Evaluating the performance of four types of photovoltaic panels in Antarctica's extreme environment

dc.contributor.authorDas, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorArslan, Erhan
dc.contributor.authorAkpinar, Ebru
dc.contributor.authorIsiler, Dogac Baybars
dc.contributor.authorOzsoy, Burcu
dc.date.accessioned2026-08-12T18:11:29Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentFırat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractThis study experimentally evaluated the performance of four different photovoltaic (PV) systems on Horseshoe Island in Antarctica. The experiment, conducted near the Turkish Scientific Research Camp, examined the efficiencies of monocrystalline, polycrystalline, flexible, and transparent PV panels under summer conditions, while real-time meteorological data such as solar radiation, temperature, humidity, and wind speed were recorded. The power output and surface temperatures of the panels were analyzed, and energy and exergy efficiencies were calculated, along with assessments of environmental impact factors, the exergy sustainability index, and environmental-economic analyses. The power outputs obtained from the experiments were recorded as 14.2W, 13.0W, 12.9W, and 9.2W for monocrystalline, polycrystalline, flexible, and transparentpanels, respectively. The average surface temperatures were determined as 18.3 degrees C for monocrystalline, 18.2 degrees C for polycrystalline, 17.6 degrees C for flexible, and 16.5 degrees C for transparant panels. The highest energy efficiency was observed in the monocrystalline PV panel at 29.1 %, while the efficiencies of the other panels were calculated as 27.0 %, 27.5 %, and 21.5 %, with exergy efficiencies measured at 8.66 %, 8.39 %, 7.37 %, and 6.70 %, respectively. In the environmental analyses, the annual CO2 emission reduction was calculated, with the monocrystalline PV panel providing the highest savings at 4.1 tons. From an economic perspective, the monocrystalline PV panel was also found to be the most advantageous, with a cost of $59. Keywors: Antarctica, Horseshoe, solar panel, enegy-exergy, renewable energy.
dc.description.sponsorshipFimath;rat University Scientific Research Project Coordination (FUBAP) [MF24.108]; [TUEBITAK 122G256]; [TUEBITAK 122N649]
dc.description.sponsorshipThis study was carried out within the scope of the projects numbered TUEBITAK 122G256 and TUEBITAK 122N649. In addition, the APC of this manuscript was covered by F & imath;rat University Scientific Research Project Coordination (FUBAP) project number MF24.108.
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.csite.2025.106007
dc.identifier.issn2214-157X
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-6512-4464
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-7540-7935
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-4320-1796
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-0666-9189
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-4143-9226
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-86000791006
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2025.106007
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11508/63693
dc.identifier.volume69
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001446467200001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofCase Studies in Thermal Engineering
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260511
dc.titleEvaluating the performance of four types of photovoltaic panels in Antarctica's extreme environment
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar