







































Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-
227 

216 

 

 

 

Article 

Toward sustainable power with floating solar at 

Near East University  Lake, Northern Cyprus 
Youssef Kassem1,2,3, 4*, Hüseyin Çamur2,3, MohamedAlmojtba Hamid Ali Abdalla1 

1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia (via Mersin 10, Turkey), 

Cyprus  
2Department of Civil Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering Faculty, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia (via 

Mersin 10, Turkey), Cyprus  
3Energy, Environment, and Water Research Center, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia (via Mersin 10, Turkey), Cyprus 
4Science, Technology, Engineering Education Application, and Research Center, Near East University, 99138 Nicosia (via 

Mersin 10, Turkey), Cyprus 

A R T I C L E   I N F O 
 

Article history: 
Received 27 June 2025  
Received in revised form 
10 August 2025 
Accepted 25 August 2025 
 
Keywords:  
Floating PV system, Near East University Lake,  
Northern Cyprus, Techno-economic,  
Environmental effects  
 
*Corresponding author:  
Email address: 
yousseuf.kassem@neu.edu.tr 
youssef.kassem1986@hotmail.com 
 
 
DOI: 10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.18 

A B S T R A C T 
 

Floating solar photovoltaic (FPV) systems have become a desirable research 
topic for optimization and development. The primary objective of the current 
study is to optimize an FPV at Near East University Lake in Northern Cyprus, 
aiming to enhance energy production and mitigate negative environmental 
impacts. Besides, the potential for energy generation and economic feasibility 
of various design configurations related to fixed and tracked PV systems and 
coverage area (45, 60, 75, and 90%) were investigated. The results 
demonstrated that the increase in coverage area indeed increased energy yield 
due to the increase in the number of panels. The 90% coverage area, for 
instance, reduces the cost of energy production to 0.0176 USD/kWh and 
produces a very respectable increase in energy yield. According to the techno-
economic analysis, the reduction of GHG emissions can range from 330 to 659 
tCO2/year, depending on the coverage area. The value of NPV demonstrates the 
system's long-term sustainability and profitability, while the basic payback 
period remains relatively consistent across all coverage percentages, ranging 
from 3.19 to 3.20 years. Thus, this research provides valuable insights into how 
floating solar technology can be integrated with water conservation and 
sustainable energy production, which can greatly aid in achieving renewable 
energy targets and reducing water evaporation losses. 

1. Introduction 

The global transition to renewable energy sources is 

increasing as countries attempt to meet the Sustainable 

Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement's carbon 

emission reduction and energy sustainability targets [1]. 

Renewable energy sources, including solar power, offer a 

practical and sustainable alternative to conventional power 

generation systems [2]. Solar energy has the potential to be 

used as an alternative source of power to traditional power 

sources [3]. The use of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology is 

gaining pace around the world as many nations believe it 

plays a vital role in meeting challenging renewable energy 

goals and national net-zero emissions targets [4,5]. General, 

ground-mounted, and floating solar PV systems are two of the 

principal ways of harnessing solar power [6]. The ground-

mounted systems are widely used due to the ease of 

installation on land surfaces. They typically require a 

substantial land area, which can be a constraint in regions 

with limited land availability. However, floating solar 

photovoltaic (FPV) systems are seen as a novel solution to the 

land availability restriction. FPV technology involves 

mounting solar panels on buoyant structures designed to 

withstand water conditions. These platforms, anchored or 

moored for stability, use conventional photovoltaic cells to 

convert sunlight into electricity [7]. In general, the major 

components of the FPV system are PV arrays, inverters, 

lightning arresters, combiner boxes, and metal frames that 

secure the entire set according to Lee et al. [8]. The authors 

provide more details about the components of the FPV 

system. Moreover, the materials used to construct these 

pontoons or floats are typically high-density polyethylene 

(HDPE) or fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) [9,10]. These 

materials are chosen for their excellent durability, lightweight 

properties, and resistance to environmental stresses, such as 

 

 

Future Technology 

Open Access Journal 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.18 

 

 

November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

Journal homepage: https://fupubco.com/futech 

 

ISSN 2832-0379 

mailto:yousseuf.kassem@neu.edu.tr
mailto:youssef.kassem1986@hotmail.com
https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.futech.4.4.18
https://fupubco.com/futech


Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

217 

 

UV radiation and water exposure. According to Claus and 

López [11] and Ghigo et al. [12], one of the most critical 

aspects of FPV system design is the anchoring and mooring 

system. This system ensures the floating platform remains 

stable and retains its intended orientation, even in the face of 

wind, waves, and other environmental forces. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without this stability, the efficiency and safety of the 

solar panels would be compromised. Anchoring and mooring 

systems are meticulously engineered, taking into account 

site-specific conditions such as water depth, wave dynamics, 

and wind loads [13]. The design and structure of floating 

photovoltaic (FPV) systems play a critical role in their 

efficiency, durability, and adaptability to different water 

bodies. FPV systems utilize floating modules connected in a 

cascaded manner to create a stable foundation for PV panels 

while maximizing coverage of the water surface [14]. 

