1,*
a University of Cross River State, Nigeria
1 samueloliver@unicross.edu.ng
* corresponding author
1. Introduction
The shortage of livable land, rising energy utilization, and environmental repercussions of fossil
fuels are nurturing the development of renewable energy projects in the aquatic environment [1]. The
oceans obtain 70% of the worldwide primary energy resource (radiation from the sun) [2]. As we
know, the world’s economy is hugely reliant on fossil fuel carriers and these fossil fuel reserves are
limited and expected to run out by the next century [3]. The rising demand for energy globally and the
world’s economic situation with the use of available resources rationally have propelled the transition
to alternative energy [4], [5]. Its goal is for sustainable development and helping approaches in the
search for optimally new strategies to utilize the technologies available [6]. Among the different types
of renewable energy, photovoltaic (PV) solar energy is proving reliable. Although, it has not reached
adequate development, efforts are being made in PV technology research towards lower industrialized
AR T IC L E I NF O
ABS TRA CT
Article history
Received April 22, 2023
Revised April 28, 2023
Accepted April 30, 2023
Available online 8 May, 2023
Apart from evading the formidable problem of land acquisition and
consumption for solar PV projects in coastal regions, floating solar
photovoltaic systems (FSPVs) panels can generate more energy than their
counterparts, due to the cooling effect of the water. This study focused on
evaluating the economic viability of developing a FSPVs project in
Nigeria, using Ikang river, Bakassi as an incident study. The FSPVs was
designed using the HOMER software to satisfy full load requirements of
2426.45 kWh/day, while appraising the viability of the FSPVs in incident
study. Geographical coordinates, ambient temperature, and global
horizontal irradiance of the incident study location were used to select a
suitable FSPVs design for the cost appraisal. Lifecycle cost model was
further developed to evaluate the proposed FSPVs at different project
development phases. These include: predevelopment and consenting
(P&C), procurement and acquisition (P&A), installation and
commissioning (I&C), operation and maintenance (O&M), and
decommissioning and disposal (D&D). The results obtained showed that
the net present cost, Levelized cost of energy, and operating cost of the
project were 10,350,933.25USD, 0.90USD/kWh, and 179,164.73USD,
respectively. Also, the capital expenditure (CAPEX) amassed by 81.53%
of the entire project cost, while operating expenditure (OPEX) was
18.47%. For the lifecycle stages; P&C, P&A, I&C, O&M and D&D were
obtained to be 12%, 57.9%, 11.6%, 9.96%, and 8% respectively of the
project cost. Thus, the incident study location has the potential for FSPVs
development and has proven to be economically viable. Nevertheless,
established model was suitable in appraising preliminary variations in
FSPVs.
This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license.
Keywords
Floating solar photovoltaics
Economic cost appraisal
Levelized cost of energy
Feasibility
Nigeria
ISSN 2829-4998 Applied Engineering and Technology 61
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
costs and higher efficiencies [7]. According to [8], the installation of these technologies was formerly
limited to land, but land being a quality commodity and the huge necessity for it, is forcing these
technologies to go offshore. This shift has presented benefits and drawbacks. For solar; the benefits
include less obstacles to obstruct sunlight, less dust effect, elevated energy efficiency due to lower
temperature beneath the panels, etc. [9]. On the other hand, for wind, it is the advanced and more
dependable wind speeds, consequential in higher power generation [10]. The drawbacks include;
difficulties associated with moving, installation, mass departure of power, threats like cyclones, sea
waves, storms, high tides and tsunami, increased decay of the metallic structure, increased
maintenance, the consequence on fishing, and other transportation activities depending on the selected
site [11].
[7] stated that the floating solar power plants also has its challenges besides the fundamental
electrical design. The study on the maximum power points, cables design, and the design against the
ocean or aquatic ecological state should be intentional. Even the structure has to conquer the sturdy
wind or cyclone. The connection of cables from solar panels structure to the shore also has to defeat
environmental impact assessment [12]. Fig. 1 shows the average installed costs for solar photovoltaic
from 2010 – 2020.
