Converting a Water Pressurized Network in a Small Town into a Solar Power Water System

Abstract

The efficient management of water and energy is one challenge for managers of water pressurized systems. In a scheme with high pressure on the environment, solar power appears as an opportunity for nonrenewable energy expenditure reduction and emissions elimination. In Spain, new legislation that eliminates old taxes associated with solar energy production, a drop in the cost of solar photovoltaic modules, and higher values of irradiance has converted solar powered water systems into one of the trendiest topics in the water industry. One alternative to store energy (compulsory in standalone photovoltaic systems) when managing pressurized urban water networks is the use of head tanks (tanks accumulate water during the day and release it at night). This work intends to compare the pressurized network running as a standalone system and a hybrid solution that incorporates solar energy supply and electricity grids. The indicator used for finding the best choice is the net present value for the solar power water system lifespan. This study analyzed the possibility of transferring the energy surplus obtained at midday to the electricity grid, a circumstance introduced in the Spanish legislation since April 2019. We developed a real case study in a small town in the Alicante Province, whose findings provide planning policymakers with very useful information in this case and similar case studies
Keywords: standalone water pressurized networks; net present value; head tanks; surplus energy.

Full text

Energies 2020, 13, 4013; doi:10.3390/en13154013 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Article
Converting a Water Pressurized Network in a Small
Town into a Solar Power Water System
Miguel Ángel Pardo
1,
*, Héctor Fernández
2
and Antonio Jodar-Abellan
3
1
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain
2
Ciclo Hídrico, Diputación de Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain; h.fernandez@diputacionalicante.es
3
University Institute of Water and Environmental Sciences, University of Alicante, 03690 Alicante, Spain;
antonio.jodar@ua.es
* Correspondence: mpardo@ua.es
Received: 8 July 2020; Accepted: 1 August 2020; Published: 4 August 2020
Abstract: The efficient management of water and energy is one challenge for managers of water
pressurized systems. In a scheme with high pressure on the environment, solar power appears as
an opportunity for nonrenewable energy expenditure reduction and emissions elimination. In
Spain, new legislation that eliminates old taxes associated with solar energy production, a drop in
the cost of solar photovoltaic modules, and higher values of irradiance has converted solar
powered water systems into one of the trendiest topics in the water industry. One alternative to
store energy (compulsory in standalone photovoltaic systems) when managing pressurized urban
water networks is the use of head tanks (tanks accumulate water during the day and release it at
night). This work intends to compare the pressurized network running as a standalone system and
a hybrid solution that incorporates solar energy supply and electricity grids. The indicator used for
finding the best choice is the net present value for the solar power water system lifespan. This
study analyzed the possibility of transferring the energy surplus obtained at midday to the
electricity grid, a circumstance introduced in the Spanish legislation since April 2019. We
developed a real case study in a small town in the Alicante Province, whose findings provide
planning policymakers with very useful information in this case and similar case studies
Keywords: standalone water pressurized networks; net present value; head tanks; surplus energy
1. Introduction
Water and energy are limited resources and their sustainable management is a formidable
challenge for water utility managers. The population increase of 2–3 billion of people over the next
40 years [1] will aggravate the water shortage question, and many studies have shown that global
water demand will continue increasing at these rates until 2050, up to an increase of 20 to 30% above
the present level of water use [2,3].
The energy problem is not a minor issue. The overall electricity need for the power sector will
expand from 24,310 TWh in 2015 to 48,800 TWh by 2050 [4]. The present policy scenario illustrates
the results of the world continuing along its present path, with no other changes in management,
with an energy requirement rise of 1.3% each year to 2040 [5]. The International Energy Agency
reported that energy use in the water sector was 4% of global electricity in 2017 and 2019 [5,6], in
Europe, 3% [7] and 5.8% [8], or 4–5% [9] in Spain. New solar photovoltaic (PV) system installations
increased their global energy production from 29.5 (2012) to 107 (2018) GW [10], encouraged by a
shift to further large-scale utility systems, changes in legislation, and an international devaluation of
PV system prices [11]. The annual establishment in 2018 was about 5% greater than in 2017,
enlarging the PV power to 505 GW at the end of 2018 [12].

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 2 of 26
Solar power is an environmentally friendly opportunity because of the energy consumption
and emissions reduction [13–15]. At present, the European Commission states the emissions
reduction for 2050 as one of its significant targets [16]. The European Union is pursuing the lines
“Pathways for the transition to a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy and strategic
priorities”. The production costs of photovoltaic modules have reduced 30–60% in 10 years [17], and
the high oil prices have favored the expansion of the use of this technology by decision-makers and
professionals. The growth in electricity prices (0.0885 €/kWh in 2004 to 0.176 €/kWh in 2017) [18] has
also helped to reinforce this profitability.
Investigators and practitioners have developed projects optimizing PV systems [19,20] and
studied the influence of meteorological variables [21–23]. Researchers have presented procedures in
photovoltaic generation forecasting to mitigate uncertainty [24–26], with the aim to incorporate the
spatial correlation of PV modules [27] or reducing fuel consumption in a hybrid system (with a
diesel generator and photovoltaic resources) [28]. In the water industry, many works have been
performed in pressurized water networks [19,29–31] and in pressurized irrigation networks [32–34]
where the energy consumption profiles influence the PV installation [35–37]. Many approaches have
focused on energy production optimizing the tilt angle [38–41], by analyzing the shadows’ influence
on this energy production [42–44], or obtaining the influence of cleaning in energy production [45],
while others have focused on the viability of energy storage in batteries [20,44,46,47] or the
maximization of the battery charge [48] or the influence of electric cost in the batteries’ dimension
and feasibility [49]. Battery storage methods have been shown to be the most effective choice for the
cost study presented with the lowest payback periods, but we should also consider their
management and replacement [48,50]. Some works have dealt with coupling water consumption
and energy production [51–53] and the transformation into a standalone direct solar waterpower
system (SPWS) [54–57].
Other authors have proposed a life cycle assessment for these solar photovoltaic modules
[58,59] or an economic prioritization for PV installation alternatives [60,61] to reduce the payback
period (time needed to reimburse the funds spent). Manufacturers have quantified the PV modules’
performance at 90% after 10 years and around 80% after 25 years [62]. This technique can be applied
in urban water pressurized networks (WPN) to find the best choice when the manager has to decide
between two common alternatives, energy-storing energy in batteries [63–65] or tanks [66], when
they convert the WPN in a standalone system from electricity grids [67]. Some approaches also
consider hybrid results (the electricity grids vs. photovoltaic and diesel generators) [68,69].
In April 2019, the Spanish government approved RD 244/2019, a law regulating the
administrative, technical, and economic conditions for the self-expenditure of electrical energy. It
encourages self-consumption of electricity as it allows PV installation for one or more consumers to
exploit economies of scale and derogate old taxes such as the so-called “sun tax” [70]. The
opportunity of injecting the surplus of electricity produced into the electricity grid has emerged as
an opportunity to enlarge energy and cost savings.
This work intends to assess a utility manager in a real town in Alicante Province (Spain). This
utility analyzes the energy production in the PV panel and the energy required to supply water to
the population. We analyzed alternatives from converting the WPN into a SPWS with energy
storage in tanks, and a hybrid solution supplying energy from PV arrays in the irradiance hours and
electricity grids. We compared which of these opportunities was better and how to embrace them
[71]. Earlier results suggest that no universal solution exists in this problem. Energy consumption
depends on many parameters (among them, the network layout, water use, etc.), and the energy
production is dependent on latitude, temperature, azimuth, tilt angle, etc. We expect to gain fresh
ideas and challenges from a broader perspective form working in real WPNs. In earlier research, we
found that seasonal energy expenditure in a WPN is less dependent than the energy production
variation [72–74]. To highlight this, the simulation showed that December is the most
disadvantageous month in these latitudes. The head reservoir is water storage (it maintains supply
or emergencies) and an energy storage system [75,76], but they present inconveniences on higher