However, designing an optimal FPV structure involves 

addressing several key considerations to account for site-

specific challenges and operational requirements [11]. 

According to Santafé et al. [15], several factors need to be 

evaluated during the installation of FPV systems on water 

bodies, as follows: 

• In-Situ Construction and Operation: The design should 

accommodate on-site assembly, construction, and 

maintenance with minimal disruptions to the surrounding 

environment. 

• Varying Water Levels: The system must adapt to 

fluctuating water levels, whether due to seasonal changes, 

reservoir management, or climatic conditions. 

• Reservoir Layout and Internal Geometry: Water bodies 

vary significantly in shape, depth, and layout, making it 

challenging to create a universally adaptable floating 

structure. 

• Floating Platform Design: The platform must be robust 

enough to support the PV modules and ancillary equipment 

while providing stability against environmental forces. 

FPV systems are designed to simplify operation and 

maintenance [16]. This is often achieved through the use of 

access platforms or pathways that are at least 0.5 meters wide 

[17]. The distance between frames is carefully calculated to 

avoid shading and ensure optimal solar exposure for the PV 

modules [18,19]. According to the previous studies [20-22], 

the main types of FPV systems are pontoon structure (Type 

1), superficial rigid structure (Type 2), and superficial flexible 

structure (Type 3). Kim et al. [20], Kumar et al. [21], and 

Silvério et al. [22] provide more details about these types. 

Moreover, FPV maximizes underutilized water surfaces, 

making it appealing in land-scarce areas based on the 

previous studies [23-27]. According to Kumar et al. [23], the 

water surface cools panels, improving efficiency, while 

evaporation helps mitigate heating. This approach offers 

environmental benefits by reducing water evaporation, 

conserving resources, minimizing impact on land ecosystems, 

preserving habitats, and reducing land use conflicts [24]. 

Utilizing water bodies, including lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, 

provides FPV advantages over ground-mounted systems [25]. 

These advantages of the FPV system are (a) increasing the 

solar panels' efficiency and output power by the cooling effect 

of the water, which lowers operating temperatures [26], and 

(b) saving water resources by reducing water evaporation 

[27]. Therefore, FPV systems are an alternative solution to 

reduce the water and energy crisis, especially in regions 

where land resources are limited and water bodies are 

abundant.  

1.1 Energy situation in Northern Cyprus 

Energy demand has increased in Northern Cyprus as a 

result of expanding educational institutions and economic 

growth [28, 29]. This increased demand creates challenges for 

the energy sector due to a lack of local resources. According 

to Akçaba and Eminer [30], energy shortages are most severe 

in the summer, when demand is at its peak. They found that 

the residential sector uses around 20% of energy, while the 

commercial sector uses the remaining 30%. Moreover, 

according to the Cyprus Turkish Electricity Authority, Kibris 

Türk Elektrik Kurumu (KIB-TEK), 6% of Northern Cyprus' 

electricity is currently produced by renewable sources, with 

the remaining 94% coming from fossil fuels in 2023. In 

addition to raising expenses, the dependence on imported 

fuel significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions, putting 

pressure on the economy and the environment. Therefore, the 

development of affordable, sustainable, and clean energy has 

been the primary goal for Northern Cyprus. Implementing 

energy-saving measures and concentrating on the growth of 

renewable energy sources, especially solar energy, are two 

aspects of the government's strategy. According to the Global 

Solar Atlas,  Northern Cyprus has excellent potential for solar 

energy use, with 320 sunny days annually and an average 

daily solar radiation of 5.6–6.13 kWh/m2. Moreover, solar 

resource in Northern Cyprus can be categorized as "good to 

excellent," according to Prăvălie et al. [31], with the value of 

energy production from solar systems ranging between 

4.5kWh/kWp/day and 4.8 kWh/kWp/day according to the 

Global Solar Atlas. 

To encourage solar power system implementation, KIB-

TEK has implemented a net metering system [32-34]. 

Presently, customers can generate and export extra energy 

from their photovoltaic systems to the grid. This initiative has 

encountered challenges due to the grid system's isolation, 

which limits its capacity to handle expanding PV installations. 

