clean

technologies

Review
Floating Photovoltaics: A Review
Laura Essak and Aritra Ghosh *

College of Engineering, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Renewable Energy, University of Exeter,
Penryn TR10 9FE, UK
* Correspondence: a.ghosh@exeter.ac.uk

Abstract: The world is transitioning towards a net zero emissions future and solar energy is at
the forefront of the transition. The land use requirements to install solar farms present a barrier
for the industry as population density increases and land prices rise. Floating photovoltaics (FPV)
addresses this issue by installing solar photovoltaics (PV) on bodies of water. Globally, installed FPV
is increasing and becoming a viable option for many countries. A 1% coverage of global reservoirs
with FPV would have a potential capacity of 404GWp benign power production. There are numerous
advantages to FPV compared to ground mounted PV (GPV), which are discussed in this review.
The major gap in research is the impact FPV has on water quality and living organisms in the
bodies of water. This review paper examines the most recent research around FPV, analyzing the
benefits, downfalls, and future. The review provides more insight into FPV in terms of varying water
bodies that can be used, system efficiency, global potential, and potential for coupling FPV with
other technologies.

Keywords: floating photovoltaics (FPV); floating solar; floatovoltaics; photovoltaics (PV); cooling
effect; renewable energy; submerged photovoltaics (SPV); ecosystem impact; water quality

Citation: Essak, L.; Ghosh, A. 1. Introduction

Floating Photovoltaics: A Review.
As the world population continues to grow, the energy demand is also increasing,
Clean Technol. 2022, 4, 752–769.
causing an increase in use of fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gases [1]. As climate change
https://doi.org/10.3390/
continues to worsen, the world is looking at ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions [2,3].
cleantechnol4030046
The world is facing a climate crisis. The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that
Academic Editor: Alessandro in order for the world to reach the goal of net zero emissions by 2050 there will have to be
Cannavale an annual average solar energy generation growth of 24% [4]. In 2020, solar generation
Received: 7 June 2022
increased 23%, resulting in the IEA categorising solar photovoltaics (PV) as ’more effort
Accepted: 30 June 2022
needed’ [4].
Published: 8 August 2022
Solar PV is expected to be a leading technology to power the world in the future [5].
The price of PV has reduced drastically, reaching a price similar to that of conventional
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
energy sources [6,7]. The IEA stated that PV has become the lowest-cost electricity source in
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
history [4]. While installed PV is set to continue growing, the large scale ground-mounted
published maps and institutional affil-
photovoltaic (GPV) farms are running into issues of finding land to install on [8]. A 1MW
iations.
PV farm needs approximately 15,000 m2 of land [9]. With large land requirements and
rising land prices it is becoming increasingly difficult to purchase land for a PV farm [10].
Other challenges faced by PV installations are cooling of the panels and keeping them free
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
of dust in order to increase energy efficiency [11]. A solution to this challenge is placing PV
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. on bodies of water such as ponds, lakes, reservoirs, oceans, canals, lagoons, waste water
This article is an open access article treatment plants, or irrigation ponds [12]. The placing of PV panels on top of bodies of
distributed under the terms and water is called floating photovoltaics (FPV) or floatovoltaics. Countries that are facing
conditions of the Creative Commons challenges with land availability for PV farms are looking towards the potential of FPV [13].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// The aim of this review paper is to analyze the status of FPV, along with the benefits
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and drawbacks of the new technology, with a section looking at submerged photovoltaics
4.0/). (SPV). This report is unique as it observes the current status of FPV and the knowledge

Clean Technol. 2022, 4, 752–769. https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol4030046 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cleantechnol

Clean Technol. 2022, 4 753

gaps that require investigation and a solution. There is a focus on the challenges that GPV
faces and how FPV addresses some of these challenges. FPV is a relatively new technology
with the first plant installed in 2007 in Japan [14]. Table 1 shows an overview of the major
milestones within the FPV industry. The graph in Figure 1 shows the installed FPV capacity
from 2007 to 2018, and it is clear that FPV is growing rapidly.

Table 1. FPV early development milestones.Adapted with permission from [14]. 2019, World
Bank. [14].

Milestone Year Location Size (kWp)

First FPV installation 2007 Aichi Province, Japan 20
First FPV installation (nonresearched) 2008 Far Niente Winery, USA 175
First tracking FPV installation 2010 Petra Winery, Italy 200
First MW size FPV installation 2013 Saitama Prefecture, Japan 1180
First FPV hybrid system with a hydroelectric power plant (HPP) 2017 Alto Rabagao Dam, Portugal 220

Figure 1. Global FPV installed capacity. Adapted with permission from [14]. 2019, World Bank.

Globally, installed FPV capacity is seen to be doubling each year and is predicted to
continue doubling [15]. Figure 2 shows a global breakdown of installed FPV as of 2020,
the majority being located in China. The cost of FPV is higher than GPV currently with a
project break-even cost 4–8% higher [16]. There is massive global growth in this sector but
minimal knowledge about the possible negative impacts of FPV, making this an essential
and timely review.

Figure 2. Globally installed FPV as of 2021. Adapted with permission from [17]. 2021, Ma.
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 754

2. Methods
In order to complete the aims of this review paper, an in-depth analysis of FPV
academic papers and industry reports was completed. Google scholar, Mendeley, and the
University of Exeter library were used to find relevant papers. All cited papers have been
peer reviewed and published; this is important to ensure correct information is being used.
To find relevant papers, the following keywords were used: FPV, PV cooling effect, FPV
hybrid with hydroelectric power plants (HPP), floatovoltaics, SPV, and marine PV. Papers
from 2018 and later were considered as only the most recent research was of interest. In
certain instances, older papers were looked at in order to understand the early stages of
FPV. Each paper was organised in an Excel table containing its title and key information.
They were organised into categories to be compared and synthesised. A flowchart of the
review process is seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Flowchart of review process

3. Technology Overview
A general FPV system consists of PV panels and system installed atop a floating
structure that is anchored to the ground as seen in Figure 4.
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 755

Figure 4. FPV components Reprinted wiht permission from [18]. 2020, Oliveira-Pinto.

3.1. Floating Structure

A pontoon structure is used to keep the system floating in the water [12]. The pontoons
are formed by attaching floats together in order to hold the weight of the structure on top of
the water [12,18]. The majority of floats used in the industry are made out of high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) due to it being UV resistant, corrosion resistant, maintenance free,
recyclable and having good tensile strength [12]. Another material used for floats, though
less common, is glass fibre reinforced plastic [12]. These systems generally have a set
panel inclination that is not easily adjusted once installed [18]. A benefit of the floating
structures is that they are easy to decommission compared to a GPV system [19]. Other
floating structure options include galvanized steel platforms and one or two axis tracking
platforms [18].

3.2. PV Module
The commonly used module type for FPV installations is crystalline silicon [12].
Crystalline modules work well in fresh water environments, but as the sector looks toward
marine environments, modules will need to be designed to withstand the salty environment.
Therefore, standard metal frames will need to be replaced with an alternative material [12].
There is potential to also use second generation CdTe [20–22], a-Si, or CIGS [23], but
there has been limited investigation with these technologies. Third-generation PV is not
considered yet for FPV due to the lack of maturity [24–27].

3.3. Mooring
The mooring system of an FPV installation is required to hold the system in place,
avoiding overturning or floating away [12]. The system can be moored with anchors on the
ground of the body of water, or alternatively, directly to shore [18]. Nylon ropes are often
used as the mooring lines and allow movement of the system for changes in water depth
and blowing wind [28].

3.4. Cables
Underwater cables can be used to transport the generated electricity to an onshore
substation [18]. It is also common to keep the cables above the water [12].

3.5. Installation
The installation process for FPV is often easier than that for GPV, as long as the
anchoring and mooring system is not complicated [14]. The installation does not require
heavy equipment and the system is usually assembled on land and then transferred onto
the body of water where it can be towed to the site [14,29]. Lightsource, a company in the
United Kingdom, used a ramp to roll FPV into the water [30]. The installation can be seen
in Figure 5.
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 756

Figure 5. Array deployment using a ramp. Reprinted with permission from [14]. 2019, World Bank.

3.6. Location
In order to choose a suitable FPV location, there is a list of criteria that must be taken
into consideration. Table 2 breaks down the key criteria that must be analysed before
selecting a location to install FPV.

Table 2. Site suitability. Adapted with permission from [14]. 2019, World Bank.

Feature Criteria
Weather High irradiance
Limited rain or fog
Wind speeds below 30 m/s
Location No shadowing from mountains or surrounding buildings
Convenient transportation
Convenient installation and maintenance
Close to electrical connection
Ground conditions Consistent terrain
Compact soil for anchoring
Water conditions Limited waves
Fresh water
Low hardness
Low salinity

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Cooling Effect
PV modules are negatively affected by high temperatures as high temperatures de-
crease the performance, energy output, efficiency, and life span of the modules [11]. The
most critical factor affecting a PV module’s efficiency is module temperature [31]. An
increased surface temperature of a module results in sunlight being converted into heat
rather than output power [31]. There has been extensive research into cooling methods
for PV modules in order to increase the efficiency when exposed to hot temperatures [32].
When PV modules are placed on bodies of water, they experience a cooling effect that
increases their efficiency compared to a GPV system [33]. A paper comparing the cooling
effects on FPV in the Netherlands (temperate maritime climate) versus Singapore (tropical
climate) found that Singapore had a 6% increase in annual energy yield while the Nether-
lands had a 3% increase [34]. Another paper investigating the performance of FPV in the
tropics found an up to 10% increase in annual energy yield due to the cooling effect [13].
A study in Visakhapatnam, India, found a 1.5–3% increase in energy production for FPV
compared to GPV [35]. Another study in India found a 2.5–3% increase between FPV and
GPV [36]. Brazillian reservoirs were analysed in a study and found to have a 12.5% increase
in efficiency for FPV because of the cooling effect [37]. The World Bank also found increased
efficiency varying between 5% and 10% for different climatic regions [14]. The cooling
effect due to the cool air flowing under the PV modules is a key advantage of installing an
FPV system over a GPV system.
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 757

4.2. Humidity
Another effect of installation on water is an increase in humidity for the modules [38].
FPV modules experience higher humidity compared to GPV modules [38]. An increase in
humidity around a module can affect the atmosphere and cause the module temperature to
increase, thereby decreasing the performance of the module [38].

4.3. Water Evaporation

Studies have shown that FPV is capable of significantly decreasing water evapora-
tion [19,39]. This can be important for coupling FPV with HPP, which will be discussed
in Section 4.7. It is also increasingly important for countries that are dealing with water
shortages [40,41]. Water-scarce regions in central and southern Asia were concluded to
benefit greatly when FPV was installed [41,42]. A study found that a 1MW FPV system
in Visakhapatnam, India, would reduce water evaporation and save 42-million litres of
water [35]. A study looked at the water evaporation reduction, economic feasibility, energy
generation, and environmental impact of installing FPV on five main reservoirs lakes in
Iran [43]. By covering 10% of the five main reservoir lakes with FPV, enough water would
be saved from evaporation to meet the domestic water demands of a city with 1-million
inhabitants. The study states that FPV would be beneficial for Iran as it is facing an energy
and water crisis [43]. The reduction of water evaporation is a benefit of FPV.

4.4. Impact on Water Quality

FPV is a growing sector that only began to boom recently. As a result, there is minimal
research on the impact of FPV on water quality. The impact on water quality is noted to be
the greatest threat of FPV. A study conducted by Exley et al. reported that FPV operators
stated there was no impact on water quality, but only 15% are monitoring and analysing
the water quality while the majority are using only visual inspection [44]. The paper goes
on to explain that nine ecosystem services could be affected by the installation of FPV [44].
A study using two adjacent agricultural ponds, one covered with FPV and one open as
a control, found that there were no negative effects on water quality associated with the
FPV [39]. The study found improved concentrations of cholorophyll and nitrate, as well as
a 60% decrease in water evaporation [39]. Multiple papers concluded that a positive impact
FPV has on water quality is the reduction of algae growth [19,45]. The percentage of FPV
cover on a body of water will determine the system’s impact on algae growth. A study
investigating the impact of FPV on water quality found that FPV covering a small amount
of a reservoir was not enough to reduce algae blooms [46]. A main concern reported in
research around FPV impact on water quality is that there has not been enough studies and
modeling to conclude that there will not be negative effects. Table 3 shows a summary of
the potential opportunities and threats of FPV on water quality.

4.5. Land Use

Countries with a high population density are facing the issue of finding land that can
be used for solar PV farms [47]. FPV addresses this issue as it can be placed on surfaces
of bodies of water that would otherwise go unused [45]. FPV systems can be installed on
ponds, lakes, reservoirs, oceans, canals, lagoons, waste water treatment plants, or irrigation
ponds. FPV can also be beneficial for small island communities that lack ample land
space [48]. The cost of installing FPV is often lower than GPV because land does not have
to be purchased or approved [41]. A techno-economic case study in Islamabad found that
a GPV system would have a return of over 15 years compared to a floating system on
NUST lake, an urban lake, which would have a return of 5.37 years [49]. Not having to
pay for land for the installation in Islamabad makes the FPV system more feasible than
a GPV system [49]. The pay back is also affected by the increase in electrical output and
lower cleaning cost for FPV, which will be discussed later in the paper. Chowdhury et al.
examined how the use of FPV in their home country, Bangladesh, can be very beneficial
due to the high population density [50].
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 758

Table 3. Potential opportunities and threats of FPV on water quality. Reprinted with permission
from [44]. 2021, Exley.