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 3 of 26
water age. The tank option is truly energy-hungry [77] as pumps should fill the reservoir in a brief
time (those high irradiation values). We intend to find the restrictions influencing these results.
The hybrid result involves lower monetary preserves (the service must pay for the electric
expenditure). We can decide the amount of PV modules in which the WPN cannot absorb the entire
energy supplied. Higher numbers of PV modules involve proportional investment, but not
economic savings. The result is that the net present value for the SPWS lifespan diminishes and this
choice becomes less viable. We assumed an excess of electricity provided (and inserted into the
electricity network) and their cost savings to show how much it affects our question.
We studied an urban WPN (Case 0; pumps powered by electricity grids) the scenario that
appears when PV modules feed pumping devices. We changed the WPN into a SWPS storing energy
in a head tank (Case I) into a system that incorporated hybrid solutions (Case II; PV modules supply
energy during sunlight and electricity grids at nights). We determined energy savings by calculating
the response of each alternative with hydraulic models and proposed a discrete optimization
problem where the greatest net present value for the SPWS lifespan was the most effective choice.
Finally, we analyzed (Case III) the economic savings of transferring the energy excess, and which of
them increased the net present value of the SPWS installation. This exercise demands a calibrated
hydraulic model in EPANET [78], so we worked out the energy expenditure in WPN with
UAEnergy software [79], and with the energy efficiency of the pump, we adjusted the energy
savings. Other constraints occur in the optimization problem as energy production changes;
therefore, the compensation tank should have sufficient volume to avoid overflows.
The rest of the work is organized as follows. Section 2.1 classifies the WPN according to their
use for calculating the energy production and its variation. Section 2.2 analyzes the energy
production fluctuation; Section 2.3 describes how to calculate the economic prioritization indicator,
and Section 2.4 shows the calculation process. Section 3 presents a real case study. Section 3.1
presents the input data, and Section 3.2 presents the key results. Finally, Section 4 shows our key
conclusions.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Types of Water Pressurized Distribution Networks
We present the cases found according to how we injected water into the system (Figure 1). Two
options appeared: direct pumping (without head tanks) and indirect water supply (throughout the
head tanks). We considered the first in [71], and we analyzed the second cases (indirect supply with
head tanks as a guarantee for emergencies) found according to the municipality water precedence.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 4 of 26
Figure 1. Cases found when planning to convert a water pressurized network into a PV supplied service.
-1 watersource
- More than 1 water
source (Purchase/Selling
freshwater, spring..)
WATER P RESSURIZED NETWORKS
Indirect
pumping
Direct
pumping
Solar + electricity grids
Standalone
Energy storage in tanks
Energy storage in batteries
(Pardo et. al., 2020)
Solar + electricity grids
Standalone, energy
storage in tanks