Abbreviations 

AIIP  Albedo Irradiance on Inclined Plane 

AT  Ambient temperature 

DHI  Diffuse Horizontal Irradiance 

DIIP  Diffuse Irradiance on Inclined Plane 

FPV  Floating solar photovoltaic  

FRP  Fiber-reinforced plastic  

GHI  Global Horizontal Irradiance 

GIIP  Global Irradiance on Inclined Plane 

HDPE  High-density polyethylene  

KIB-TEK  KibrisTürkElektrikKurumu 

NEU  Near East University 

PR  Performance Ratios  

PV  Photovoltaic 

RH  Relative humidity  

SDGs  Sustainable Development Goals  

SGEE  Summation of grid exported energy 

STS  Sun-tracking system 

WS  Wind speed  



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

218 

 

The Renewable Energy Board (Yek-Kurulu) currently permits 

single-phase grid-connected customers to install up to 5 kW 

of PV systems, while three-phase customers are permitted to 

install up to 8 kW [35]. Solar power systems in Northern 

Cyprus have generated approximately 74.3 MW of electricity 

despite these limitations. Numerous studies have explored 

the solar energy potential and economic feasibility of 

photovoltaic systems in various regions of Northern Cyprus 

[36-54]. Based on these studies, it can be concluded that 

installing solar power plants could solve the country's energy 

crisis and significantly reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. 

According to the authors’ review, two studies [53, 54] 

evaluated the performance of the FPV system in the country. 

Ünlükuş [53] assessed the financial and technical aspects of 

constructing a 1 MW floating PV system at Girne's Geçitköy 

Dam and a 1 MW land-based PV system at Middle East 

Technical University. The results demonstrated that the 

installation of the FPV plant has the potential to produce 

electricity, in contrast to the photovoltaic systems based on 

silicon.   Kassem et al. [54] investigated the techno-economic 

feasibility of FPV systems at 15 water reservoirs in Northern 

Cyprus. The results show that a floating structure with bifacial 

panels and a north-facing tilt of 6° performs best. 

Furthermore, 10.19–47.21% less electricity could be 

produced using fossil fuels at 75% FPV coverage. 

1.2 Importance of the study 

According to previous studies, FPV systems can lower 

surface evaporation from bodies of water and provide a 

sustainable alternative to traditional energy generation 

methods. Also, the use and potential benefits of FPV systems 

in Northern Cyprus remain relatively unexplored. Examining 

the relationships between FPV technology and the region's 

high solar energy potential and growing water scarcity 

concerns has not received much attention from scholars in 

Northern Cyprus. This highlights an urgent requirement for 

particular studies to bridge this gap and reveal the enormous 

potential of FPV systems in the region. Moreover, numerous 

studies have evaluated the techno-economic feasibility of FPV 

systems at various water bodies, but one study has examined 

the feasibility of achieving FPV systems at a university 

campus for achieving SDGs [3], according to the authors' 

review. Therefore, the present study aims to design an 

efficient and sustainable FPV system at the artificial lake 

within the Near East University (NEU) campus in Northern 

Cyprus. The study attempts to determine the feasibility and 

performance of FPV systems based on different water surface 

coverage ratios, evaluating their influence on energy 

generation, system efficiency, and interactions with the water 

body. Besides, fixed-tilt systems with different sun-tracking 

technologies are then compared, including single-axis and 

dual-axis ones, to estimate which configuration may have the 

most promising output regarding energy generation, 

structural feasibility, and cost efficiency. In terms of modeling 

and assessment, technical and economic parameters are 

evaluated for each scenario. 

2. Materials and methods  

2.1 Study area  

The study is conducted at NEU, which is located in 

Lefkoşa (Nicosia), the capital city of Northern Cyprus. NEU is 

located at approximately 35.2295° N latitude and 33.3785 °E 

longitude, and it falls under the Mediterranean climate zone 

that is characterized by hot, dry summers and mild, wet 

winters. Lake NEU (Figure 1) is an artificial water body on the 

university campus. The lake is primarily an aesthetic 

environmental consideration for microclimatic cooling and 

recreation. As shown in Figure 1, these channels help prevent 

flooding by safely diverting overflow to other places. The 

drainage system keeps stable water levels in winter, making 

NEU Lake a suitable place for sustainable water management 

and FPV applications.  

2.2 Climate parameters  

The estimation of water losses from climate parameters 

was conducted during the period of 2010 to 2023 using data 

from the NASA power dataset. Monthly evaporation from 

Lake of NEU from 2010 to 2023 was calculated using mean 

monthly temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed data 

that are available at (https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-

access-viewer/). (accessed on March 5, 2025). Figure 2 

illustrates the variation of weather parameters, including  

Horizontal Irradiance (GHI), ambient temperature (AT), and 

wind speed (WS). It is found that the GHI peaks in May (217.2 

kWh/m²) and June (238.9 kWh/m²). This certainly has a good 

energy generation potential. The lowest irradiance is 

recorded in December (68.4 kWh/m²), indicating a noticeable 

decrease in irradiance during the winter months. It has been 

found that AT increased steadily through the months of 

measurement and attained a maximum in July at 30.19°C and 

slowly declined toward winter. Besides, the WS, on a 

moderate scale of solitarily surpassing that range, varied with 

a minimum of 2.0 m/s in December and a maximum of 3.1 m/s 

in April, helping cool the system and thus ensuring efficient 

performance during the hottest months. Moreover, the 

maximum and lowest value of RH is recorded in January and 

July, with values of 77.0% and 46.5%, respectively.  