Fig. 1. Global cost of installed PV per kilowatt [13]
Offshore solar farms do not compete with other land uses and possibly helps reduce water
evaporation rates in specifically tropical climate due to its surface coverage, protecting the water from
heat and wind [14]. This is vital when people’s livelihood is dependent on land uses and water
resources like the southern region in Nigeria. This region has excellent potential for FSPVs on 7,158
reservoirs currently used for flood control, energy storage, hydropower generation, daily water usage,
fishing, and irrigation [15]. Few components make up the FSPVs, this includes; mooring system [14],
floats [11], pontoon [16], crystalline solar PV modules, and connectors and cables [8]. Offshore solar
farms present a contributing solution to the standing effects of land based solar farms. These effects
are majorly dust effect, and increased temperature underneath the panels [17]. It is evident that
extensive studies have been carried out to analyze the techno-economic feasibility of land based solar
PVs for various on-grid and off-grid applications. However, offshore FSPVs could be a better
alternative compared to land based [18]. On this backdrop, this study provides an approach to evaluate
the economic cost viability of developing a FSPVs farm project in an incident study location situated
in Nigeria, which not yet been extensively studied.
2. Method
The economic viability of developing the FSPVs project was evaluated using the HOMER
software. The flowchart that summarizes the methodology is depicted in Fig. 2. The HOMER software
integrates multiple energy resources to design and optimize hybrid energy systems [19], [20]. The
software was used to examine the life cycle cost ranking, and its configuration in terms of its cost
effectiveness.
19%
16%
12%
11%
10%
7%
7%
6% 5% 4% 3%
year 2010 year 2011 year 2012 year 2013 year 2014 year 2015
year 2016 year 2017 year 2018 year 2019 year 2020
62 Applied Engineering and Technology ISSN 2829-4998
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
Fig. 2. Methodology flowchart
The FSPVs was selected after the temperature, global solar horizontal irradiance (GHI) data, and
the load of the region were obtained from the HOMER software. Firstly, the coordinates of the region
were inputted to obtain the load, temperature, and solar GHI. These data were further used to select
the solar PV panel based on its capacity to service the load of the study region. The HOMER software
further provided the technical specifications of the FSPV from its directory to run the cost appraisal
simulation. As a result, a detailed cost summary and breakdown of every component of the designed
FSPVs, and the electricity produced were obtained.
2.1. Floating photovoltaic system
Mounting FSPVs over water bodies is innovative [21]. The combination of PV plant technology
and floating technology results in electricity generation [22]. The proposed floating PV plant to be
developed is made up of a pontoon or independent floats, a mooring system, and solar panels with
cables (see Fig. 3). These components play a vital role in checking the viability of having a floating
solar farm in Nigeria. As long as the anchoring and mooring system is permanently structured
underwater, the installation process for FSPVs is frequently simpler than land solar PVs [23]. The
installation does not need heavy equipment, and the system is often erected on land before being
carried to a body of water and pulled to the site [19], [24].
Fig. 3. Schematic of a floating solar PV [25]
ISSN 2829-4998 Applied Engineering and Technology 63
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
The PV conversion efficiency under operating settings is the most essential metric used to examine
the performance evaluation of the FSPVs [12], [7]. Thus, the conversion efficiency of a PV module is
determined by the ratio between the generated electrical power and the incident solar radiation
intensity as expressed in Eqn. (1).
()
Where , , , and are the Electrical efficiency (%), Power generated by PV module
(W), Solar radiation intensity of the PV module (W/m2), and PV module surface exposed to the solar
radiation intensity (m2), respectively.
Meteorological data of the incident study location which include geographical coordinates,
ambient temperature, and global horizontal irradiance (GHI) as obtained from the HOMER software
were used to select a suitable FSPVs design for the cost appraisal. This data is also required in the
FSPVs and substation infrastructural development [26]. Furthermore, the lifespan of the FSPVs
project was assumed to be at 25-30 years considering the inflation rate of Nigeria at 8% [14],[23].
Using the fisher expression, the annual interest rate is determined at 3.7% [23].
2.2. Lifecycle cost appraisal model
Lifecycle cost appraisal model was further developed to evaluate the proposed FSPVs at different
project development phases. The phases include: predevelopment and consenting (P&C), procurement
and acquisition (P&A), installation and commissioning (I&C), operation and maintenance (O&M),
and decommissioning and disposal (D&D). Adapting the approach of [27]–[29], a cost breakdown
used the evaluate the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) was implemented. The FSPVs project cost is
expressed in Eqn. (2).