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 5 of 26
The first peculiarity is apparent considering the number of water resources, whether just one
(groundwater, superficial water bodies, desalination, etc.) or several sources. The second involves
acquiring/selling freshwater (irrigation communities or any alternative towns), thus solving the
water scarcity problems in springs (a common situation in Southeast Spain [80]).
2.1.1. Use of PV Arrays in a Standalone System
If a WPN is converted into a standalone full PV supplied system, energy is stored in the head
tanks. The PV modules must be dimensioned for the worst month (the month selected to size the
system). In this month, the pump can operate enough hours so as to not endanger the guarantee of
supply to the municipality. The indirect supply means not using batteries to save energy. Utility
operators accumulate energy in a head tank with a great capacity to satisfy water demands. During
the year, there may be periods with low values of solar irradiance, which involve low energy
production. If the solar radiation data are available for a long period, it will be possible to check the
highest number of days in which the radiation does not exceed the minimum necessary for the
pumping station to extract groundwater, in order to have a real reference of the autonomy that the
tank should have.
Equation (1) [71] serves to determine the volume accumulated to maintain supply at nights
(∀):
∀≥∀−∀ (1)
where ∀ is the city daily water demand and ∀ is the volume consumed when there is
sunlight and the PV arrays are supplying electricity to the water pumps.
2.1.2. Use of PV Modules in a Hybrid System
This alternative delivers fresh water to the town by consuming energy produced by PV
modules and taken from the grids. This is a favorable situation since it avoids a great deposit,
however, it requires flexibility when determining the number of photovoltaic modules and the
hours of operation supplied by PV modules. Thus, the manager must change the pumping hours to
reach higher savings.
Another outstanding improvement of the mixed pumping is the phenomenon that, during
summer, the peak values of energy costs (11:00 to 15:00) coincide with the higher solar radiation
available. The cheapest energy costs are from 00:00 to 08:00, a period in which there will never be
enough solar radiation for the pumps to handle. This means that solar pumping and grid-connected
pumping complement each other, and in case power from the grid is needed, it will be there in the
valley period (lowest costs).
2.1.3. Use of PV Modules in Several Source Supplies
Two options are available: the first is when the utility has the possibility of purchasing/selling
fresh water to others, and when the second water source is a spring with high variability.
The first option is to connect the WPN to an irrigation network (fed by groundwater from
aquifers) or linked to any alternative water source (remaining the opportunity of purchasing water).
The utility manager must advise on the water provisions and cost of water throughout the day (and
we do not handle the savings derived from the low-cost periods). Remarkably, to deal with the
possibility of selling water to other users during the summer; other uses increase water expenditure
(irrigation, urban consumption, etc.). The purchase of the excess volume can be a significant
budgetary income that would maximize future savings.
The second option appears when we connect the WPN to a spring. In these communities, the
major disadvantage is the unpredictable amount of water gathered from the spring, since they have
substantial fluctuations throughout the year. Frequently, the absence of rainfall during autumn can
cause water scarcity in winter and spring. If there is no alternative water resource connected to the
grid network or the possibility of purchasing water, the sequence of a standalone pump providing
water and spring is not workable.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 6 of 26
2.2. Monthly and Yearly Variation in Energy Produced in PV Arrays
Many factors influence energy production in PV modules (latitude, temperature, tilt angle,
azimuth, etc.). We dealt with the intensity of solar radiation as measured in the climatic station.
Many investigations have presented the solar irradiation level as being the lowest in winter and the
highest in summer [71,81,82]. As a result, the irradiation values in four months are far below the
average value. This measurement accumulates the energy losses due to sun irradiance (soiling, dirt,
and dust in solar modules, shading, orientation and tilt angle, air pollution, etc.). For instance,
energy losses in dirt and dust range from around 2–50% [83], while shading ranges around 10–70%
[84]. In our approach, we considered that PV cleaning maintenance is selected to avoid energy losses
from dirt and dust and PV arrays are not affected by shading losses through trees, houses, or other
bodies in proximity to PV modules. To reduce losses by temperature (8–15% in the module [85]), we
will install spacers to allow 15–20 mm of space between PV modules to allow air circulation and
cooling down the PV plant. Many investigations have proved the yearly average daily solar to
increase over the years [86,87]. However, we assumed that the observed irradiance remained
constant for the following years of analysis (this being a conservative hypothesis).
Water and energy demands are higher during summer and this period coincides with greater
energy production. The utility manager must conduct a hydraulic test (considering the network
details) to choose the most adverse month. The monthly water consumption (got measuring
monthly water demands) is considered with a (K) parameter. In our analysis, we estimated that
water consumption continues constantly for consecutive years. This is, again, a cautious hypothesis
as Spain has displayed a decline in water expenditure in cities in recent years (−17% between 2000
and 2014) [88].
2.3. Life Cycle Cost of PV Modules
This method intends to give information to utility managers when they analyzed whether it is
better to use batteries or tanks for energy storage or an intermediate mixed solution for several
WPN. We consider here all the future costs and benefits in ‘present-day’ values. As the value of
money changes with time, it would be unrealistic to add up the future costs as they stand. Future
costs and benefits must be discounted to their equivalent value in today’s money [89], called their
“net present value”. With these investments and future revenues, the objective function to maximize
from the present time (tp) to the time T∗ can be expressed as the net present value (NPV) (Equation
(2)):
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = − 𝐼⋅𝑒 − 𝑆⋅𝑒⋅
∗
⋅𝑑𝑡 (2)
where I is the investment performed in year zero and S is the monetary savings. We measured
the benefits of installing a SPWS plant in every installation for a common lifespan (usually T∗ = 25
years).
2.4. Calculation Process
Figure 2 reflects the computation process described by seven steps. First, we can retrieve the
irradiance inputs (Step 1). With the daily solar period data from Step 1 and the network model
(pumps, pipes, etc.), we can calculate the energy consumption and volume required (Step 2). We can
obtain the PV modules data (Step 3) and with the results gathered in Step 2, we can calculate the
number of PV panels, N (S modules in series and P modules in parallel). The new cases are described
in (Step 5), considering potential requirements (new diameters for pipelines, new pumps, increase
volume of the head tank, etc.) and can also determine the energy savings (Step 5) for each probable
situation (standalone SPWS or hybrid system). The latest situation (the WPN operates by taking
power from the electricity grids) incorporates many potential schemes, each of them with the
installation of several PV modules. Likewise, in Step 5, we can assess the purchases for the cases
mentioned before, and determine the net present value for every scheme in Step 6.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 7 of 26
Figure 2. Workflow for the process to calculate the net present value of the alternatives.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 8 of 26
Step 1: Data recovery of the monthly energy available in the location.
Step 2: Calculation of the pumps monthly electric demands, the water consumption, and the
worst month. This calculation requires Step 1 data and hydraulic data. The utility manager must
estimate if the pump can elevate the total volume of water to the tank, if the dimensions of the
pipeline are suitable, and if the tank size suffices the alternative procedure plan.
Step 3: PV modules data. We recovered the data from the PV modules selected for this analysis.
Step 4: Calculation of the number of PV arrays.
We calculated the minimum number of solar panels to produce more energy than the energy
demanded by the WPN [51,71]. This resulted in a 12 × 1 vector that showed the number of modules
for every month (the number of solar PV modules required being the greatest of these values). These
numbers do not depend on the energy storage system and represent the upper limit for the hybrid
case. If the SPWS can work as a standalone system, it makes little sense to work in a hybrid case.
Step 5: Generation of alternatives.
The first alternative was to convert the WPN as a standalone system accumulating energy in a
head tank. Later, we created some combinations with a different number of PV modules (varying
among the number of panels installed in parallel to allow connection) for the hybrid solution.
Step 6: Calculation of the economic input data.
We decided the investments because of the data proportioned in Step 3 and the economic
accumulations for the alternatives outlined before (Step 5). In our method, we do not deal with the
head tank or pipelines; these costs are included in every case. However, we incorporated new pump
costs and increasing tank capacity. In the hybrid alternative, each combination requires different
expenses (each combination involves a different number of PV modules) and savings (the more
energy is produced, the lower the energy consumed in the grids).
Step 7: Calculation of the net present value for the alternatives.
The greatest net present value at the time (𝑇∗; service life of the SPWS) is the most efficient
option. This alternative was selected for implementation.
3. Case Study
3.1. Input Data
3.1.1. Hydraulic Data
The problem requires a hydraulic model to bring the water and energy consumed by the
municipality (2000 inhabitants). These values depend on temperature, month, temperature, etc.
The hydraulic data required here are:
• The calibrated model is presented in Figure 3 (UTMX 754,387 and UTMY 4299526). We can
simulate the hydraulic behavior of the WPN. This file must contain the information to perform
hydraulic calculations without no error (elevation, base demands in nodes, roughness, diameter
and lengths in pipes, pump curves, size of tanks, etc.). We propose Case 0 as the current state in
which we supply pumps with electricity grids. The pumps start and stop as controlled by the
water level in the tank. The method to carry out simulations is meant to suit the EPANET
models for the water table depth (one model for each month) for Case 0.
• Pump ATURIAXRN6B (eight impellers). The curves of the pumps that show the head and
pump efficiency variation with flow rates are depicted in Equations (3) and (4):
𝐻(𝑚)= −0.0561𝑄− 1.0002𝑄 + 216.49 𝑄 (𝑙
𝑠) (3)
η(−) = −0.00006𝑄+ 0.0408𝑄 + 0.1618 𝑄 (𝑙
𝑠) (4)
• Water demand change per month (K). We calculate this variable by dividing each monthly
water consumption into the average water demand. Their values are shown in Table 1.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 9 of 26
• Consumption of the municipality: monthly volumes and “instant” flows (average flow every 30
min. This is necessary to calculate the average monthly consumption and daily patterns (Table
1).
• Water depths: Average of the dynamic level each month to calculate the pump head (Table 1).
• When the WPN operates as a SPWS, it requires pump SP-125-5-A (Grundfos). The curves of the
pumps are shown Equations (5) and (6):
𝐻(𝑚)= −0.0417𝑄− 0.3496𝑄 + 149.22 𝑄 (𝑙
𝑠) (5)
η(−) = −0.00098𝑄+ 0.06227𝑄 + 0.33794 𝑄 (𝑙
𝑠) (6)

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 10 of 26
Table 1. Water depth table, average temperature, and water consumption for each month.
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Water table depth (m) 52.76 51.79 49.44 58.13 58.21 57.17 56.27 55.35 57.84 57.95 57.63 59.08
Volume (m3/day) 866 876 892 902 916 1007 1105 1047 956 891 840 830
Average T (ª) 12.62 13.25 15.26 15.45 19.01 22.98 27.18 26.72 24.31 22.79 16.30 14.86
K parameter 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.99 1.09 1.19 1.13 1.03 0.96 0.91 0.90

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 11 of 26
Figure 3. Town water pressurized network.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 12 of 26
3.1.2. Irradiance Data
Solar radiation: The average radiation (W/m2) for each hour of the day, for each month of the
year. This is essential to design the area of the solar park and to calculate the hours that the pump
will work (and the frequency at which the inverter will work), depending on the month. We
measured the irradiation data at the Sagra Station, which is located close to the WPN. The irradiation
sensor was an SKU: 6450, and we integrated it into the Davis Pro 2 weather station. This station has
been running since 7 November 2018, and we recovered data every 30 min (Figure 4). High
irradiance months (July, June, May and August) can be seen in dark colors; the intermediate months
(in green); and the low irradiance months (November, December and January) in warm colors. The
peak sun hours (PSH) can be calculated from the irradiance data. The PSH ranges between 3.96 and
6.48 h in December and in July, respectively.
Figure 4. Monthly average irradiation (W/m2).
3.1.3. Economic Data
The economic data required to achieve the net present value are:
• Equivalent continuous discount rate (r = 2%).
• Investment (I0). We can calculate this amount for the option studied. PV modules, batteries, and
pumps costs (service life 25, 5 and 7 years individually) and some other costs are displayed in
Table 2. These costs are identical for every option planned (to allow for a comparison).
• Economic savings (Si) in contrast to the present situation (Case 0). To determine energy
expenditure costs, we have followed the Spanish tariff (which means determining power,
energy, and reactive energy with hourly and seasonal variation). We calculated the hydraulics
and the electricity bill.
Table 2. Costs for calculating investments.
Components Investment
PV array 0.29 (EUR/Peak Power)
Support structure 0.31 (EUR/Peak Power)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
678910111213141516171819202122
Irradiation (W/m2)
Hour of the day
Jul
Jun
May
Aug
Mar
Apr
Sep
Oct
Feb
Nov
Jan
Dec