System Opportunities Threats

Physical Reduced Evaporation
Reduced Water Temperature
Reduced Sedimentation
Continued Horizontal Mixing
Chemical Reduced Salinity Anoxia
Nitrification
Release of Methane
Release of Hydrogen Sulfide
Release of Ammonia
Release of Heavy Metals from Bed Sediments
Biological Reduced Algae Growth Algal Biomass Peaks Delayed
Reduced Faecal Coliforms E. Coli
Algal Composition Modified
Concentrations
Reduced Predator Vigilance for Fish Large Algal Blooms
Increased Zooplankton Success of Blue-Green Algae Improved
Reduced Mixing and Turbidity
Fish Die
Shading Affects Fish Feeding

4.6. Shading and Soiling

FPV does not often suffer in performance from shading of the surroundings as it is
located on a flat area [13]. The lack of shading is a benefit of FPV.
Soiling losses are a result of deposited dust accumulating on PV systems and are a
major issue that reduces the power generation of a PV system [51–54]. Soiling losses that
reduced power production by 3% to 4% in 2018 caused a revenue loss of EUR 3–5 billion
due to the reduced power production [55]. By 2023, it is assumed that soiling losses
will result in a revenue loss of EUR 4–7 billion. With an expected global solar energy
generation of 7200 TWh by 2040, it is becoming increasingly important to reduce soiling
losses. The common solution to reduce soiling losses is to use anti-soiling coatings on the
PV system [56,57]. FPV is another solution that can reduce soiling losses. By employing
FPV, the panels are less likely to undergo soiling as water bodies are often less dusty than
the arid regions in which GPV are usually installed [13]. If soiling does occur, it is easier to
clean FPV than GPV systems as there is water on site that can be used to clean the modules.

4.7. FPV Hybrid with (HPP)

Hydropower is the leading renewable source of electricity generating more electricity
than all other renewable sources combined [58]. There are over 9000 HPP reservoirs
globally [59], covering a surface of around 265,700 km2 [60]. These reservoirs are being
researched for the potential of installing FPV [60]. The relatively new concept of coupling
FPV with HPP is being explored and feasibility studies have been conducted in order
to determine the advantages and disadvantages of the coupling [61]. Figure 6 shows a
schematic of what a general HPP FPV hybrid system would look like. The main benefits of
coupling HPP and FPV are water savings, water quality, grid connection, cooling, power
fluctuation reduction, no land occupancy, energy storage, and radiation balance [61,62].
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 759

Figure 6. FPV hybrid system with HPP schematic. Reprinted with permission from [62]. 2020, Lee.

As stated in Section 4.3, FPV is found to reduce water evaporation, which therefore
would increase hydropower efficiency [61–63]. A 1MW installation of FPV can save between
700 m2 and 10,000 m2 of water annually [63]. Section 4.4 reviewed papers and concluded
that FPV reduced algal growth in the water, which improves the water quality. Improved
water quality is another benefit of coupling HPP with FPV.
Grid connection is an important benefit of coupling as it will save costs in the in-
stallation of FPV [61,63]. It is beneficial to install FPV systems where grid connections
already exist.
A challenge with PV, and other renewable energy sources, is their intermittency [64].
The variable power generation is holding solar back from growing in the energy market [64].
Having FPV coupled with HPP helps with this issue as they can be used complementarily [62].
During the day when solar irradiance is high, the reservoir can hold water to be used when
the FPV is not generating electricity [62]. On an annual basis, depending on the location,
solar potential is often high while HPP has reduced power due to less water flow [61]. In
2020, a study was conducted by Yanlau Zhou that looked at how an FPV hybrid system
with HPP affects the water, food, and energy nexus [65]. A model was created to maximize
the water storage and power output of the hybrid system and concluded that the system
would improve the synergistic benefit between water, energy, and food [65].
A study performed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre conducted an
assessment on installing FPV on HPP reservoirs in Africa [66]. The study examined 146
of the largest HPP in Africa and concluded that installing FPV covering 1% of reservoirs
would double the power capacity of HPP and increase electrical output by 58% [66].
Numerous African nations rely on HPP as their electricity source and increasing droughts
in the continent affect the HPP power generation [66]. FPV was concluded to save water
evaporation in the HPP reservoirs they are placed on, which is seen as a major benefit in
Africa [66]. A study completed at Macquarie University conducted a feasibility analysis of
installing FPV on HPP in Australia [67]. The paper examined the four largest HPP in New
South Wales, Australia, and found that the total power capacity of the HPP can be met using
FPV [67]. A techno-economic analysis was completed for an FPV HPP hybrid system in
Bangladesh and concluded that the integration would be beneficial for the country [68]. The
system would create clean energy, reduce water evaporation, have a return of nine years,
and help reach sustainable development goals [68]. A paper written from Air University in
Islamabad examined coupling FPV with a newly proposed HPP project in Pakistan [69]. The
paper concluded that it would be prudent to combine the systems because it would generate
significantly more electricity and benefit from sharing the transmission and distribution
system [69]. It also notes that the FPV system will generate 10% more electrical output
compared to a GPV system in the same location [69]. In recent years, Brazil has decreased
its HPP generation and relied more on thermoelectric power plants, which has increased
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 760

greenhouse gas emissions [70]. A paper by Naidion Motta Silverio looked at the use of FPV
with existing HPP in the Sao Francisco River basin because this region has suffered from
droughts, therefore, increasing its need for thermoelectric power plants [70]. Installing FPV
on the existing HPP would be beneficial and is seen to compliment the seasonal flow of the
river [70].
The first HPP FPV hybrid system was installed on the Alto Rabagao reservoir in
Portugal in 2017, shown in Figure 7 [71]. The benefits of coupling HPP with an FPV system
are clear in the academic papers and the potential for coupling systems is seen in countries
around the world.

Figure 7. First HPP FPV hybrid system installed on Alto Rabagao reservoir, Portugal in 2017 (41.7° N,
7.9° W). Reprinted with permission from [14]. 2019, World Bank.