()
2.2.1. Pre-development and Consenting
Before the development process of the FSPVs, systematic feasibility studies were carried out to
access the potential for an FSPVs in the chosen location. Factors such as solar resource availability,
cost of project, and the potential for grid connection were also considered. Getting the necessary
permits and approvals from government, relevant authorities, and community liaisons were also
factored in. The pre-development and consenting cost were evaluated using Eqn. (3).
()
Where; , , , and are the cost of managing the project, legal authorization
process cost, survey cost, cost of engineering activities, and contingencies cost respectively. is
assumed to be 5% of total capital expenditure [29].
2.2.2. Procurement and Acquisition
Procurement cost is one aspect that cannot be overlooked. This includes designing and engineering,
procurement of the PV panels and other components, and its electrical infrastructure. The cost of
procurement and acquisition was evaluated using Eqn. (4).
()
Where; , , , , , and are cost of procuring mooring system, cost of
procuring floats, cost of procuring pontoon, cost of procuring solar PV modules, cost of procuring
connectors and cables, and cost of anchoring system respectively.
2.2.3. Installation and commissioning
For the globally weighted-average, the installed costs for solar projects in 2019 was 18% below
the average of 2018, and 79% below the 2010 weighted average [8]. Installed costs reduction are
caused by varying factors; reduced labour costs, enhanced module efficiency, and improved
64 Applied Engineering and Technology ISSN 2829-4998
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
manufacturing processes. The developers’ experience and supply chain structure has led to an
increasing number of marketed PV systems attaining competitive cost structures and declining
globally weighted average for total installed costs [30]. As though the solar PV system keeps
advancing, the installed cost differences increase. There is a need to understand the difference in
specific cost of solar PV system components in the individual markets, as this remains pivotal to
unlocking the reduction potential. As the market continues to grow, it is believed that some of the
remaining cost variance will continue to decline. The installation cost of a floating SPV is much more
than that of a land based solar PV because of its anchoring systems and mooring, and the cabling
across the system [8], [30]. However, Eqn. (5) was used to evaluate the installation and commissioning
cost.
()
Where; , , , and represents the annual capacity factor, lifetime of the project, annual
degradation factor, and discount factor respectively. Also, which is the Incentive-based reduction
factor is given in Eqn. (6) as;
()
Where; , , , , and are the civil works cost, mechanical equipment cost,
electrical equipment cost, indirect cost, fees and contingency, and owner cost respectively.
2.2.4. Operation and maintenance
The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of the utility high scale solar PV has declined over
the years in certain markets where the capital cost has gone down more than the (O&M) cost [14].
O&M enhances the reliability and performance of the FSPVs [11]. The associated cost is expressed
in Eqn. (7).
()
Where; DMS, and OR are the decommissioning, and occasional replacement respectively. Thus,
the total operational and maintenance cost (TOM) was evaluated using Eqn. (8).
()
Where; , , , , , , , and are the equipment maintenance cost,
connection cost, anchor system maintenance cost, operative environmental management cost,
operational insurance cost, operational law charges, line and substation maintenance cost, and salaries
respectively.
2.2.5. Decommissioning and disposal
Solar PV systems are long lasting and durable, if the right conditions are met [31].
Decommissioning and disposing the FSPVs is the reverse of installing it. The time to pull down the
system varies with the size of the project. The process of decommissioning a large-scale solar PV
system with probably a 30-year lifespan would be pricey [31]–[34]. Excerpts from [29] was used to
develop eqn. (9) and used to evaluate the cost of decommissioning and disposal.
()
Where; , , , and are the cost of decommissioning, cost of waste management, cost
of clearing the water bodies per unit area, and cost of supervision respectively.
2.2.6. Levelized cost on energy (LCOE)
The LCOE, evaluated is expressed in Eqn. (10) and (11) as;
ISSN 2829-4998 Applied Engineering and Technology 65
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
()
()
Where; , , , , , and are the investment expenditure in a year (t), operation and
maintenance expenditures in a year (t), fuel expenditures in a year (t), energy produced in a year (t),
discount rate (%), and expected lifetime of the system respectively [30], [34].
2.3. Incident study
The incident study area for this research was narrowed down to the Niger delta region of Nigeria,
because of the huge volume of water that surrounds the area, the solar irradiance, and atmospheric
temperature. The global solar horizontal irradiance data of the study location is depicted in Fig. 4,
with its scaled annual average at 4.28 kWh/m2/day.
Fig. 4. Global daily solar horizontal irradiance for Bakassi [20]
Also, Fig. 5 depicts the temperature resource of the case study location with a scaled annual
average of 24.67℃.