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 13 of 26
Control system with safety cabinet 4252.67 (EUR)
Assembly and commissioning 0.21 (EUR/Peak Power)
Legalization process 1650 (EUR)
Material transport 0.05 (EUR/Peak Power)
Oversizing tank 100 (EUR/m3)
New pump 12,900 EUR
Battery 4330.58 EUR
The investment to install the PV panels (1.96 × 0.992 m2; an input data that depends on the PV
panels selected), structure, legalization process, etc. and tank increase is depicted in Table 2. These
numbers have been proportioned by a PV panel installer and a water utility in Spain. The modules
were poly-crystalline Canadian Solar 330P (nominal maximum power 330 W, operating voltage 37.2
V, operating current 8.8 A, and open-circuit voltage 45.6 V), and the tilt angle was 40° and oriented
to the south. The module efficiency was 19.67%, as declared by the manufacturer.
We retrieved the variable energy costs linked to the water distribution in the WPN at the
zero-scenario. These costs have been calculated considering the 3.0 Tariff. This tariff covers three
periods: the peak period extends for 4 h (prices are 0.111586 EUR/kWday and 0.112686 EUR/kWh);
the plain period extends for 12 h (0.066952 EUR/kWday and 0.091485 EUR/kWh); and the low period
extends for 8 h (0.044634 EUR/kWday and 0.064503 EUR/kWh). To further describe the reality, we
included a 5.11% tax (direct electricity tax), a renting electricity meter rate (0.197377 EUR/day), and
the value added tax (VAT) (21%, the general price in Spain).
3.2. Case Simulation
We present here the key cases that may appear in the town WPN (Case I, II, and III), while Case
0 represents the current state (electricity supplied by grids). We simulated the cases considering their
monthly variation (we developed twelve hydraulic simulation models). In our approach, we did not
consider the trackers (mechanical devices to move the modules). We computed the monthly energy
consumption and production to confirm December as the most unfavorable month. This month had
the lowest ratio between solar radiation and water needs, which coincides with earlier works [71].
When we used solar energy (Cases I, II, and III) in December, the low values of solar radiation
involved means that the pump can work enough hours to supply the municipality (Figure 4). We
should also select a pump that can provide water at a much higher head than the operating one, so
that when pumping at a lower frequency, despite the lowering of the pumping curve, the pump can
still satisfy the flow requirements. The model simulating the pumping conditions will depend on the
hours when there is enough solar radiation for the pump to work. If there is an inverter, the power
required at different frequencies can be calculated to have more hours of pumping.
3.2.1. The Current State, Case 0
We set up the WPN model of a small town (pumping with relation to the electrical grid) with
the above-mentioned circumstances. The reservoir simulated an aquifer whose water level presents
the average (dynamic) depth of that month. The supply conditions must keep the pumps operating
from 00:00 to 08:00 h and as little as possible for the peak hours (from 11:00 to 15:00 in summer and
from 19:00 to 23:00 in winter time). The simulation stage will correspond to the hours of the month
(744, 720, and 672 for 31, 30, and 28 days, respectively).
3.2.2. Case I: Standalone Solar Water Pressurized Networks. Storage of Energy in the Head Tank
We calculated the daily water consumption for every month considering values ranging among
829.53 and 1103.351 m3/day in December and in July, respectively. If only solar pumping is accessible
(no grid electricity), the reservoir should enhance its capacity by 725 m3 to feed the municipality
during the night. Case I is presented in Figure 1 as several sources supplying water to the system
and energy storage in tanks.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 14 of 26
The pumping devices must deliver the whole volume of water in 4–7 h, which means higher
flowrates (and head losses) than those expected when dimensioning this WPN. Arrangements such
as choosing a new pump, re-dimensioning pipeline diameters, or widening the tank size were not
the mean target of this study, which was to evaluate the new WPN that could run isolated from the
electricity grids. If only solar pumping is available (Case I), the cost of the electric bill will be zero
after the conversion. We dimensioned the SPWS and found that this town requires 18 × 16 PV arrays
(18 modules in series and 16 modules in parallel).
3.2.3. Case II: Hybrid System Supplied by Solar and Grid Electricity Consumption
Case II is the intermediate case fed by the electricity grids and PV arrays. We calculated
pumping costs in “cheap”, “medium”, and “expensive” periods (values dependent on the season
and the hour of the day). We entered these values in electricity bill templates to calculate the cost of
the monthly electricity bill.
In this scenario, the economic savings only affected the energy consumption term (other terms
such as power installed remained constant). With the second strains, we calculated the energy
savings for several PV array areas installed in 18 × 12, 18 × 10, 18 × 8, and 8 × 6 modules (considering
the intermediate cases as those obtained with the elimination of modules in parallel). Case II was
presented in Figure 1 as several sources supplying water to the system and a hybrid system
supplying energy to the WPN.
3.2.4. Case III: Standalone Solar Water Pressurized Networks Selling the Surplus of Energy
This case was similar to Case I (standalone solar system, 18 × 16 modules, a new pump, and a
725 m3 increase in tank capacity). We developed this scenario to understand how much
energy-savings can arise if we can sell this excess of energy to the electricity distribution company.
In Spain, the approval of this operation scheme is much slower than the Case I scheme. We propose
this alternative to quantify this effect.
4. Results
4.1. Monthly Energy Consumption
We used UAEnergy [79] to calculate the monthly water and energy consumption in our town,
and these values are depicted in Table 3. UAEnergy reported the volume and energy consumed. The
pump-efficiency relationship converts this energy consumed into electricity consumption.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 15 of 26
Table 3. Volume, electricity consumption, and monthly costs in the town (Case 0).
Case 0 and II Cases I and III
Month V Cons(m3) Energy Pump
(kWh/Month)
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh/Month)
Energy Pump
(kWh/Month)
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh/Month)
Jan 26,815.34 4326.10 6010.18 5010.13 8692.32
Feb 24,548.24 3792.40 5421.72 3957.85 7590.35
Mar 27,570.35 4186.42 5947.15 5261.56 8799.37
Apr 27,004.40 4100.16 6000.56 4633.22 8362.75
May 28,331.28 4464.27 6354.66 5266.42 8263.84
Jun 30,229.41 5024.67 7000.89 6035.93 10,502.33
Jul 34,203.82 5842.62 8008.63 6383.65 11,151.94
Aug 31,447.66 5751.03 8054.08 6489.61 10,483.40
Sep 27,679.97 5348.40 7396.64 5502.19 9574.05
Oct 27,581.85 5266.46 7038.41 5537.66 9282.07
Nov 25,186.92 4604.14 6222.95 4703.62 8420.10
Dec 25,715.41 4625.13 6269.17 5173.66 8471.47

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 16 of 26
When we produce an SPWS, the consumed volume is equal to the consumed volume in Case 0
(to allow comparison and to represent the water supply appropriately). However, the energy
consumption (and electricity) are higher as a consequence of larger head losses and flow rates [90].
The most unfavorable month is December, as it had the minimum value of the ratio PSH/(V
consumed).
4.2. Calculation of the Yearly Electricity Cost
With these data, we calculated the economic energy consumption (Table 4). The Case I savings
coincided with Case 0 consumption (the utility does not pay for electricity). Case II savings were
lower than in Case I as they considered the electricity taken from electricity grids in comparison with
the Case 0 use. In short, Case II (18 × 12 = 216 modules) involves savings in January of 1512.32–292.54
= 1219.78 EUR.
Table 4. Economic electric consumption (EUR) in the town.
Month Case0 Case I Case II
18 × 12
Case II
18 × 10
Case II
18 × 8
Case II
18 × 6 Case III
Jan 1512.32 0 292.54 315.23 315.23 450.92 −337.38
Feb 1427.10 0 315.23 292.54 292.54 393.66 −370.83
Mar 1572.53 0 307.67 315.23 315.23 315.23 −618.24
Apr 1527.44 0 315.23 307.67 307.67 307.67 −691.72
May 1597.31 0 307.67 315.23 315.23 315.23 −789.28
Jun 1631.39 0 315.23 307.67 307.67 337.56 −646.64
Jul 1797.60 0 315.23 315.23 315.23 408.90 −692.52
Aug 1774.27 0 307.67 315.23 315.23 436.11 −704.79
Sep 1646.58 0 315.23 307.67 307.67 463.22 −551.18
Oct 1722.51 0 307.67 315.23 328.75 520.15 −381.70
Nov 1575.15 0 315.23 307.67 332.58 498.57 −292.52
Dec 1587.88 0 80.84 315.23 362.74 524.35 −258.93
4.3. Sale of Surplus Energy
To calculate the surplus energy (Table 4), the energy available and the energy consumed must
be known. The latter can be calculated in two steps: calculation of the available energy and energy
consumption. In Figure 4, we show the hourly irradiance values obtained per month and the energy
demanded by the pumps (Figure 5). As we have the energy produced (red line, Figure 5) and
consumed (blue rectangles), we can obtain the surplus energy by subtracting them. As an example,
we show these values in January and April.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 17 of 26
Figure 5. The energy produced and consumed in January (left) and in April (right).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
6789101112131415161718192021
Energy consumed and produced
(kWh)
Hour (h)
Energy consumption
Energy Produced