4.8. Irrigation Ponds

A possible location to install FPV is on irrigation ponds. Placement on agricultural
irrigation ponds can be beneficial to providing farms with electricity [39]. A 305 kW FPV
that covers 45% of an agricultural irrigation pond was installed in Brazil [71]. In Japan, the
majority of installed FPV farms are on irrigation ponds [9]. The installed FPV can provide
farms with electricity while also reducing water evaporation from the ponds [39].

4.9. Fresh Water vs. Marine Water

The majority of FPV research and installations have been in fresh water and this
approach cannot simply be transferred to marine water installations [72]. As noted in
Section 3.2, commonly used PV modules are not designed to be located in salty environ-
ments and the salty air will affect the metal frame. Further, FPV systems installed in a
marine environment will be exposed to tides, currents, stronger winds, and waves [72].
The more diverse ecology in marine environments must be taken into consideration as it
can cause biofouling and affect coral systems [72]. There is also the potential for artificial
reefs to grow on an FPV installation and to combine FPV with other marine energy devices.
The pontoon structures used for marine environments vary from those typically used
for fresh water installations as seen in Figures 8–10. Figure 8 shows Swimsol’s floating
SolarSea located in the Maldives on individual two meter high wired frames with floats
attached [73]. The wire frames allow the wave, wind, and current forces to pass through
the structure, as oppose to solid pontoons which take on the full impact of the forces [73].
Figure 9 displays connected rectangular pontoon modules for a deployment in the Dutch
North Sea. Figure 10 displays an innovative design by Ocean Sun that can be used in
near-shore, sheltered, marine environments [74]. Overall, there is potential for FPV in
marine environments. However, there are more challenges to overcome compared to fresh
water installations and there exist large knowledge gaps in research.
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 761

Figure 8. Marine FPV installation in the Maldives (5.23° N and 4.49° N). Reprinted with permission
from [73].

Figure 9. Marine FPV installation in the Dutch North Sea (56° N, 3° E). Reprinted with permission
from [75].

Figure 10. Ocean Sun floating solar system in Norway (60.1° N, 5.2° E). Reprinted with permission
from [76].
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 762

4.10. High Altitude

Placing FPV in high mountain lakes has the benefit of the snow-covered mountains
having high albedo and reflecting the solar rays [77]. The potential of FPV on mountain
lakes has been examined in Switzerland where a 448kWp FPV system was installed on Lac
des Toules at an altitude of 1800m [77–79]. Figure 11 shows the system on Lac des Toules
that was installed in 2019 [78]. The snow-covered ground can increase the energy yield
by 10% [79]. A benefit of the increased production in winter months is in alignment with
higher energy use in Switzerland due to the heating of buildings [79]. A study found that
the total potential for high-altitude FPV in Switzerland could meet the country’s energy
demand while also reducing its carbon emissions [80].

Figure 11. Lac des Toules high-altitude FPV installation (45.9° N, 7.2° E) Reprinted with permission
from [78].

4.11. Desalination
The option of using FPV for desalination plants has been researched. Desalination
is the process of removing salts and minerals from seawater to obtain fresh water [81].
Desalination takes a significant amount of energy and is often powered by fossil fuels.
Using solar energy for desalination would require a large area to produce enough energy
according to a study conducted in California [81]. For this reason, the potential of using FPV
for desalination is not yet feasible. It is an area of continuing research as desalination plants
are located by water making FPV a great solution to render the process more sustainable.

4.12. Electric Vessels

The concept of using foldable floating solar arrays to charge electric vessels was
explored in Mayank Tiwari’s paper [82]. The foldable floating solar arrays use the concept
of FPV but are able to be easily taken on and off of the water surface [82]. The proposed
system could be key in transitioning water vessels toward being electric powered [82].

4.13. Electrical Cabling

With increased installation of subsea electrical cables for marine renewables, there
is growing concern that the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) can affect marine life [83]. The
EMFs could affect animals that use magnetic fields to navigate and communicate [83].
The EMFs could also affect migrating fish [83]. More research is warranted in order to
understand the risks and the potential effects should be considered when installing FPV in
the meantime.

4.14. Submerged Photovoltaic (SPV)

There has been research on the potential of SPV. If viable, SPV could be used for
sensors, autonomous power systems, and vehicles for both commercial and defence ap-
plications [84]. Research conducted in 1990 concluded that solar energy decreases as the
depth of water increases [85]. The research showed that the decrease in solar energy with
water depth is not an exponential trend [85]. The amount of solar energy absorbed within
the first centimetre of water is 27% and 70% at a water depth of 3 m [85]. Using the derived
mathematical equation at 100 m of water depth the remaining solar energy would only be
0.25% of the total transmitted solar energy [85]. Studies have stated that there is potential
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 763

for the use of SPV for underwater applications [86]. The use of high-bandgap-InGaP cells
are seen to perform better than silicon cells when submerged [86]. Another paper looked
at comparing amorphous cells to monocrystalline cells and found that amorphous cells
performed better overall [84]. Further, another investigation found that dye-sensitised cells
perform better than mono-crystalline and amorphous cells when placed underwater [87].
A benefit of SPV is the cooling effect from the water, limited soiling losses or need for
cleaning, and reduced land constraints [84]. One study performed in Italy examined the
potential of using SPV in swimming pools [88]. The study discussed the potential of using
the power from the SPV to heat the swimming pool [88]. Rendered examples of SPV being
used for swimming can be seen in Figures 12 and 13.

Figure 12. SPV used at bottom of pool. Reprinted with permission from [88].

Figure 13. SPV integrated with pool skimmer edge. Reprinted with permission from [88].

5. Perspective
The global potential for FPV has been calculated in various studies. A study by
Lee et al. examined 279,068 global HPP reservoirs and calculated a 3.0TW potential [62].
Farfan et al. found a 4.4TW potential looking at global HPP reservoirs [60]. A novel study
investigating the potential of FPV in North America concluded that there are 24,419 bodies
of water, all human-made, that are suitable for FPV installations [89]. If 27% of these
bodies of water were covered with FPV it would supply 10% of the country’s electricity
demand [89]. Many of these installations would see multiple benefits in areas with high
land costs, water scarcity, and increasing electricity prices [89]. Currently, there are fewer
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 764

than 10 installments in North America [90]. The Solar Energy Institute of Singapore looked
at global potential on human-made reservoirs with FPV covering 1%, 5%, and 10% of the
reservoirs’ area [14]. The results are seen in Table 4.

Table 4. Reservoir Capacity. Adapted with permission from [14]. 2019, World Bank.