 
Figure 1. Location map 

2.3 Sun-tracking designs for FPV Systems 

According to Paudel et al. [55], the orientation angles are 

one of the important factors that are directly related to the 

system's performance. Therefore, the performance of 

different sun-tracking systems (see Table 1) is evaluated 

according to performance ratios (PR) for selecting the 

optimum design for the proposed system. PR is defined as the 

ratio of the yield factor to the reference yield as given in Eq. 

(1) [20]. 



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

219 

 

𝑃𝑅 =
𝑌𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

𝑅𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
                                                                  (1) 

In this study, Jinko Tiger Neo N-type 72HL4-(V) was 

selected as the recommended grid-connected photovoltaic 

system. It was chosen for this study since it is one of the best 

PV modules available. Furthermore, a 250kW three-phase 

string inverter with 12 MPPTs with 99% efficiency is used. 

 
Figure 2. Monthly variation of climate parameters 

Table 1. Description of the sun-tracking system (STS) used in the 

study 

Sun-tracking system Description  

STS#1 
Fixed Plane (30°/0°): Panels fixed at 
30° tilt, facing 0° (south 

STS#2 
Seasonal Tilt Adjustment: Adjust tilt 
(20° in summer, 50° in winter) every 
season, azimuth = 0° 

STS#3 

Tracking Sun-Shields (Facade 
Orientation 30°): Panels mounted 
vertically (like sun-shields) tilted at 
30° 

STS#4 
Tracking Two Axis (Frame E-W): Dual-
axis tracking, E-W frame alignment 

STS#5 
Tracking Two Axis (Frame N-S): Dual-
axis tracking, N-S frame alignment 

STS#6 
Tracking Plane, Two Axis: Standard 
dual-axis tracking (both tilt and 
rotation) 

STS#7 
Tracking Plane, Horizontal N-S Axis: 
Single-axis tracking (rotating 
horizontally N-S) 

STS#8 
Tracking Plane, Vertical Axis (30° tilt): 
Vertical axis tracking with panel tilt 
30° 

2.4 Simulation software 

In general,  computer simulation software such as PVSyst, 
HOMER, and RETscreen is useful for the optimal design of 
solar PV projects [54]. It contains meteorological data of most 
locations and suitable algorithms capable of simulating the 
user's data and suggesting various configurations. In this 
study, the PVsyst simulation tool is used. A PVsyst simulation 
tool, designed initially in Geneva, helps in estimating the 
performance of PV systems [56]. The software assists in 
creating a design configuration for the system and also allows 
for the calculation of energy generation. The output is based 
on the simulation of the sizing system, further depending 
primarily on the geographical site location. The results might 
involve various simulations that can be shown in monthly, 
daily, or hourly volumes. The “Loss Diagram” predicts the 
weaknesses in the system design [56,57]. 

2.5 Evaporation estimation and annual water-saving 

The floating photovoltaic structure reduces evaporation 
over the water's surface, not only beneath the panels. The 
main contributors to this decrease are twofold: (a) a 
reduction in air-water interaction beneath the covered area 
and (b) a change in the lake's thermal balance that results in 
lower surface temperatures and reduced evaporation. There 
are several different ways to calculate the evaporation of 
water on free surfaces in the literature [54]. Additionally, the 
Penman-Monteith method is used to calculate the 
evaporation rate (E). It can be expressed as Eq. (2). 

  

𝐸 =
0.047∙∆∙𝑅𝑛+𝛾∙

900

𝑇+273
∙𝑈2(𝑒𝑠−𝑒𝑎)

∆+𝛾∙(1+0.34∙𝑈2)
                                                          (2)  

𝑒𝑠 =
1

2
∙ [0.6108 ∙ 𝑒𝑥𝑝 (

17.27𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥+237.3
) + 0.6108 ∙

𝑒𝑥𝑝 (
17.27𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛

𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛+237.3
)]                                    (3) 

𝑒𝑎 =
𝑅𝐻

100
∙ 𝑒𝑠                                        (4) 

Where 𝑅𝑛is the net radiation [W/m2], 𝑈2 is the wind speed at 
2m height [m/s], ∆  is the slope of the saturated vapor 
pressure–air temperature curve [kPa/ ℃], 𝛾: Psychrometric 
“constant” (depends on temperature and atmospheric 
pressure) [Pa ℃−1 ], 𝑒𝑠 : saturated vapor pressure at the 
temperature of the air [kPa]; 𝑒𝑎 is the vapor pressure at the 
temperature and relative humidity of the air and 𝑅𝐻  is 
relative humidity [%]. 
Moreover, the water saving (w-s) from installing the 
proposed system can be determined using Eq. (5) [54].  