Fig. 5. Temperature resource for Bakassi [20]
Nigeria has a coastline of 853 kilometers with 450 kilometers inland waterways, and a 200 nautical
miles sovereign right to exclusive economic zone [35], [15]. The coordinates from the HOMER
software were used to select the study location. This study was carried out based on data gotten from
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) directory on the HOMER software for the
potential area with renewable energy resources. Also, the data of other parameters that affects the
viability of developing an offshore solar farm in that region were obtained. As depicted in Fig. 6, the
selected area is the Ikang river in Bakassi that is located in Cross River State, the Niger-Delta region
66 Applied Engineering and Technology ISSN 2829-4998
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
of Nigeria. Ikang River lies between 4˚ 48’ 0” North and 8˚ 32’ 0” East on the latitude and longitude
of the equator [20].
Fig. 6. Incident study area for developing the floating solar farm site
3. Results and Discussion
Table 1 presents the technical specifications of the solar PV arrays selected and the installation
requirements.
Table 1. FSPV parameters from HOMER
Properties (units)
Configuration
Name
Ingeteam (1164kVa) with generic PV
Panel type
Flat plate
Rated capacity (kW)
1164.1
Temperature coefficient
-0.4100
Operating temperature (℃)
45.00
Efficiency (%)
17.30
Nominal capacity (kWh)
5309
Installed capacity (kWh/year)
2,179,179
Autonomy (hours)
42.0
Usable nominal capacity (kWh)
4,247
Rectifier mean output (kW)
30.2
Inverter mean output (kW)
25.8
Distance to onshore grid connection (km)
12 (assumed)
Distance to offshore grid connection (km)
50 (assumed)
Operational life (years)
25
PV penetration (%)
246
3.1. Result of lifecycle cost appraisal
Results of the lifecycle cost appraisal from the model developed to evaluate the proposed FSPVs
at different project development phases is presented. The phases include: predevelopment and
consenting (P&C), procurement and acquisition (P&A), installation and commissioning (I&C),
operation and maintenance (O&M), and decommissioning and disposal (D&D). The total cost for
installing a floating solar farm at the incident location in Nigeria was evaluated to be USD
10,350,933.02.
ISSN 2829-4998 Applied Engineering and Technology 67
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
Fig. 7 shows the cost distribution of the predevelopment and consenting phase of the FSPVs project
lifecycle. Predevelopment and consenting are the first phase for the commencement of the project. Its
importance cannot be overlooked, as it gives insights to the project conception. For predevelopment
and consenting cycle phase, the results show that the cost of managing the project is 5% of the total
capital cost which is USD 517,546.65. This also accounts for 41.66% of the cost of predevelopment
and consenting. However, other costs accounts for 58.34%; these include 10% (USD 124,211.20)
legal authorization process, 10.34% (USD 128,434.38) survey cost, 30% (USD 372,633.59) cost of
engineering activities, and 8% (USD 99, 368.96) contingencies. The cost breakdown shows the
feasibility of successfully undergoing these processes within the project cycle.
Fig. 7. Cost distribution for predevelopment and consenting
Fig. 8 depicts the cost distribution for procurement and acquisition phase of the project cycle. The
total cost of procurement and acquisition amounted to USD 5,993,190.22. The solar PV module
account for 60.05% (USD 3,599,509.96) of the procurement and acquisition cycle. Others include the
mooring system, the pontoon, the floats, the connectors and cables, and the anchoring system,
accounting for 8.2% (USD 491,441.60), 7.6% (USD 455,481.41), 7.2% (USD 431,509.70), 7.8%
(USD 467,468.83), and 9% (USD 539,387.11) respectively.
Fig. 8. Cost distribution for procurement and acquisition
Fig. 9 depicts the cost distribution of installation and commissioning phase of the FSPVs project
cycle. The cost of installation and commissioning amounts to USD 1,204,107.26. The breakdown
includes 15% (USD 180,616.09) civil works, 33% (USD 397,355.39) mechanical equipment, 25%
(USD 301,026.81) electrical equipment. Also, indirect cost, fees, and contingency, and owners cost
amounts to 15% (USD 180,616.09), and 12% (USD 178,120.70) respectively. The required equipment
(mechanical and electrical) for the installation process takes a huge chunk of the cost in this project
cycle.