Total Available Number of Bodies Potential FPV Potential FPV Potential FPV
Continent Surface Area of Water Capacity with 1% Capacity with 5% Capacity with 10%
(km2 ) Examined Coverage (GWp) Coverage (GWp) Coverage (GWp)
Africa 101,130 724 101 506 1011
Asia 115,621 2941 116 578 1156
Europe 20,424 1082 20 102 204
North America 126,017 2248 126 630 1260
Oceania 4991 254 5 25 50
South America 36,271 299 36 181 363
Total 404,454 6648 404 2022 4044

Given the research conducted to date on FPV, it is shown that there is large potential for
FPV globally. The world’s first development guidelines for FPV were released in March 2021
by Det Norske Veritas (DNV) [91]. The document contains guidelines, recommendations,
and requirements for the design, development, operation, and decommissioning of FPV
installation. In areas with high population density, where land is scarce and expensive, FPV
seems to be a great solution for obtaining clean energy. It is also beneficial for water-scarce
countries as it will reduce water evaporation from reservoirs that hold water for human use.
Through research into coupling FPV with HPP it seems to be a great solution for countries
that already have HPPs installed. The reservoirs for HPPs provide ample space for FPV
and are already connected to the grid, making it simple to transfer the solar energy onto
the grid. With the development of FPV occurring at such a rapid rate, it is resulting in
knowledge gaps, especially around the impacts on water quality. This is an area that needs
more research and analysis because if FPV has a large negative impact on water quality
and habitational water ecosystems then it is not a solution to help move towards a more
sustainable future. GPV is currently a leading renewable energy technology, but research is
showing that FPV could be a solution to the issues of GPV. Table 5 shows a comparison of
some key differences between GPV and FPV.

Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of FPV and GPV.

Topic GPV FPV

Increased cost because of need for floats, anchoring, mooring,
Cost High land costs
and plant design
Dropping costs Higher perceived risk because of technology maturity
Efficiency Increased efficiency due to cooling
Amount of soiling depends on the
Soiling Lowered soiling compared to GPV
surrounding land
Amount of shading depends on the
Shading Limited shading
surrounding landscape

6. Conclusions
An in-depth review of the status of FPV has been conducted. The review concludes
that while there are many benefits of FPV, there are also disadvantages that are known, and
some disadvantages that may have not yet been discovered. Advantages of FPV installation
over a GPV system include cooling due to the proximity to water, no land use requirements,
reduced water evaporation, reduced soiling, reduced algal blooms, and easy installation.
Known disadvantages include humidity effects on the PV modules and unknown effects
on water quality. Sites best suited for FPV are human-made bodies of water including
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 765

reservoirs, irrigation ponds, and industrial ponds. There is great potential for FPV to be
integrated in a hybrid system with reservoirs of HPPs. The already existing grid access and
reduced water evaporation are the two main advantages of a hybrid system. Countries
with high population densities are looking toward FPV as a way of acquiring a renewable
energy source without using valuable land. It is expected that FPV installation will continue
to double yearly and provide clean energy globally and research will continue to ensure
there are no negative effects.

7. Future Scope
While there are a lot of positive results from FPV, there are still questions regarding
the environmental impact. There has not been extensive research on the negative effects
FPV bears on the water they are installed on and this is an area that needs to be focused on
in research moving forward. The majority of FPV installations have been in fresh water.
Marine environments are more difficult to install FPV due to the difficult conditions that
the panels must endure (waves, currents, tides, winds, salt). This is an area that will require
further research and development. The future of FPV is looking strong, but there remains
further researh to be conducted.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.E. and A.G.; methodology, L.E.; validation, L.E. and
A.G.; investigation, L.E.; resources, L.E.; data curation, L.E.; writing—original draft preparation,
L.E.; writing—review and editing, L.E. and A.G; visualization, L.E.; supervision, A.G.; project
administration, A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the department of Renewable Energy Engineering at the
University of Exeter, Penryn Campus for their support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

FPV floating photovoltaic

GPV ground-mounted photovoltaic
HPP hydroelectric power plant
IEA International Energy Agency
PV photovoltaic
SPV submerged photovoltaic

References
1. Olabi, A.G.; Abdelkareem, M.A. Renewable energy and climate change. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 158, 112111. [CrossRef]
2. Nundy, S.; Ghosh, A.; Mesloub, A.; Albaqawy, G.A.; Alnaim, M.M. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on socio-economic, energy-
environment and transport sector globally and sustainable development goal (SDG). J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127705. [CrossRef]
3. Ghosh, A. Possibilities and Challenges for the Inclusion of the Electric Vehicle (EV) to Reduce the Carbon Footprint in the
Transport Sector: A Review. Energies 2020, 13, 2602. [CrossRef]
4. IEA; Solar, P.V. Technical Report; IEA: Paris, France, 2021.
5. IRENA. Smart Electrification with Renewables: Driving the Transformation of Energy Services; Technical Report; International
Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2022.
6. Ghosh, A. Fenestration integrated BIPV (FIPV): A review. Solar Energy 2022, 237, 213–230. [CrossRef]
7. Crago, C.L. Economics of Solar Power. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford,
UK, 2021. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, Y.k.; Kirkerud, J.G.; Bolkesjø, T.F. Balancing GHG mitigation and land-use conflicts: Alternative Northern European energy
system scenarios. Appl. Energy 2022, 310, 118557. [CrossRef]
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 766

9. Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M.; Saboor, S.; Ghosh, A.; Sheikhnejad, Y. Floating PVs in Terms of Power Generation, Environmental Aspects,
Market Potential, and Challenges. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2626. [CrossRef]
10. Goswami, A.; Sadhu, P.; Goswami, U.; Sadhu, P.K. Floating solar power plant for sustainable development: A techno-economic
analysis. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2019, 38. [CrossRef]
11. Dwivedi, P.; Sudhakar, K.; Soni, A.; Solomin, E.; Kirpichnikova, I. Advanced cooling techniques of P.V. modules: A state of art.
Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2020, 21, 100674. [CrossRef]
12. Sahu, A.; Yadav, N.; Sudhakar, K. Floating photovoltaic power plant: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 66, 815–824.
[CrossRef]
13. Liu, H.; Krishna, V.; Lun Leung, J.; Reindl, T.; Zhao, L. Field experience and performance analysis of floating PV technologies in
the tropics. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2018, 26, 957–967. [CrossRef]
14. Solar Energy Institute of Singapore. Where Sun Meets Water: Floating Solar Market Report; Technical report; World Bank: Washington,
DC, USA, 2019.
15. Cazzaniga, R.; Rosa-Clot, M. The booming of floating PV. Sol. Energy 2021, 219, 3–10. [CrossRef]
16. Almeida, R.M.; Schmitt, R.; Grodsky, S.M.; Flecker, A.S.; Gomes, C.P.; Zhao, L.; Liu, H.; Barros, N.; Kelman, R.; McIntyre, P.B.
Floating solar power could help fight climate change—Let us get it right. Nature 2022, 606, 246–249. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Ma, C.; Wu, R.; Su, H. Design of floating photovoltaic power plant and its environmental effects in different stages: A review. J.
Renew. Sustain. Energy 2021, 13, 062701. [CrossRef]
18. Oliveira-Pinto, S.; Stokkermans, J. Assessment of the potential of different floating solar technologies – Overview and analysis of
different case studies. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 211, 112747. [CrossRef]
19. Rosa-Clot, P. FPV and Environmental Compatibility. In Floating PV Plants; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020;
pp. 101–118. [CrossRef]
20. Alrashidi, H.; Issa, W.; Sellami, N.; Ghosh, A.; Mallick, T.K.; Sundaram, S. Performance assessment of cadmium telluride-based
semi-transparent glazing for power saving in façade buildings. Energy Build. 2020, 215, 109585. [CrossRef]
21. Alrashidi, H.; Ghosh, A.; Issa, W.; Sellami, N.; Mallick, T.K.; Sundaram, S. Thermal performance of semitransparent CdTe BIPV
window at temperate climate. Sol. Energy 2020, 195, 536–543. [CrossRef]
22. Alrashidi, H.; Ghosh, A.; Issa, W.; Sellami, N.; Mallick, T.K.; Sundaram, S. Evaluation of solar factor using spectral analysis for
CdTe photovoltaic glazing. Mater. Lett. 2019, 237, 332–335. [CrossRef]
23. Ghosh, A. Potential of building integrated and attached/applied photovoltaic (BIPV/BAPV) for adaptive less energy-hungry
building’s skin: A comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123343. [CrossRef]
24. Ghosh, A.; Bhandari, S.; Sundaram, S.; Mallick, T.K. Carbon counter electrode mesoscopic ambient processed & characterised
perovskite for adaptive BIPV fenestration. Renew. Energy 2020, 145, 2151–2158. [CrossRef]
25. Selvaraj, P.; Ghosh, A.; Mallick, T.K.; Sundaram, S. Investigation of semi-transparent dye-sensitized solar cells for fenestration
integration. Renew. Energy 2019, 141, 516–525. [CrossRef]
26. Ghosh, A.; Selvaraj, P.; Sundaram, S.; Mallick, T.K. The colour rendering index and correlated colour temperature of dye-sensitized
solar cell for adaptive glazing application. Sol. Energy 2018, 163, 537–544. [CrossRef]
27. Bhandari, S.; Ghosh, A.; Roy, A.; Mallick, T.K.; Sundaram, S. Compelling temperature behaviour of carbon-perovskite solar cell
for fenestration at various climates. Chem. Eng. J. Adv. 2022, 10, 100267. [CrossRef]
28. Sharma, P.; Muni, B.; Sen, D. Design parameters of 10kw floating solar power plant. In Proceedings of the National Conference
on Renewable Energy and Environment (NCREE-2015), Ghaziabad, India, 1 May 2015; Volume 2.
29. Bellini, E. Financial Close for 181 MW Floating PV Plant in Taiwan-pv Magazine International Magazine International.
Available online: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/04/22/financial-close-for-181-mw-floating-pv-plant-in-taiwan/
(accessed on 14 March 2022).
30. Lightsource. Lightsource’s First Floating Solar Project. Available online: https://www.lightsourcebp.com/uk/2016/03/
lightsources-first-floating-solar-project-nears-completion/ (accessed 15 March 2022) .
31. Charles Lawrence Kamuyu, W.; Lim, J.; Won, C.; Ahn, H. Prediction Model of Photovoltaic Module Temperature for Power
Performance of Floating PVs. Energies 2018, 11, 447. [CrossRef]
32. Bayrak, F.; Oztop, H.F.; Selimefendigil, F. Experimental study for the application of different cooling techniques in photovoltaic
(PV) panels. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 212, 112789. [CrossRef]
33. Cazzaniga, R.; Cicu, M.; Rosa-Clot, M.; Rosa-Clot, P.; Tina, G.; Ventura, C. Floating photovoltaic plants: Performance analysis and
design solutions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1730–1741. [CrossRef]
34. Dörenkämper, M.; Wahed, A.; Kumar, A.; de Jong, M.; Kroon, J.; Reindl, T. The cooling effect of floating PV in two different
climate zones: A comparison of field test data from the Netherlands and Singapore. Sol. Energy 2021, 219, 15–23. [CrossRef]
35. Pakyala, H.B.S. Floating Solar Potential Assessment. In Proceedings of the 2021 13th IEEE PES Asia Pacific Power & Energy
Engineering Conference (APPEEC), Kerela, India, 23 November 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021, pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
36. Gurfude, S.S.; Bhavitha, C.; Tanusha, D.; Mounika, D.; Gouda Kake, S.P.; SaiSudha, M.; Kulkarni, P.S. Techno-economic Analysis
of 1 MWp Floating Solar PV Plant. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE First International Conference on Smart Technologies for
Power, Energy and Control (STPEC), Nagpur, India, 25–26 September 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020, pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
37. Sacramento, E.M.d.; Carvalho, P.C.; Araújo, J.C.; Riffel, D.B.; Corrêa, R.M.D.C.; Pinheiro Neto, J.S. Scenarios for use of floating
photovoltaic plants in Brazilian reservoirs. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2015, 9, 1019–1024. [CrossRef]
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 767