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 18 of 26
The excess of energy takes place when there is energy available, but cannot be supplied as it fills
the tank of water (Table 5). This condition demands a recent monthly run of the hydraulic EPANET
model. We exported the tank level, the outlet tank flow rate, and injecting flow rate. We should
encounter the intervals at which the tank is full and deduct the inlet and outlet flow rates to obtain
the surplus flow. If we divide this excess of flow by the pump flow rate for the frequency at which
the pump is performing, we can identify the hours when the pump is not functioning and the excess
energy. The sum of the monthly values and the monthly energy surplus returns the total energy.
Table 5. Monthly energy surplus (kW h/month).
Month Energy Production
(kWh/Month)
Energy
Consumption
(kWh/Month)
Energy Surplus
(kWh/Month)
Jan 12,758.31 8692.32 4065.98
Feb 12,022.02 7590.35 4431.67
Mar 15,935.36 8799.37 7135.99
Apr 16,301.94 8362.75 7939.19
May 17,269.45 8263.84 9005.61
Jun 17,948.85 10,502.33 7446.51
Jul 19,099.92 11,151.94 7947.98
Aug 18,565.52 10,483.40 8082.12
Sep 15,977.04 9574.05 6402.99
Oct 13,832.53 9282.07 4550.46
Nov 11,995.81 8420.10 3575.71
Dec 11,680.01 8471.47 3208.54
The fact of being able to inject the electricity surplus into the grids involves maintaining the
utility connected to the grid. This also involves having a minimum of power installed (and according
to this, an additional cost). Please note, electricity grid consumption should be avoided on cloudy
days as the WPN demands electricity in the “expensive” hours.
4.4. Calculation of the Investments and Savings
In Case I, the PV modules, the new pump and increasing tank capacity (by 725 m3 as stated
before) represent the investments to address in year 0. The peak power required is 0.330 * 288 = 95.04
kW. Using the cost data depicted in Table 2, and assuming that a new pump is purchased every nine
years, we can calculate the investment for Case I as shown in Equation (7) (Table 6).
𝐼∗= (0.29 + 0.31 + 0.21 + 0.05) * 95,040 + 1650 + 4252.67 + 725 * 100+
12,900 * (1 + e−0.02*9 + e−0.02*18)= 192,882.87 EUR (7)

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 19 of 26
Table 6. Investment I0 (EUR) for the analyzed cases.
Case II
Components Case I and III 18 × 12 18 × 10 18 × 8 18 × 6
PV array 27,561.60 20671.2 17226 13,780.80 10,335.60
Support structure 29,462.40 22,096.80 18414 14,731.20 11,048.40
Control with safety cabinet 4252.67 4252.67 4252.67 4252.67 4252.67
Assembly and commissioning 19,958.4 14,968.80 12474 9979.20 7484.4
Legalization process 1650 1650 1650 1650 1650
Material transport 4752 3564 2970 2376 1782
Oversizing tank 72,570.79
New pump 32,675.01 32,675.01 32,675.01 32,675.01 32,675.01
Battery 17,905.67 17,905.67 17,905.67 17,905.67
TOTAL 192,882.87 117,784.15 107,567.35 97,350.55 87,133.75

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 20 of 26
In Case II, we calculated the investment in an analogous manner, but the costs of increasing the
tank were not considered and we purchased a battery every five years. For Case II with 18 × 12
modules, the investment results in Equation (8) (Table 6).
𝐼∗= (0.29 + 0.31 + 0.21 + 0.05) * 330 * 18 * 12 + 1650 + 4252.67 + 725 * 100+
12,900 * (1 + e−0.02*9 + e−0.02*18) + 4330.58 * (1 + e−0.02*5 + e−0.02*10 + e−0.02*15 + e−0.02*20) =
117,784.15 EUR
(8)
Electricity consumption in Case 0 is energy savings for Cases I and III (standalone system). In
Case II, we connected the WPN to the grids and the PV arrays produced power during sunlight.
Therefore, savings influence the energy term of those three already mentioned in the tariff for
calculating the electricity bill (other terms such as power remaining constant), as shown in Table 7.
Case III differed from Case I in that the WPN was connected to the electricity grids (to sell the
surplus) and the company was forced to pay a fixed term, referring to the power that can be taken.
This is the reason that there is a new cost, which is shown as a negative saving.
Table 7. Energy savings Si (EUR) for the analyzed cases.
Case II
Month Case I 18 × 12 18 × 10 18 × 8 18 × 6 Case III
January 1512.32 1512.32 1219.78 1197.09 1197.09 1512.32
February 1427.10 1427.1 1111.87 1134.56 1134.56 1427.10
March 1572.53 1572.53 1264.86 1257.30 1257.30 1572.53
April 1527.44 1527.44 1212.21 1219.77 1219.77 1527.44
May 1597.31 1597.31 1289.64 1282.08 1282.08 1597.31
June 1631.39 1631.39 1316.16 1323.72 1323.72 1631.39
July 1797.60 1797.6 1482.37 1482.37 1482.37 1797.60
August 1774.27 1774.27 1466.60 1459.04 1459.04 1774.27
September 1646.58 1646.58 1331.35 1338.91 1338.91 1646.58
October 1722.51 1722.51 1414.84 1407.28 1393.76 1722.51
November 1575.15 1575.15 1259.92 1267.48 1242.57 1575.15
December 1587.88 1587.88 1507.04 1272.65 1225.14 1587.88
Power fixed term 0 −415.2
Electricity Sale 0 0 0 0 0 6750.93
TOTAL 19,372.08 15,876.66 15,642.27 155,556.33 14,400.51 25,707.81
4.5. Life Cycle Cost Calculations
The payback period ([60]) for Cases I and III returned the numerical values of 11.10 and 8.13
years, respectively. We obtained other values for the huge (although finite) possibility of installing
an area between 0 and 288 modules (559.96 m2) in Case II.
However, the net present value for year 25 (PV installation lifespan) indicates that Case III
results in the best alternative for the whole lifespan of the SPWS. We may find that some misleading
data would have appeared, if the payback period was considered as an indicator. Case II (18 × 6
modules) resulted in the worst combination for the life cycle cost analysis (as it had very low future
revenues) and had a lower payback period. In Figure 6, the axis of the year ranges from now to the
maximum expected lifespan of 25 years. We can observe that when the number of modules increases
in Case II, higher savings result in greater net present values. The best option was Case III, as the
savings were higher than any of the other alternatives.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 21 of 26
Figure 6. The Net Present Value for the alternatives.
5. Discussion
The water consumption ranged from 25,715.41 m3/month in December and 34,203.82 m3/month
in July. The energy production per single PV array was 1743.10 kWh/day (the peak value in July was
2139.33 kWh/day and the lowest value was 1308.25 kWh/day in December). We obtained these
numbers by multiplying the PSH by the maximum module power. The average peak sun hours were
5.28, while the maximum and the minimum were 6.48 (July) and 3.96 h (December).
Using renewable energies is more convenient than conventional electricity supply through
grids. The utility is saving energy (109,593.99 kWh per year; Table 3) and emissions to the
environment (considering each country energy mix). These saved credit carbons can very much
contribute to avoiding climate change.
In our approach, we pretended to deal with the key uncertainties parameters found here, the
variability of water consumption and solar irradiance. We solved the first considering a monthly
analysis with different water consumption (based on historical values of the municipality
consumption) and a different water level of the aquifer. Thereafter, we measured the solar irradiance
for the last two years at Sagra Station to obtain the actual values of irradiation, as we already
considered the shading effect on the panels in our approach. We also considered that the PV
installation received proper maintenance with frequent PV cleaning. This approach requires a WPN
model to perform the calculations.
6. Conclusions
This work helps decision-makers to select the most efficient alternative for a real urban WPN
from an economic standpoint. We considered two alternatives: converting the WPN into a
standalone photovoltaic system or into a hybrid (grid + solar) system. To avoid misleading, we
studied irradiation and energy expenditure fluctuation. Peak values of energy expenditure (in
summer) coincided with peak values of energy production. We confirmed that the worst month was
December because energy production reduces much of that energy consumption.
This manuscript presents a method that allows for the adaptation of any urban WPN into a
standalone SPWS with energy storage in tanks, and into a hybrid system. We practiced this method
-200000
-100000
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Net Present Value (EUR)
Time
(
Years
)
Case III
10X18
12X18
Case I
8X18
6X18