Cost of
managing the
project
42%
Legal
autorisation
process
10%
Survey
10%
Cost of
engineering
activities
30%
Contingencie
s
8%
8%
8%
7%
60%
8%
9% Mooring system
Floats
Pontoon
Solar PV module
Connectors and
cables
Anchoring
system
68 Applied Engineering and Technology ISSN 2829-4998
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
Fig. 9. Cost distribution for installation and commissioning
Fig. 10 depicts the cost distribution for operation and maintenance phase of the FSPVs project
cycle. The cost of operation and maintenance was evaluated to be USD 1,031,562.11. The cost
breakdown includes, 14% (USD 144,418.68) equipment maintenance cost, 12% (123,787.44)
connection cost, 12.5% (USD 128,945.26) anchor system maintenance cost, 9.5% (USD 97,998.40)
operative environmental maintenance cost, 14% (USD 144,418.68) operational insurance, 9%
(92,840.58) operational law charges, 12% (USD 123,787.44) lines and substation maintenance cost,
and 16% salaries.
Fig. 10. Cost distribution for operation and maintenance
Fig. 11 presents the cost distribution for decommissioning and disposal phase of the FSPVs project
cycle. Decommissioning and disposal was estimated to be USD 828,074.54. The cost breakdown
includes, 10% (USD 82,807.45) decommissioning the PV panels cost, 6% (USD 49,684.47) racks
dismantling cost, 8% (USD 66,245.96) electrical equipment unmounting cost, 10% (USD 82,807.45)
cables recovery, 12.6% (USD 104,337.39) anchor systems recovery cost, 12.4% (USD 102,681.23)
mooring system decommissioning cost, 12.8% (USD 105,993.54) pontoon decommissioning cost,
12.3% (USD 101,853.16) floats decommissioning cost, and 15% (USD 124,211.18) disposal.
Civil works cost
15%
Mechanical
equipment cost
33%
Electrical
euipment cost
25%
Indirect cost, fee and
cintingency
15%
Owners cost
12%
Equipment and
maintnance
14%
Connection cost
12%
Anchor system
management
13%
Operative
environmental
management
cost…
Operational
insurance
14%
Operational law
charges
9%
Lines and substation
maintenance cost
12%
Salaries
16%
ISSN 2829-4998 Applied Engineering and Technology 69
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
Fig. 11. Cost distribution for decommissioning and disposal
Table 2 and Fig. 12 presents the cost breakdown of all project phases in developing the floating
solar farm (FSPVs). However, the net present cost, LCOE, and operating cost of the entire project
were evaluated to be USD 10,350,933.25 (NGN 4,733,868,730.94), 0.90 USD/kWh (NGN
413.81/kWh), and 179,164.73 USD (NGN 81,938,710.13) respectively. The conversion factor (USD
1.0 to NGN 459.81) was based on Central Bank of Nigeria’s conversion rate on 25th January, 2023 at
11:43 am.
Table 2. Total project cost distribution
Development stages
Cost (USD)
Percentage (%)
P & C
1,239,411.59
12
P & A
5,980,160.81
58
I & C
1,201,489.49
12
O & M
1,029,319.46
10
D & D
826,274.28
8
Total
10,328,429.94
100
Fig. 12. Cost distribution of the FSPVs project development phases
3.2. CAPEX and OPEX analysis
The capital expenditure (CAPEX) of the project includes the predevelopment and consenting
(P&C), procurement and acquisition (P&A), and installation and commissioning (I&C) project
Panels
decomissioning
10%
Racks
decomissioning
6%
Electrical equipmenmt recovery
8%
Cables recovery
10%
Anchor systems decomissioning
13%
Mooring system
recovery
13%
Pontoon recovery
13%
Floats recovery
12%
Disposal
15%
P&C
12%
P&A
58%
I&C
12%
O&M
10%
D&D
8%
70 Applied Engineering and Technology ISSN 2829-4998
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
phases, with main drivers cost of USD 4,742,052.19. As the project's main drivers, the installation,
support systems, predevelopment and project management, contingencies, indirect cost, fees, and
electrical equipment accounted for 15%, 22%, 41%, 2%, 4%, and 16%, respectively; totaling 81.53%
of the entire project. However, comparing the expenses of acquiring a floating solar farm in Nigeria
with other countries at daily energy usage of 7.23 kWh, the cost was estimated to be 6.32% higher.