38. Choi, J.h.; Hyun, J.; Lee, W.; Bhang, B.G.; Min, Y.K.; Ahn, H.K. Power performance of high density photovoltaic module using
energy balance model under high humidity environment. Sol. Energy 2021, 219, 50–57. [CrossRef]
39. Abdelal, Q. Floating PV; an assessment of water quality and evaporation reduction in semi-arid regions. Int. J. Low-Carbon
Technol. 2021, 16, 732–739. [CrossRef]
40. Farrar, L.W.; Bahaj, A.B.S.; James, P.; Anwar, A.; Amdar, N. Floating solar PV to reduce water evaporation in water stressed
regions and powering water pumping: Case study Jordan. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 260, 115598. [CrossRef]
41. Abid, M.; Abid, Z.; Sagin, J.; Murtaza, R.; Sarbassov, D.; Shabbir, M. Prospects of floating photovoltaic technology and its
implementation in Central and South Asian Countries. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 1755–1762. [CrossRef]
42. Agrawal, K.K.; Jha, S.K.; Mittal, R.K.; Vashishtha, S. Assessment of floating solar PV (FSPV) potential and water conservation:
Case study on Rajghat Dam in Uttar Pradesh, India. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2022, 66, 287–295. [CrossRef]
43. Fereshtehpour, M.; Javidi Sabbaghian, R.; Farrokhi, A.; Jovein, E.B.; Ebrahimi Sarindizaj, E. Evaluation of factors governing the
use of floating solar system: A study on Iran’s important water infrastructures. Renew. Energy 2021, 171, 1171–1187. [CrossRef]
44. Exley, G.; Hernandez, R.; Page, T.; Chipps, M.; Gambro, S.; Hersey, M.; Lake, R.; Zoannou, K.S.; Armstrong, A. Scientific and
stakeholder evidence-based assessment: Ecosystem response to floating solar photovoltaics and implications for sustainability.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 152, 111639. [CrossRef]
45. Nagananthini, R.; Nagavinothini, R.; Balamurugan, P. Floating Photovoltaic Thin Film Technology—A Review. In Intelligent
Manufacturing and Energy Sustainability; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 329–338. [CrossRef]
46. Haas, J.; Khalighi, J.; de la Fuente, A.; Gerbersdorf, S.; Nowak, W.; Chen, P.J. Floating photovoltaic plants: Ecological impacts
versus hydropower operation flexibility. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 206, 112414. [CrossRef]
47. Kumar, N.; Kanchikere, J.; Mallikarjun, p. Floatovoltaics: Towards Improved Energy Efficiency, Land and Water Management.
Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 1089–1096.
48. Trapani, K.; Millar, D.L.; Smith, H.C. Novel offshore application of photovoltaics in comparison to conventional marine renewable
energy technologies. Renew. Energy 2013, 50, 879–888. [CrossRef]
49. Hafeez, H.; Kashif Janjua, A.; Nisar, H.; Shakir, S.; Shahzad, N.; Waqas, A. Techno-economic perspective of a floating solar PV
deployment over urban lakes: A case study of NUST lake Islamabad. Sol. Energy 2022, 231, 355–364. [CrossRef]
50. Chowdhury, R.; Aowal, M.A.; Mostafa, S.M.G.; Rahman, M.A. Floating Solar Photovoltaic System: An Overview and their
Feasibility at Kaptai in Rangamati. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Power and Renewable Energy Conference,
Karunagappally, India, 30 October–1 November 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020, pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
51. Ghosh, A. Soiling Losses: A Barrier for India’s Energy Security Dependency from Photovoltaic Power. Challenges 2020, 11, 9.
[CrossRef]
52. Chanchangi, Y.N.; Ghosh, A.; Sundaram, S.; Mallick, T.K. Angular dependencies of soiling loss on photovoltaic performance in
Nigeria. Sol. Energy 2021, 225, 108–121. [CrossRef]
53. Sengupta, S.; Ghosh, A.; Mallick, T.K.; Chanda, C.K.; Saha, H.; Bose, I.; Jana, J.; Sengupta, S. Model Based Generation Prediction
of SPV Power Plant Due to Weather Stressed Soiling. Energies 2021, 14, 5305. [CrossRef]
54. Chanchangi, Y.N.; Ghosh, A.; Baig, H.; Sundaram, S.; Mallick, T.K. Soiling on PV performance influenced by weather parameters
in Northern Nigeria. Renew. Energy 2021, 180, 874–892. [CrossRef]
55. Enaganti, P.K.; Bhattacharjee, A.; Ghosh, A.; Chanchangi, Y.N.; Chakraborty, C.; Mallick, T.K.; Goel, S. Experimental investigations
for dust build-up on low-iron glass exterior and its effects on the performance of solar PV systems. Energy 2022, 239, 122213.
[CrossRef]
56. Nundy, S.; Ghosh, A.; Mallick, T.K. Hydrophilic and Superhydrophilic Self-Cleaning Coatings by Morphologically Varying ZnO
Microstructures for Photovoltaic and Glazing Applications. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 1033–1039. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Nundy, S.; Ghosh, A.; Tahir, A.; Mallick, T.K. Role of Hafnium Doping on Wetting Transition Tuning the Wettability Properties of
ZnO and Doped Thin Films: Self-Cleaning Coating for Solar Application. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2021, 13. [CrossRef]
58. IEA. Hydropower; Technical Report; IEA: Paris, France, 2021.
59. ICOLD. World Register of Dams General Synthesis. 2019. Available online: https://www.icold-cigb.org/GB/world_register/
general_synthesis.asp (accessed on 22 March 2022)
60. Farfan, J.; Breyer, C. Combining Floating Solar Photovoltaic Power Plants and Hydropower Reservoirs: A Virtual Battery of Great
Global Potential. Energy Procedia 2018, 155, 403–411. [CrossRef]
61. Cazzaniga, R.; Rosa-Clot, M.; Rosa-Clot, P.; Tina, G.M. Integration of PV floating with hydroelectric power plants. Heliyon 2019,
5, e01918. [CrossRef]
62. Lee, N.; Grunwald, U.; Rosenlieb, E.; Mirletz, H.; Aznar, A.; Spencer, R.; Cox, S. Hybrid floating solar photovoltaics-hydropower
systems: Benefits and global assessment of technical potential. Renew. Energy 2020, 162, 1415–1427. [CrossRef]
63. Quaranta, E.; Rosa-Clot, M.; Pistocchi, A. The Role of Floating PV in the Retrofitting of Existing Hydropower Plants and Evapo-
ration Reduction. 2021. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuele-Quaranta/publication/35304317
4_The_role_of_floating_PV_in_the_retrofitting_of_existing_hydropower_plants_and_evaporation_reduction/links/60e6d6d4
1c28af345851e5f7/The-role-of-floating-PV-in-the-retrofitting-of-existing-hydropower-plants-and-evaporation-reduction.pdf
(accessed on 18 May 2022).
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 768