𝑤 − 𝑠 =  𝐸𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦  ×  𝐴 ×  0.70                  (5) 

where  𝐸𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦  is the monthly evaporation, 𝐴  is the box's 

surface area that prevents water evaporation [m2], which is 
equal to 2470 m2. 

 
3. Results and discussion 

3.1 Best sun-tracking system for FPV system  

As mentioned previously, different sun-tracking systems 
are compared according to their PR as shown in Figure 3. It 
was found that a fixed-tilt system with a 30° tilt and a 0° 
azimuth achieved an 83.64% PR. By including seasonal tilt 
changes (20° in the summer and 50° in the winter), the PR 
was slightly raised to 83.66%. Tracking systems were also 
evaluated. While monitoring sunshields with a facade angle of 
30° gave a PR of 83.61%, dual-axis tracking systems produced 
somewhat higher PR values, ranging from 83.69% to 83.72%, 
depending on the frame orientation (E-W or N-S). With the 

 

 

 

0

10

20

30

40

0

50

100

150

200

250

Ja
n

.

Fe
b

.

M
ar

.

A
p

r.

M
ay

Ju
n

.

Ju
l.

A
u

g.

Se
p

.

O
ct

.

N
o

v.

D
ec

.

A
T 

[°
C

]

G
H

I [
kW

h
/m

2
]

GHI Ambient Temperature

0
0.5

1
1.5

2
2.5

3
3.5

W
S 

[m
/s

]

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

Jan. Feb.Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov.Dec.

R
H

 [
%

]



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

220 

 

highest PR of 84.11% among all the options, the tracking 
plane with a horizontal N-S single axis was the most efficient 
configuration. Numerous studies concluded that a single-axis 
tracking configuration is one of the best orientations for 
optimizing the annual energy yield in PV systems [58, 59]. 
Moreover, single-axis trackers can increase the energy 
production over fixed systems [59, 60], which can be 
important for maximizing energy output on water surfaces in 
FPV installations [61, 62].  

 

Figure 3. PR value for various sun-tracking systems  

To maximize the efficiency of FPV systems, it is 

important to understand the solar irradiance parameters 

[63,64]. Figure 4 illustrates the monthly variation of Diffuse 

Horizontal Irradiance (DHI), Global Irradiance on 

Inclined Plane (GIIP), Diffuse Irradiance on Inclined Plane 

(DIIP), and Albedo Irradiance on Inclined Plane (AIIP) for the 

best-performing sun-tracking system. It is found that the 

maximum DHI is recorded in April (74.72 kWh/m²) and May 

(77.29 kWh/m²), giving enough scattered sunlight to be 

efficiently utilized by the system. Moreover, it is observed that 

the highest value for the GIIP is recorded in June (326.1 

kWh/m²), followed by May (293.6 kWh/m²), which indicates 

that these months have the greatest solar energy potential. 

Furthermore, DIIP follows the general trend of global 

irradiance, with the highest value in May (36.99 kWh/m²) and 

low values during the winter months, particularly December. 

Additionally, AIIP, which represents the amount of radiation 

reflected by the surface, shows high values during the 

summer months, particularly in June (4.561 kWh/m²), which 

complements the overall system energy generation potential. 

3.2 Monthly variation of evaporation at various sun-

tracking systems 

The monthly and annual evaporation data are estimated 

based on the global inclined solar irradiation. Figure 5 

illustrates the monthly and annual evaporation for various 

sun-tracking systems. It is found that January has the lowest 

evaporation, whereas July consistently has the highest 

evaporation rates in all systems. Additionally, the results 

show that STS#1 1 has the lowest yearly evaporation at 

2642.96 mm, whereas STS#2 and STS#3 show a slight 

increase in evaporation to 2715.58 mm and 2786.03 mm, 

respectively, as a result of their superior solar capture. 

Furthermore, STS#4, STS#5, and STS#6 systems have the 

highest evaporation rates, exceeding 3400 mm/year due to 

the full two-axis tracking continuously optimizing panel 

orientation to maximize solar exposure on the water's 

surface.  