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 22 of 26
in a real municipality, and discovered that energy production varied more than energy consumption
in this WPN. This means that December is the most adverse month as it bears the lowest irradiance
and thus the lowest energy production.
The tank alternative (Case I and III) is more energy-hungry than the others, as the pumping
devices should fill the head tank in a quick time (those with irradiation needed to provide the
pumps’ work). Case III bears no surprise as it illustrates that when the electric company purchases
the excess energy, it produces greater revenues in the SPWS lifespan following 25 years. This case
study proved that we reimbursed the investment of 11.10 − 8.13 = 2.97 years (Table 8) previously in
Case III. Therefore, we can handle these numbers to encourage WPN to sell excess energy, without
being worried about the delay in getting the SPWS certified to add electricity to the grids. Case III is
the best choice from the economic standpoint investigation presented here.
Table 8. The payback period and net present value for the cases analyzed.
Investments (EUR) Savings (EUR)
Payback Period
(Years)
Net present Value
(EUR)
Case I 192,882.87 19,372.08 11.10 192,056.97
Case II 18 × 12 117,784.15 15,876.66 8.03 197,698.61
Case II 18 × 10 107,567.35 15,642.27 7.26 208,741.96
Case II 18 × 8 97,350.55 15,556.33 7.21 173,283.95
Case II 18 × 6 87,133.75 14,400.51 7.71 133,893.43
Case III 192,882.87 25,707.81 8.13 317,953.36
Many service managers promote the hybrid alternative (Case II) (although a worse solution
than Case III, Table 8) to avoid problems supplying water to municipalities (as a guarantee for
supply). These solutions (fluctuating from 108 to 216 modules) feature lower economic savings (as
the service is even rewarding to the electrical company). Selecting the best Case II solution (10 × 18
modules) involves wasting 317,953.36 − 208,741.96 = 109,211.4 EUR in the next 25 years.
We have shown that the payback period is not a good indicator in this case (with high
variability in savings). The lowest payback period (Case II 18 × 8 modules) resulted in the
second-worst combination for the life cycle cost analysis.
We could further develop this procedure considering the forecasted values of irradiance
(including external parameters that can be of bias). To represent reality, future municipality
conditions can vary corresponding to estimated values of water demands and population growth. In
this municipality, the consumption trend is slightly down from the latest data. In Case III, if
consumption was to fall, the utility could sell more energy and could expect higher revenues.
Author Contributions: M.Á.P. and H.F. performed the modeling and analysis, designed the research task, and
undertook the discussion. A.J.-A. and M.Á.P. cooperated on the research task, partially wrote the manuscript,
provided the literature, and adapted figures. M.Á.P. and A.J.-A. read and approved the final manuscript. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Antonio Jodar-Abellán acknowledges financial support received from the Spanish FPU scholarship
for the training of university teachers. In the same way, this work has been partially funded by the Cátedra del
Agua of the University of Alicante and the Diputación Provincial de Alicante (https://catedradelaguaua.org/).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1. UNESCO-WWAP Facts and Figures from the United Nations World Water Development Report 4 (WWDR4);
2012. UNESCO, Paris, France.
2. UN World Water Development Report. 2019.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 23 of 26
3. Burek, P.; Satoh, Y.; Fischer, G.; Kahil, M.T.; Scherzer, A.; Tramberend, S.; Nava, L.F.; Wada, Y.; Eisner, S.;
Flörke, M.; et al. Water futures and solution-fast track initiative. In IIASA Working Paper; IIASA:
Laxenburg, Austria, 2016.
4. Ram, M.; Bogdanov, D.; Aghahosseini, A.; Oyewo, S.; Gulagi, A.; Child, M.; Fell, H.-J.; Breyer, C. Global
Energy System Based on 100% Renewable Energy—Power Sector; Lappeenranta University of Technology
and Energy Watch Group: Lappeenranta, Finland, 2017.
5. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2019; París, France, 2019. IEA.
6. IEA. Water-Energy Nexus; París, France, 2017. IEA.
7. Bijl, D.L.; Bogaart, P.W.; Kram, T.; de Vries, B.J.M.; van Vuuren, D.P. Long-term water demand for
electricity, industry and households. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 75–86.
8. Hardy, L.; Garrido, A.; Juana, L. Evaluation of Spain’s Water-Energy Nexus. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2012,
28, 151–170.
9. IDAE. Consumo Energético en el Sector del Agua; 2010. IDAE, Madrid, Spain.
10. Jäger-Waldau, A. PV Status Report 2019, EUR 29938 EN; Publications Office of the European Union:
Luxembourg, 2019.
11. Goodrich, A.C.; Powell, D.M.; James, T.L.; Woodhouse, M.; Buonassisi, T. Assessing the drivers of
regional trends in solar photovoltaic manufacturing. Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 2811–2821.
12. REN 21 Renewables Now. Renewables Global Status Report 2019; 2019; ISBN 9783981891140. REN21, Paris,
France.
13. Gorjian, S.; Zadeh, B.N.; Eltrop, L.; Shamshiri, R.R.; Amanlou, Y. Solar photovoltaic power generation in
Iran: Development, policies, and barriers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 106, 110–123.
14. Chazarra-Zapata, J.; Molina-Martínez, J.M.; Cruz, F.-J.P.D.L.; Parras-Burgos, D.; Ruíz Canales, A. How to
Reduce the Carbon Footprint of an Irrigation Community in the South-East of Spain by Use of Solar
Energy. Energies 2020, 13, 2848.
15. Cimorelli, L.; Covelli, C.; Molino, B.; Pianese, D. Optimal Regulation of Pumping Station in Water
Distribution Networks Using Constant and Variable Speed Pumps: A Technical and Economical
Comparison. Energies 2020, 13, 2530.
16. EC. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The European Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank. A Clean Planet
for all A European Strategic Long-Term Vision for; Brussels, 2018. EC, Brussels, Belgium.
17. Closas, A.; Rap, E. Solar-based groundwater pumping for irrigation: Sustainability, policies, and
limitations. Energy Policy 2017, 104, 33–37.
18. Mincotur. Precio neto de la electricidad para uso doméstico y uso industrial Euros/kWh. Available online:
https://www.mincotur.gob.es/es-ES/IndicadoresyEstadisticas/DatosEstadisticos/IV. Energía y
emisiones/IV_12.pdf (accessed on 20 September 2004).
19. Muhsen, D.H.; Khatib, T.; Abdulabbas, T.E. Sizing of a standalone photovoltaic water pumping system
using hybrid multi-criteria decision making methods. Sol. Energy 2018, 159, 1003–1015.
20. Khatib, T.; Ibrahim, I.A.; Mohamed, A. A review on sizing methodologies of photovoltaic array and
storage battery in a standalone photovoltaic system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 120, 430–448.
21. AlSkaif, T.; Dev, S.; Visser, L.; Hossari, M.; van Sark, W. A systematic analysis of meteorological variables
for PV output power estimation. Renew. Energy 2020, 153, 12–22.
22. González, L.G.; Chacon, R.; Delgado, B.; Benavides, D.; Espinoza, J. Study of Energy Compensation
Techniques in Photovoltaic Solar Systems with the Use of Supercapacitors in Low-Voltage Networks.
Energies 2020, 13, 3755.
23. Järvelä, M.; Valkealahti, S. Operation of a PV Power Plant during Overpower Events Caused by the
Cloud Enhancement Phenomenon. Energies 2020, 13, 2185.
24. Corizzo, R.; Ceci, M.; Japkowicz, N. Anomaly Detection and Repair for Accurate Predictions in
Geo-distributed Big Data. Big Data Res. 2019, 16, 18–35.
25. Behera, M.K.; Majumder, I.; Nayak, N. Solar photovoltaic power forecasting using optimized modified
extreme learning machine technique. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2018, 21, 428–438.
26. Sobri, S.; Koohi-Kamali, S.; Rahim, N.A. Solar photovoltaic generation forecasting methods: A review.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2018, 156, 459–497.
27. Ceci, M.; Corizzo, R.; Malerba, D.; Rashkovska, A. Spatial autocorrelation and entropy for renewable
energy forecasting. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2019, 33, 698–729.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 24 of 26
28. Jane, R.; Parker, G.; Vaucher, G.; Berman, M. Characterizing meteorological forecast impact on microgrid
optimization performance and design. Energies 2020, 13, 577.
29. Bakelli, Y.; Arab, A.H.; Azoui, B. Optimal sizing of photovoltaic pumping system with water tank storage
using LPSP concept. Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 288–294.
30. Mwanza, M.; Kaoma, M.; Bowa, C.K.; Çetin, N.S.; Ülgen, K. The potential of solar energy for sustainable
water resource development and averting national social burden in rural areas of Zambia. Period. Eng.