64. Asiaban, S.; Kayedpour, N.; Samani, A.E.; Bozalakov, D.; De Kooning, J.D.M.; Crevecoeur, G.; Vandevelde, L. Wind and Solar
Intermittency and the Associated Integration Challenges: A Comprehensive Review Including the Status in the Belgian Power
System. Energies 2021, 14, 2630. [CrossRef]
65. Zhou, Y.; Chang, F.J.; Chang, L.C.; Lee, W.D.; Huang, A.; Xu, C.Y.; Guo, S. An advanced complementary scheme of floating
photovoltaic and hydropower generation flourishing water-food-energy nexus synergies. Appl. Energy 2020, 275, 115389.
[CrossRef]
66. Gonzalez Sanchez, R.; Kougias, I.; Moner-Girona, M.; Fahl, F.; Jäger-Waldau, A. Assessment of floating solar photovoltaics
potential in existing hydropower reservoirs in Africa. Renew. Energy 2021, 169, 687–699. [CrossRef]
67. Mahmood, S.; Deilami, S.; Taghizadeh, S. Floating Solar PV and Hydropower in Australia: Feasibility, Future Investigations and
Challenges. In Proceedings of the 2021 31st Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC), Perth, WA, USA,
26–30 September 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021, pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
68. Miah, M.A.R.; Rahman, S.R.; Kabir, R. Techno-Economic Analysis of Floating Solar PV Integrating with Hydropower Plant in
Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Green Technologies Conference (GreenTech), Denver, CO, USA, 7–9 April 2021;
IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021, pp. 30–36. doi: 10.1109/GreenTech48523.2021.00016. [CrossRef]
69. Rasool, M.; Khan, M.A.; Tahir, S.; Khan, S.A.; Saeed, T.B.; Shahid, E. Integration of Floating Solar PV (FSPV) with Proposed
Hydroelectric Project: Technical Analysis of Taunsa Barrage for FSPV in South Punjab, Pakistan. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE
23rd International Multitopic Conference (INMIC), Bahawalpur, Pakistan, 5–7 November 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020,
pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
70. Silvério, N.M.; Barros, R.M.; Tiago Filho, G.L.; Redón-Santafé, M.; dos Santos, I.F.S.; de Mello Valerio, V.E. Use of floating PV
plants for coordinated operation with hydropower plants: Case study of the hydroelectric plants of the São Francisco River basin.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 171, 339–349. [CrossRef]
71. Ciel and Terre. Available online: https://dev.ciel-et-terre.net/ (accessed on 18 March 2022).
72. Hooper, T.; Armstrong, A.; Vlaswinkel, B. Environmental impacts and benefits of marine floating solar. Sol. Energy 2021,
219, 11–14. [CrossRef]
73. Swimsol. 2016. Available online: https://swimsol.com/solar-projects/floating-photovoltaic-offshore-solar-sea-power-pv-
modular-96kwp/ (accessed on 18 March 2022) .
74. Bellini, E. Norwegian Floating PV Specialist Ocean Sun Plans IPO-pv Magazine International. Available online: https://www.
pv-magazine.com/2020/10/12/norwegian-floating-pv-specialist-ocean-sun-plans-ipo/ (accessed on 18 March 2022).
75. Oceans of Energy. A World’s First: Offshore Floating Solar Farm Installed at the Dutch North Sea-Oceans of Energy.
Available online: https://oceansofenergy.blue/a-worlds-first-offshore-floating-solar-farm-installed-at-the-dutch-north-sea/
(accessed on 18 March 2022).
76. Oceans Sun. Available online: https://oceansun.no/ (accessed on 18 March 2022).
77. Piana, V.; Kahl, A.; Saviozzi, C.; Schumann, R. Floating PV in mountain artificial lakes: A checklist for site assessment. Renew.
Energy Environ. Sustain. 2021, 6, 4. [CrossRef]
78. Romande Energie. Available online: https://www.romande-energie.ch/images/files/communiques_archives/210107
_communique_en.pdf (accessed 20 March 2022).
79. Kahl, A.; Dujardin, J.; Lehning, M. The bright side of PV production in snow-covered mountains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019,
116, 1162–1167. [CrossRef]
80. Eyring, N.; Kittner, N. High-resolution electricity generation model demonstrates suitability of high-altitude floating solar power.
iScience 2022, 25, 104394. [CrossRef]
81. Skumanich, A.; Mints, P.; Ghiassi, M. Considerations for the use of PV and PT for sea water desalination: The viability of floating
solar for this application. In Proceedings of the 2020 47th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Calgary, ON, Canada,
15 June–21 August 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020, pp. 633–635. [CrossRef]
82. Tiwari, M.; Sruthy, V.; Preetha, P.K. Foldable Floating Solar Array for Electric Vessel. In Proceedings of the 2020 Third International
Conference on Smart Systems and Inventive Technology (ICSSIT), Tirunelveli, India, 20–22 August 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2020, pp. 586–593. [CrossRef]
83. Klimley, A.P.; Putman, N.F.; Keller, B. A.; Noakes, D. A call to assess the impacts of electromagnetic fields from subsea cables on
the movement ecology of marine migrants. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2021, 3, e436. [CrossRef]
84. Enaganti, P.K.; Dwivedi, P.K.; Sudha, R.; Srivastava, A.K.; Goel, S. Underwater Characterization and Monitoring of Amorphous
and Monocrystalline Solar Cells in Diverse Water Settings. IEEE Sens. J. 2020, 20, 2730–2737. [CrossRef]
85. Jamal, M.A.; Muaddi, J.A. Solar energy at various depths below a water surface. Int. J. Energy Res. 1990, 14, 859–867. [CrossRef]
86. Jenkins, P.; Messenger, S.; Trautz, K.; Maximenko, S.; Goldstein, D.; Scheiman, D.; Walters, R. High band gap solar cells for
underwater Photovoltaic applications. In Proceedings of the 2012 38th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Austin, TX,
USA, 3–8 June 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 2061–2064. [CrossRef]
87. Enaganti, P.K.; Soman, S.; Devan, S.S.; Pradhan, S.C.; Srivastava, A.K.; Pearce, J.M.; Goel, S. Dye-sensitized solar cells as promising
candidates for underwater photovoltaic applications. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2022, 30, 632–639. [CrossRef]
88. Clot, M.R.; Rosa-Clot, P.; Tina, G.M. Submerged PV Solar Panel for Swimming Pools: SP3. Energy Procedia 2017, 134, 567–576.
[CrossRef]
Clean Technol. 2022, 4 769

89. Spencer, R.S.; Macknick, J.; Aznar, A.; Warren, A.; Reese, M.O. Floating Photovoltaic Systems: Assessing the Technical Potential
of Photovoltaic Systems on Man-Made Water Bodies in the Continental United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 1680–1689. .
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
90. O’neil, C. Small City Sets Example for Floating Solar, Empowered by NREL Data Set. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/
news/program/2022/small-city-sets-example-for-floating-solar-empowered-by-nrel-data-set.html (accessed 22 March 2022).
91. Det Norske Veritas (DNV). Design, Development and Operation of Floating Solar Photovoltaic Systems. Technical Report.
Available online: https://www.dnv.com/energy/standards-guidelines/dnv-rp-0584-design-development-and-operation-of-
floating-solar-photovoltaic-systems.html (accessed on 18 May 2022).