Fig. 13 depicts the detailed CAPEX cost distribution.
Fig. 13. Detailed cost distribution of CAPEX
On the other hand, cost of decommissioning and disposal (D&D) phase was not part of either
OPEX or CAPEX, because it occurs after the FSPVs project life of 25 years. Fig. 14 displays the
detailed cost distribution of the OPEX. The OPEX of this project was estimated at USD 768,978.61.
In Nigeria, the yearly OPEX is expected to cost USD 246.875/kW/year [29]. The costs associated
with maintenance were the primary cost drivers of OPEX. However, cost of port, insurance,
transmission, and other costs accounted for 13%, 19%, 32%, and 36%, respectively.
Fig. 14. Detailed cost distribution for OPEX
3.3. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was further carried out to determine the effect of various factors on the LCOE
of the entire project. The factors considered were discount and inflation rates respectively. Results
obtained from this analysis using HOMER software showed that as the discount rate increased, the
LCOE varied whilst the annual capacity shortage remained constant at 12%. This is demonstrated in
Predevelopment and
project management
41%
Support structures
22%
Electrical
equipment
16%
Contingencies
2% Installation
15%
Indirect cost and
fees
4%
Maintenance
36%
Transmission
32%
Insurance
19%
Port/onshore tasks
13%
ISSN 2829-4998 Applied Engineering and Technology 71
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
Fig. 15. Furthermore, the percentage range for inflation rate was varied from 1% to 7%. Fig. 16 depicts
the reduction in LCOE as inflation rate increases.
Fig. 15. Sensitivity analysis on discount and LCOE
Fig. 16. Sensitivity analysis on inflation and LCOE
3.4. Potential positive environmental impact of the FSPV
FSPVs technology is an emerging clean energy technology that plays a vital role in decarbonization
of the global energy sector. Based on the obtained meteorological data, nautical miles, inland water
ways, and small land area in the studied location, developing this FSPVs project will not just have
positive techno-economic impacts, but also socio-environmental impacts. Some of which includes;
evading the formidable problem of land acquisition and consumption, improving water security by
reducing water evaporation (since the FSPVs panels covers the water bodies), improved PV
performance due to cooling effect of water, and job creation potential. The solar panel could also serve
as shelter to aquatic lives and avoid algal bloom, leading to improved aquatic ecosystem. This also
improves the dominant means of livelihood in Bakassi being fishing.
4. Conclusion
The scarcity of open lands, along with rising land costs, has resulted in the recent introduction of
floating solar photovoltaic systems for energy generation. This study examined the economic cost
4
6
10
12
0.4 0.47 0.56 0.55
Discount LCOE
1
3
5
7
0.44 0.36 0.29 0.24
Inflation LCOE
72 Applied Engineering and Technology ISSN 2829-4998
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
feasibility of developing this project in Nigeria, using Ikang River in Bakassi as an incident study. A
lifecycle cost appraisal model was developed, and five project development phases were examined
with this model. CAPEX and OPEX analysis were also carried out to understand the cost drivers of
the proposed project. The CAPEX of the FSPVs project includes the P&C, P&A, and I&C project
phases, with key drivers’ cost of USD 4,742,052.19. However, the OPEX of this project was estimated
at USD 768,978.61. Sensitivity analysis was carried out using the HOMER software and displayed
effect of inflation and discount rate variations on LCOE. Net present cost of the project, LCOE, and
operating cost, were obtained to be USD 10,350,933.25, USD 0.90/kWh (NGN 413.81/kWh), and
USD 179,164.73 (NGN 81,938,710.13) respectively. Furthermore, installation, support systems,
predevelopment and project management, contingencies, indirect cost, and electrical equipment were
the key drivers of the project. Results obtained shows that developing a floating solar farm in Nigeria
is technically possible, economically viable, and worth investing.
Acknowledgment
Special thanks to the clean fuels, energy, and environmental research lab in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Cross River State, Nigeria.
Declarations
Author contribution. All authors contributed equally to the main contributor to this paper. All authors
read and approved the final paper.
Funding statement. None of the authors have received any funding or grants from any institution or
funding body for the research.
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information. No additional information is available for this paper.
References
[1] O. Agwu, A. Oboh, and S. Effiom, “Economic evaluation of mechanical chiller for power recovery in a
gas turbine unit in Nigeria,” Eur. J. Eng. Technol., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 6–17, 2019, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.idpublications.org/ejet-vol-7-no-4-2019/%0Ahttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/.