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4. Monthly variation of climate parameters 

Furthermore, at roughly 3180 mm/year, STS#7 and 

STS#8 show intermediate rates of evaporation. These 

systems achieve a better balance without the severe 

evaporation that comes with full two-axis tracking by 

increasing solar output compared to fixed systems. Moreover, 

the estimated w-s for different configurations of the PV 

system at various coverage percentages (45%, 60%, 75%, and 

90%) over an integrated water surface area of 2470 m² is 

shown in Figure 5. The results show that increasing the 

covering area significantly improves water conservation by 

reducing evaporation. Furthermore, it is found that the water 

savings at 45% coverage range from 2056.35 m³ (Seasonal 

Tilt Adjustment) to 2669.93 m³ (Tracking Plane, Horizontal 

N-S Axis).  

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

G
II

P
 [

kW
h

/m
2
]

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

D
H

I [
kW

h
/m

2 ]

0
5

10
15
20
25
30
35
40

D
II

P
 [

kW
h

/m
2 ]

0

1

2

3

4

5

A
II

P
 [

kW
h

/m
2 ]

83.64 83.66
83.61

83.71 83.72 83.69

84.11

83.95

83

83.2

83.4

83.6

83.8

84

84.2

P
R

 [
%

]



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

221 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Estimation of the value of evaporation and water saving for 

different sun-tracking systems 

The savings gradually increase with an increase in the 

covered area to 60%, 75%, and finally 90%. At 90% coverage, 

the highest water-saving capacity is observed for the Tracking 

Plane, Horizontal N-S Axis system, with 5589.08 m³, and the 

Seasonal Tilt Adjustment system recorded less water savings 

of 4304.64 m³.  Besides, two-axis tracking systems, including 

frame and plane kinds, exhibit the greatest potential for water 

savings at higher coverage levels among the systems studied 

due to their superior capacity to inhibit evaporation. This 

analysis shows that increased coverage offers substantial 

water-saving benefits in addition to increasing solar energy 

output. This is particularly important for reservoirs that are 

located in dry or drought-prone regions.  

The findings reveal that water savings increase 

significantly as the coverage percentage rises from 0% to 

90%, highlighting the system's effectiveness in reducing 

evaporation. For instance, annual water savings at 90% 

coverage can reach as high as 5589.08m³, compared to zero 

savings when no photovoltaic panels are used.  These results 

align with previous research. For example, Abd-Elhamid et al. 

[65] reported water savings ranging from 2.1 × 10^9 m³/year 

at 25% coverage to 8.4 × 109 m³/year at 100% coverage. 

Similarly, Ilgen et al. [66] estimated that at 90% FPV coverage, 

water savings could reach up to 5.9 billion m³/year, with a 

corresponding 49.7% reduction in evaporation 

3.3 Energy production analysis for  optimal FPV tracking 

system 

The monthly hourly summation of grid exported energy 

(SGEE) shows the entire electrical energy that is expected to 

be delivered by the PV system to the grid each month.  The 

main objective of these results is to measure the energy 

performance of the configured PV system over time, 

considering site-specific solar conditions, system 

configurations, and losses.  As mentioned previously, a variety 

of coverage percentages, including 45%, 60%, 75%, and 90%, 

were used in its computation. The results show that by 

increasing the number of panels, the covering area 

significantly increases annual energy output, as shown in 

Figure 6.  

 

Figure 6. Annual hourly value of SGEE with various coverage areas  

Moreover, Figure 7 illustrates the monthly hourly SGEE for 

the cover area of 45% as an example. Figure 7 demonstrates: 

• For the summer months (June, July, and August), energy 

generation is relatively high, reflecting the increased solar 

radiation during those months. 

• The winter months (December, January, and February) 

have low energy due to the shorter daylight hours, along 

with a lower amount of solar irradiation. 

• Peak power is typically achieved in most months, 

specifically in summer, between the periods of 9h and 15h. 

This peak corresponds to the time of day when the solar 

radiation is at its highest. 

• It's quite obvious that energy output tends to uniformly 

increase over the hours from morning (6h) to afternoon 

(15h), before declining towards evening and night (17h to 

23h), just like any solar-generating system will show. 

• The peak energy export is recorded between the hours of 

10h and 15h, coinciding with a peak incident during the day 

when solar radiation is at its maximum. 

The loss diagram for a cover area of 45% as an example, 

shows each loss that occurs in the system step-by-step 

(Figure 8), where a drop of 1812kWh/m2 is caused by the PV 

system. It's a good thing. Because of IAM and soiling losses, 

the system's overall energy generation is 579 MWh, with an 

efficiency of 21.4%. Last but not least, 579Mwh and the 

remaining energy are lost due to LID, mismatch loss, inverter 

loss during operation, and Ohmic loss. 

