## 3 Results  
### Floating Plant Analysis  
Block diagram of the floating SPV plant is shown in Figure 8. The GHI, POA irradiation and shaded irradiation from the floating plant obtained by month is given below in Figure 9a. One can see that the radiation increased from January to March. It then decreased from March to December. About 200.2 kWh of GHI was present during the month of March. The least amount of GHI can be seen in the month of November where the GHI was 130.3 kWh/m\({}^{2}\). A similar trend is seen for POA and shaded radiation. It can be seen that the POA was highest in March, at about 206.6 kWh/m\({}^{2}\), while it was lowest during June and July with about 145.4 kWh/m\({}^{2}\). The total energy extracted from the grid and the nameplate energy is given below in Figure 9b. The nameplate kWh is the energy that should be generated under the ideal case. There are a many losses associated with a floating PV system. such as AC system losses, inverter losses, charging losses, wiring losses, mismatch losses, temperature losses, shading losses, reflection losses, soiling losses and irradiance losses. The highest loss was due to reflection losses of about 3.2%. There were also a significant number of losses due to soiling. There were also significant losses due to the SMA Sunny Tripower 24,000 TL-US inverter. The inverter has an approximate  
Figure 7: Layout of the PV site.  
efficiency of 98% and thus there was about 2% loss due to the inverter. Figure 9c shows the distribution of different losses and Figure 9d describes the performance ratio over different months of a year.  
Figure 8: Floating plant block diagram.  
Figure 9: **(a)** GHI, POA and shaded radiation; (b)** nameplate energy and grid energy; (c) loss % age; and (d) performance ratio.  
The total energy provided to the grid was 2387.89 MWh while the nameplate energy was 2800.03 MWh. This is because there were various losses. Firstly, there were losses due to output at irradiance level which led to a decrease in the energy to grid of about 0.4%. Then there were losses due to cell temperature which led to losses of up to \(-9.2\%\). There was a further decrease of up to \(-2.9\%\) due to mismatch losses. Furthermore, when the optimal DC output is considered, there was a further decrease leading to 2450.03 MWh of energy. When the constrained DC output is considered, there was a further reduction in the actual energy provided to the grid of 0.1% leading to 2447.69 MWh. Considering the inverter output, there was a further decrease in energy of up to 2.0%. Thus, the final energy provided by the floating PV system to the grid was 2387.89 MWh.  
The actual energy generated was 2387.89 MWh while the energy generated under the ideal case was 2800.03 MWh. Thus, the performance ratio of the floating PV system was 0.8528 and the performance ratio was 0.8528. The calculation of the performance ratio of the PV system was also calculated for every month and it is given in Figure 9d. The performance ratio of the PV system was also calculated for every month and is given in Figure 9d. The above graph in Figure 9d shows the performance ratio by each month. The highest performance ratio was given during the month of December with a performance ratio of 0.87. It can be seen that the performance ratio was high at the beginning of the year with a performance ratio of 0.86 in January. The performance ratio slowly decreased until March where the performance ratio was 0.83. It increased in April where the performance ratio was 0.84 but then it again decreased during the month of May where the performance ratio was 0.84. It then increased after the month of May gradually until December where it reached 0.87.