[2] M. López-Herraiz, A. B. Fernández, N. Martinez, and M. Gallas, “Effect of the optical properties of the
coating of a concentrated solar power central receiver on its thermal efficiency,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells, vol. 159, pp. 66–72, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.solmat.2016.08.031.
[3] M. Abid, Z. Abid, J. Sagin, R. Murtaza, D. Sarbassov, and M. Shabbir, “Prospects of floating photovoltaic
technology and its implementation in Central and South Asian Countries,” Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1755–1762, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s13762-018-2080-5.
[4] A. M. Pringle, R. M. Handler, and J. M. Pearce, “Aquavoltaics: Synergies for dual use of water area for
solar photovoltaic electricity generation and aquaculture,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 80, pp. 572–
584, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.191.
[5] S. O. Effiom, F. I. Abam, J. E. Evareh, O. I. Inah, and P. A. Ubi, “Techno-Economic and Sustainability
Analysis of Aeroderivative Models of a CFM56-5C2 High Bypass Turbofan Engine,” in International
Conference on Hydrocarbon Science & Technology (ICHST 2021), 2021, no. November, pp. 31–39.
[Online]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356044107_Techno-.
[6] M. Bilgili, A. Yasar, and E. Simsek, “Offshore wind power development in Europe and its comparison
with onshore counterpart,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 905–915, Feb. 2011, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.006.
[7] M. Esmaeili Shayan and J. Hojati, “Floating Solar Power Plants: A Way to Improve Environmental and
Operational Flexibility,” Iran. J. Energy Environ., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 337–348, Oct. 2021, doi:
10.5829/IJEE.2021.12.04.07.
[8] E. J. Nordberg, M. Julian Caley, and L. Schwarzkopf, “Designing solar farms for synergistic commercial
and conservation outcomes,” Sol. Energy, vol. 228, pp. 586–593, Nov. 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.solener.2021.09.090.
ISSN 2829-4998 Applied Engineering and Technology 73
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
[9] A. A. Fernandez, A. Rakhmatsyah, and A. A. Wardana, “Monitoring Floating Solar Tracker Based on
Axis Coordinates using LoRa Network,” Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 141–149, Jul. 2020,
doi: 10.14710/ijred.9.2.141-149.
[10] D. Gielen, F. Boshell, D. Saygin, M. D. Bazilian, N. Wagner, and R. Gorini, “The role of renewable
energy in the global energy transformation,” Energy Strateg. Rev., vol. 24, pp. 38–50, Apr. 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.006.
[11] L. Hernández-Callejo, S. Gallardo-Saavedra, and V. Alonso-Gómez, “A review of photovoltaic systems:
Design, operation and maintenance,” Sol. Energy, vol. 188, pp. 426–440, Aug. 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.solener.2019.06.017.
[12] S. M. Khazael and M. Al-Bakri, “The Optimum Site Selection for Solar Energy Farms using AHP in GIS
Environment, A Case Study of Iraq,” Iraqi J. Sci., vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 4571–4587, Dec. 2021, doi:
10.24996/ijs.2021.62.11(SI).36.
[13] P. Y. Gan and Z. Li, “Quantitative study on long term global solar photovoltaic market,” Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., vol. 46, pp. 88–99, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.041.
[14] H. Liu, V. Krishna, J. Lun Leung, T. Reindl, and L. Zhao, “Field experience and performance analysis of
floating PV technologies in the tropics,” Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl., vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 957–967,
Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1002/pip.3039.
[15] B. C. N. Obed, “A Critical Assessment of the Inland Waterways Operations and Management on the
Development of the Nigerian Maritime Industry,” Greener J. Environ. Manag. Public Saf., vol. 2, no. 2,
pp. 099–107, Feb. 2013, doi: 10.15580/GJEMPS.2013.2.121012320.
[16] M. Rosa-Clot, P. Rosa-Clot, G. M. Tina, and P. F. Scandura, “Submerged photovoltaic solar panel: SP2,”
Renew. Energy, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1862–1865, Aug. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2009.10.023.
[17] S. Oliveira-Pinto and J. Stokkermans, “Marine floating solar plants: an overview of potential, challenges
and feasibility,” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Marit. Eng., vol. 173, no. 4, pp. 120–135, Dec. 2020, doi:
10.1680/jmaen.2020.10.