100

160

220

280

340

400

460

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

E 
[m

m
]

Monthly 

STS# STS# STS# STS#

STS# STS# STS# STS#

0
500

1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500

E 
[m

m
]

Annual

0

2000

4000

6000

STS# STS# STS# STS# STS# STS# STS# STS#

w
-s

 [
m

3 ]

Water saving

Cover area 45% Cover area 60%

Cover area75% Cover area 90%

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SG
EE

 [
M

W
h

]

Hour [h]

Cover area 45% Cover area 60%

Cover area 75% Cover area 90%



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

222 

 

 

 

 

 
Figure 7. Annual hourly value of SGEE for covering an area of 45% 

3.4 Economic analysis of PV system performance at 

various coverage areas 

This study conducted a techno-economic assessment of 

the FPV system under several assumptions. The system is 

expected to generate the most energy and return on 

investment over a 25-year period. The discount rate is 

assumed to rise from 0% to 11% in 3% increments to account 

for the time value of money. Moreover, a 2% to 10% inflation 

rate with 2% increments is assumed for anticipated cost 

escalation over time. Furthermore, it is assumed that: (a) 

engineering is expected to cost 2% of the initial cost, (b) civil 

work could cost 5%, (c) technical and structural aspects can 

cost 8%, and (d) transportation and electrical connection 

costs would cost 2% and 7% of the initial cost, respectively. 

Furthermore, miscellaneous costs (including those that were 

perhaps unexpected or just small) were given an account of 

1%. These assumptions set the basis for the estimate and the 

financial evaluation of the PV system throughout its expected 

lifetime. The economic analysis covers financial and 

environmental implications for various coverage areas of FPV 

systems. There's a clear increase in GHG annual emission 

reduction with increased coverage area, from 67 tCO2/year at 

45% to 105 tCO2/year at 90%, as shown in Figure 9. Besides, 

the simple and equity payback periods are within the range of 

3.8-4.4 years and 1.2-1.4 years, respectively, as shown in 

Figure 10. The results indicate that the initial investment gets 

recovered in quite a short period. The results demonstrate 

that the payback period can be influenced by the reservoir 

area covered by solar panels according to previous studies 

[54, 67, 68].  

 
Figure 8. Loss diagram for covering an area of 45% 

 

 

Figure 9. GHG annual emission reduction for the percentage of 

various cover areas  

 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SG
EE

 [
M

W
H

]

January February December

0
0.5

1
1.5

2
2.5

3
3.5

4
4.5

5
5.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SG
EE

 [
M

W
H

]

March April May

0
0.5

1
1.5

2
2.5

3
3.5

4
4.5

5
5.5

6
6.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SG
EE

 [
M

W
H

]

June July August

0
0.5

1
1.5

2
2.5

3
3.5

4
4.5

5
5.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

SG
EE

 [
M

W
H

]

September October November

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

G
H

G
 e

m
is

si
o

n
 r

e
d

u
ct

io
n

 [
tC

o
2/

ye
ar

]



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

223 

 

Figure 10. Simple and equity payback value for various percentages 

of the covered area  

Figure 11 shows the relationship between the Net 

Present Value (NPV) of the FPV system and various discount 

rates (DR) and inflation rates. As mentioned previously, it was 

assumed that the discount rate would range from 0% to 11% 

in 3% increments to account for the time value of money, 

while the inflation rate was adjusted from 2% to 10% in 2% 

increments to reflect anticipated cost escalation over the 

project's lifetime. The negative consequences of increased 

cost escalation are illustrated by the fact that, for all discount 

rates, NPV falls as inflation increases. Similarly, higher 

discount rates reduce the present value of future cash flows, 

which in turn reduces the project's overall profitability [69].  

The combination of an 8% inflation rate and a 6% discount 

rate was found to be the most effective among scenarios. This 

choice strikes a balance between favorable project returns 

and the region's actual economic conditions. An 8% inflation 

rate accounts for the higher-than-global-average price 

growth anticipated in the local economy, while a 6% discount 

rate is a reasonable assumption for the cost of capital and 

project risk in renewable energy investments. In spite of 

moderate cost escalation and capital costs, the FPV system 

maintains a high enough net present value (NPV) under these 

circumstances, suggesting strong financial feasibility. 

According to Kassem et al [54], the optimal combination of a 

6% discount rate and an 8% inflation rate was found among 

the examined scenarios. This choice impacts a balance 

between favorable project returns and feasible regional 

economic conditions. 