Nat. Sci. 2017, 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.21533/pen.v5i1.64.
31. Arab, A.H.; Chenlo, F.; Mukadam, K.; Balenzategui, J.L. Performance of PV water pumping systems.
Renew. Energy 1999, 18, 191–204.
32. Narvarte, L.; Almeida, R.H.; Carrêlo, I.B.; Rodríguez, L.; Carrasco, L.M.; Martinez-Moreno, F. On the
number of PV modules in series for large-power irrigation systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 2019, 186,
516–525.
33. Aliyu, M.; Hassan, G.; Said, S.A.; Siddiqui, M.U.; Alawami, A.T.; Elamin, I.M. A review of solar-powered
water pumping systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 87, 61–76.
34. Pande, P.C.; Singh, A.K.; Ansari, S.; Vyas, S.K.; Dave, B.K. Design development and testing of a solar PV
pump based drip system for orchards. Renew. Energy 2003, 28, 385–396.
35. Linssen, J.; Stenzel, P.; Fleer, J. Techno-economic analysis of photovoltaic battery systems and the
influence of different consumer load profiles. Appl. Energy 2017, 185, 2019–2025.
36. Beck, T.; Kondziella, H.; Huard, G.; Bruckner, T. Assessing the influence of the temporal resolution of
electrical load and PV generation profiles on self-consumption and sizing of PV-battery systems. Appl.
Energy 2016.
37. Tsuanyo, D.; Azoumah, Y.; Aussel, D.; Neveu, P. Modeling and optimization of batteryless hybrid PV
(photovoltaic)/Diesel systems for off-grid applications. Energy 2015. 10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.128.
38. Yu, C.; Khoo, Y.S.; Chai, J.; Han, S.; Yao, J. Optimal orientation and tilt angle for maximizing in-plane
solar irradiation for PV applications in Japan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2016.
39. Hailu, G.; Fung, A.S. Optimum Tilt Angle and Orientation of Photovoltaic Thermal System for
Application in Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6443.
40. Kacira, M.; Simsek, M.; Babur, Y.; Demirkol, S. Determining optimum tilt angles and orientations of
photovoltaic panels in Sanliurfa, Turkey. Renew. Energy 2004, 29, 1265–1275.
41. Khatib, T.; Mohamed, A.; Sopian, K. Optimization of a PV/wind micro-grid for rural housing
electrification using a hybrid iterative/genetic algorithm: Case study of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia.
Energy Build. 2012, 47, 321–331.
42. Narvarte, L.; Fernández-Ramos, J.; Martínez-Moreno, F.; Carrasco, L.M.; Almeida, R.H.; Carrêlo, I.B.
Solutions for adapting photovoltaics to large power irrigation systems for agriculture. Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assessments 2018, 29, 119–130.
43. Díaz-Dorado, E.; Suárez-García, A.; Carrillo, C.; Cidrás, J. Influence of the shadows in photovoltaic
systems with different configurations of bypass diodes. In Proceedings of the SPEEDAM
2010—International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and Motion, Pisa,
Italy, 14–16 June 2010.
44. Rydh, C.J.; Sandén, B.A. Energy analysis of batteries in photovoltaic systems. Part I: Performance and
energy requirements. Energy Convers. Manag. 2005, 46, 1957–1979.
45. Moharram, K.A.; Abd-Elhady, M.S.; Kandil, H.A.; El-Sherif, H. Influence of cleaning using water and
surfactants on the performance of photovoltaic panels. Energy Convers. Manag. 2013, 68, 266–272.
46. Wagner, L. Overview of Energy Storage Technologies. Futur. Energy Improv. Sustain. Clean Options Planet
2013, 613–631.. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-099424-6.00027-2
47. Jossen, A.; Garche, J.; Sauer, D.U. Operation conditions of batteries in PV applications. Sol. Energy 2004, 76,
759–769.
48. Bendary, A.F.; Ismail, M.M. Battery charge management for hybrid PV/wind/fuel cell with storage battery.
Proc. Energy Procedia 2019, doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2019.04.012.
49. Mulder, G.; Six, D.; Claessens, B.; Broes, T.; Omar, N.; Mierlo, J. Van The dimensioning of PV-battery
systems depending on the incentive and selling price conditions. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 1126–1135.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 25 of 26
50. Jadhav, S.; Devdas, N.; Nisar, S.; Bajpai, V. Bidirectional DC-DC converter in Solar PV System for Battery
Charging Application. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Smart City and Emerging
Technology, ICSCET 2018, Mumbai, India, 5 January 2018, Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers Inc.: 2018. Mumbai, India.
51. Pardo, M.Á.; Juárez, J.M.; García-Márquez, D. Energy consumption optimization in irrigation networks
supplied by a standalone direct pumping photovoltaic system. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4203.
52. Mérida García, A.; Fernández García, I.; Camacho Poyato, E.; MontesinosBarrios, P.; Rodríguez Díaz, J.A.
Coupling irrigation scheduling with solar energy production in a smart irrigation management system. J.
Clean. Prod. 2018, 175, 670–682.
53. Üçtug, F.G.; Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of small-scale hybrid energy systems: Coupling solar
photovoltaics and lithium-ion batteries. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 643, 1579–1589.
54. Betka, A.; Attali, A. Optimization of a photovoltaic pumping system based on the optimal control theory.
Sol. Energy 2010, 84, 1273–1283.
55. Elkholy, M.M.; Fathy, A. Optimization of a PV fed water pumping system without storage based on
teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm and artificial neural network. Sol. Energy 2016, 139, 199–
212.
56. Mohanty, A.; Ray, P.K.; Viswavandya, M.; Mohanty, S.; Mohanty, P.P. Experimental analysis of a
standalone solar photo voltaic cell for improved power quality. Optik (Stuttg). 2018, 171, 876–885.
57. Ru, Y.; Kleissl, J.; Martinez, S. Storage size determination for grid-connected photovoltaic systems. IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy 2013, 4, 68–81.
58. Peng, J.; Lu, L.; Yang, H. Review on life cycle assessment of energy payback and greenhouse gas emission
of solar photovoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 19, 255–274.
59. Todde, G.; Murgia, L.; Carrelo, I.; Hogan, R.; Pazzona, A.; Ledda, L.; Narvarte, L. Embodied Energy and
Environmental Impact of Large-Power Stand-Alone Photovoltaic Irrigation Systems. Energies 2018, 11,
2110.
60. Pardo, M.A.; Manzano, J.; Valdés-Abellán, J.; Cobacho, R. Standalone direct pumping photovoltaic
system or energy storage in batteries for supplying irrigation networks. Cost analysis. Sci. Total Environ.
2019, 673, 821–830.
61. Kaldellis, J.K.; Zafirakis, D.; Kondili, E. Energy pay-back period analysis of stand-alone photovoltaic
systems. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 1444–1454.
62. Skoczek, A.; Sample, T.; Dunlop, E.D. The results of performance measurements of field-aged crystalline
silicon photovoltaic modules. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 2009, 17, 227–240.
63. Li, C.H.; Zhu, X.J.; Cao, G.Y.; Sui, S.; Hu, M.R. Dynamic modeling and sizing optimization of stand-alone
photovoltaic power systems using hybrid energy storage technology. Renew. Energy 2009, 34, 815–826.
64. Sani Hassan, A.; Cipcigan, L.; Jenkins, N. Optimal battery storage operation for PV systems with tariff
incentives. Appl. Energy 2017, 203, 422–441.
65. Spiers, D. Chapter IIB-2—Batteries in PV Systems. In Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics, 2nd ed.; McEvoy,
A., Markvart, T., Castañer, L.B.T.-P.H., Eds.; Academic Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 721–776. ISBN
978-0-12-385934-1.
66. Ghoneim, A.A. Design optimization of photovoltaic powered water pumping systems. Energy Convers.
Manag. 2006, 47, 1449–1463.
67. Hugues, K.W.; Daniel Chowdhury, S.P. An African solution for water and electricity supply, using a
standalone photovoltaic based Quasi Z Source Inverter. In Proceedings of the IEEE PES PowerAfrica
Conference, PowerAfrica 2016, Livingstone, Zambia, 28 June–3 July 2016.
68. Todde, G.; Murgia, L.; Deligios, P.A.; Hogan, R.; Carrelo, I.; Moreira, M.; Pazzona, A.; Ledda, L.; Narvarte,
L. Energy and environmental performances of hybrid photovoltaic irrigation systems in Mediterranean
intensive and super-intensive olive orchards. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 2514–2523.
69. Wong, J.; Lim, Y.S.; Tang, J.H.; Morris, E. Grid-connected photovoltaic system in Malaysia: A review on
voltage issues. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 535–545.
70. Tsagas, I. Spain Approves ‘Sun Tax’, Discrimiates Against Solar PV. Renew. Energy World 2015.
71. Pardo, M.Á.; Cobacho, R.; Bañón, L. Standalone Photovoltaic Direct Pumping in Urban Water
Pressurized Networks with Energy Storage in Tanks or Batteries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 738.
72. Reddy, P.P.K.K.; Reddy, J.N. Photovoltaic energy conversion system for water pumping application. Int. J.
Emerg. Trends Electr. Electron. 2014, 10, 22–29.