[18] L. Liu, Q. Wang, H. Lin, H. Li, Q. Sun, and R. Wennersten, “Power Generation Efficiency and Prospects
of Floating Photovoltaic Systems,” Energy Procedia, vol. 105, pp. 1136–1142, May 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.483.
[19] “Solar photovoltaic farms suitability analysis: a Portuguese case-study,” Int. J. Renew. Energy Res., no.
v7i1, 2017, doi: 10.20508/ijrer.v7i1.5358.g6983.
[20] “HOMER Pro 3.1.3,” HOMER Energy. Accessed May 04, 2022. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.homerenergy.com/products/pro/docs/3.13/index.html.
[21] M. Rosa-Clot, G. M. Tina, and S. Nizetic, “Floating photovoltaic plants and wastewater basins: an
Australian project,” Energy Procedia, vol. 134, pp. 664–674, Oct. 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.585.
[22] R. Cazzaniga, M. Cicu, M. Rosa-Clot, P. Rosa-Clot, G. M. Tina, and C. Ventura, “Floating photovoltaic
plants: Performance analysis and design solutions,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 81, pp. 1730–1741,
Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.269.
[23] M. R. Santafé, P. S. Ferrer Gisbert, F. J. Sánchez Romero, J. B. Torregrosa Soler, J. J. Ferrán Gozálvez,
and C. M. Ferrer Gisbert, “Implementation of a photovoltaic floating cover for irrigation reservoirs,” J.
Clean. Prod., vol. 66, pp. 568–570, Mar. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.006.
[24] P. Rosa-Clot, “FPV and Environmental Compatibility,” in Floating PV Plants, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 101–
118, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-817061-8.00009-9.
[25] S. Gangolu and S. Sarangi, “Fuzzy-Based Fault Detection and Classification in Grid-Connected Floating
PV System,” J. Control. Autom. Electr. Syst., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 324–332, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s40313-
022-00969-0.
[26] V. Fthenakis and Y. Yu, “Analysis of the potential for a heat island effect in large solar farms,” in 2013
IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Jun. 2013, pp. 3362–3366, doi:
10.1109/PVSC.2013.6745171.
74 Applied Engineering and Technology ISSN 2829-4998
Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 60-74
Samuel Oliver Effiom (Economic viability of large-scale floating solar pv system)
[27] S.-M. Kim, M. Oh, and H.-D. Park, “Analysis and Prioritization of the Floating Photovoltaic System
Potential for Reservoirs in Korea,” Appl. Sci., vol. 9, no. 3, p. 395, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.3390/app9030395.
[28] E. Solomin, E. Sirotkin, E. Cuce, S. P. Selvanathan, and S. Kumarasamy, “Hybrid Floating Solar Plant
Designs: A Review,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 10, p. 2751, May 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14102751.
[29] S. O. Effiom, B. N. Nwankwojike, and F. I. Abam, “Economic cost evaluation on the viability of offshore
wind turbine farms in Nigeria,” Energy Reports, vol. 2, pp. 48–53, Nov. 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.egyr.2016.03.001.
[30] T. Thumma and S. R. Sheri, “Design Parameters of 10KW Floating Solar Power Plant Paritosh,” Int. Adv.
Res. J. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 197–205, 2015, doi: 10.17148/IARJSET.
[31] P. Beiter et al., “A Spatial-Economic Cost-Reduction Pathway Analysis for U.S. Offshore Wind Energy
Development from 2015–2030,” Golden, CO (United States), Sep. 2016. doi: 10.2172/1324526.
[32] M. J. Kaiser and B. F. Snyder, Offshore Wind Energy Cost Modeling, vol. 85. London: Springer London,
2012, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-2488-7.
[33] “Where Sun Meets Water: Floating Solar Market Report,” The World Bank, 2018. Accessed May 04,
2021. [Online]. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/where-sun-meets-
water.
[34] K. Dahal et al., “Techno-economic review of alternative fuels and propulsion systems for the aviation
sector,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 151, p. 111564, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.111564.
[35] O. A. Emmanuel, P. I. Ifabiyi, and A. U. Chijioke, “Opportunities and Challenges of Inland Waterways
Transport in the Southwest Coastal Belt of Nigeria,” Bhumi, Plan. Res. J., vol. 6, no. 1, p. 10, Jun. 2018,
doi: 10.4038/bhumi.v6i1.34.