Energies 2020, 13, 4013 26 of 26
73. Vindel, J.M.; Polo, J.; Zarzalejo, L.F. Modeling monthly mean variation of the solar global irradiation. J.
Atmos. Solar-Terrestrial Phys. 2015, 122, 108–118.
74. Rehman, S.; Bader, M.A.; Al-Moallem, S.A. Cost of solar energy generated using PV panels. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2007, 11, 1843–1857.
75. Hamidat, A.; Benyoucef, B. Systematic procedures for sizing photovoltaic pumping system, using water
tank storage. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1489–1501.
76. Nabila, L.; Khaldi, F.; Aksas, M. Design of photo voltaic pumping system using water tank storage for a
remote area in Algeria. In Proceedings of the IREC 2014—5th International Renewable Energy Congress,
Hammamet, Tunisia, 25–27 March
2014.
77. Gómez, E.; Cabrera, E.; Balaguer, M.; Soriano, J. Direct and Indirect Water Supply: An Energy
Assessment. Procedia Eng. 2015, 119, 1088–1097.
78. Rossman, L.A. EPANET 2: Users Manual; 2000. Environmental Protection Agency (US), Washington, D.C.,
United States of America.
79. Pardo, M.A.; Riquelme, A.; Melgarejo, J. A tool for calculating energy audits in water pressurized
networks. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2019, 6, 94–108.
80. Valdes-Abellan, J.; Pardo, M.A.; Jodar-Abellan, A.; Pla, C.; Fernandez-Mejuto, M. Climate change impact
on karstic aquifer hydrodynamics in southern Europe semi-arid region using the KAGIS model. Sci. Total
Environ. 2020, 723, 138110.
81. Osinowo, A.A.; Okogbue, E.C.; Ogungbenro, S.B.; Fashanu, O. Analysis of Global Solar Irradiance over
Climatic Zones in Nigeria for Solar Energy Applications. J. Sol. Energy 2015, 2015, 1–9.
82. Bou-Rabee, M.A.; Sulaiman, S.A. On seasonal variation of solar irradiation in Kuwait. Int. J. Renew. Energy
Res. 2015, 5, 367–372.
83. Maghami, M.R.; Hizam, H.; Gomes, C.; Radzi, M.A.; Rezadad, M.I.; Hajighorbani, S. Power loss due to
soiling on solar panel: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 1307–1316.
84. Hajighorbani, S.; Radzi, M.A.M.; Ab Kadir, M.Z.A.; Shafie, S.; Khanaki, R.; Maghami, M.R. Evaluation of
fuzzy logic subsets effects on maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic system. Int. J. Photoenergy
2014, 2014, 719126
.
85. Vaillon, R.; Dupré, O.; Cal, R.B.; Calaf, M. Pathways for mitigating thermal losses in solar photovoltaics.
Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 1–9.
86. Lima, F.J.L.D.; Martins, F.R.; Costa, R.S.; Gonçalves, A.R.; dos Santos, A.P.P.; Pereira, E.B. The seasonal
variability and trends for the surface solar irradiation in northeastern region of Brazil. Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess. 2019, 35, 335–346.
87. Zhou, Y.; Meng, X.; Belle, J.H.; Zhang, H.; Kennedy, C.; Al-Hamdan, M.Z.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y. Compilation
and spatio-temporal analysis of publicly available total solar and UV irradiance data in the contiguous
United States. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 253, 130–140.
88. Sauri, D. The decline of water consumption in Spanish cities: Structural and contingent factors. Int. J.
Water Resour. Dev. 2019, doi:10.1080/07900627.2019.1634999.
89. Kleiner, Y.; Rajani, B. Comprehensive review of structural deterioration of water mains: Statistical models.
Urban Water 2001, 3, 131–150.
90. Pardo, M.Á.; Riquelme, A.J.; Jodar-Abellan, A.; Melgarejo, J. Water and Energy Demand Management in
Pressurized Irrigation Networks. Water 2020, 12, 1878.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).