Figure 11. Relationship between the NPV of the FPV system and 

various discount and inflation rates for covering an area of 45% 

 

 

Long-term profitability increases with coverage, as 

demonstrated by the Net Present Value, which rises from 

712518.59 USD at 45% to 1519930.53 USD at 90% as shown 

in Figure 12. The annual life cycle savings (ALCS) for a year 

are also going with this, producing savings of 62120.62 USD 

at 45% coverage and 132514.47 USD at 90%. Moreover, the 

energy production cost remains very low and almost constant 

in all coverage areas, which indicates efficient generation of 

energy irrespective of the coverage size. Being a cost incurred 

in giving one unit of electricity over the life cycle of the PV 

system, energy production cost is quite an important metric 

in techno-economic analysis. In this study, energy production 

cost was calculated by dividing the total cost of the system by 

the total energy generated over the 25-year lifetime of the 

system. The results indicate that the energy production cost 

is 0.0524USD/kWh, 0.0451 USD/kWh, 0.0405 USD/kWh, and 

0.0372 USD/kWh for cover areas of 45%, 60%, 75% and 90%, 

respectively, as shown in Figure 12. Previous studies 

[3,54,70] demonstrated that increasing the coverage area of 

FPV has led to a decrease in the cost of energy, primarily due 

to the higher electricity generation achieved from larger 

installations. 

 

 
 

Figure 12. Simple and equity payback value for various percentages 

of the covered area  

4. Conclusion  

FPV systems provide a viable way to produce clean, 
renewable energy that can satisfy this growing demand and 
support sustainable development objectives. FPV systems for 
reservoirs are an emerging technology that holds significant 
potential for reducing evaporation. Based on the findings, it is 
found that evaporation is highest in July and lowest in January 
across all systems. The evaporation values were within the 
range of 2642.96-3400 mm/year. Additionally, various 
scenarios involving the coverage of the lake surface with the 
FPV system were explored. Additionally, the economic study 

0.E+00
2.E+04
4.E+04
6.E+04
8.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+05
1.E+05

0.E+00
2.E+05
4.E+05
6.E+05
8.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+06
1.E+06
2.E+06

A
LC

S 
[U

SD
/y

e
ar

]

N
P

V
 [

U
SD

]

Net Present Value (NPV) Annual life cycle savings

0.0524
0.0451

0.0405
0.0372

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

En
e

rg
y 

p
ro

d
u

ct
io

n
 c

o
st

 
[U

SD
/k

W
h

]

2.5E+05

5.5E+05

8.5E+05

1.2E+06

1.5E+06

2 4 6 8 10

N
P

V
 [

U
SD

]

Inflation rate [%]

DR = 0% DR = 3% DR = 6%

DR = 9% DR = 11%

1.1
1.15
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

Eq
u

it
yp

ay
b

ac
k 

[Y
e

ar
]

Si
m

p
le

 p
ay

b
ac

k 
[Y

e
ar

]

Simple payback Equity payback



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

224 

 

indicates that increasing the floating PV system's coverage 
area significantly improves both its financial and 
environmental outcomes. The yearly GHG emission 
reductions rise from 330 to 659 tCO2/year, yet the simple 
payback period remains brief and stable at roughly 3.2 years. 
Increased coverage indicates higher long-term profitability 
since it dramatically increases NPV and annual life cycle 
savings. The benefit-to-cost ratio is still quite favorable in all 
circumstances. The system's cost of energy production 
remains relatively low and nearly constant, ranging from 
0.0175 to 0.0176 USD/kWh, even with larger coverage areas, 
proving its sustainability and economic effectiveness. In the 
end, expanding the coverage area of floating solar designs is 
highly beneficial for achieving sustainability and energy-
generating goals. The economic and technological potential of 
floating solar systems over bodies of water, such as the NEU 
Lake, is demonstrated by this study. Future research needs to 
be performed to confirm the simulated results for energy 
generation and evaporation decrease by experimental 
measurements, therefore enhancing the accuracy of the 
results. Additionally, further research into the required 
infrastructure, grid compatibility, and regulatory framework 
for integrating FPV-generated electricity into the Northern 
Cyprus grid is recommended in order to assure realistic 
adoption.  

Ethical issue 
The authors are aware of and comply with best practices in 
publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship 
(avoidance of guest authorship), dual submission, 
manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance 
with policies on research ethics. The authors adhere to 
publication requirements that the submitted work is original 
and has not been published elsewhere. 

Data availability statement 
The manuscript contains all the data. However, more data will 

be available upon request from the authors. 

Conflict of interest 

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest. 

References 

[1] Tan, G., Afrouzi, H. N., Ahmed, J., Hassan, A., &Sukki, F. 

M. (2024). Analyzing meteorological parameters using 

Pearson correlation coefficient and implementing 

machine learning models for solar energy prediction in 

Kuching, Sarawak. Future Sustainability, 2(2), 20-

26.https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.2.2.3 

[2] Razeghi, M., Saifoddin, A. A., Abdoos, M., Yousefi, H., 

Salaripoor, H., Gobnaki, M. R., ...&Gholizadeh, M. H. 

(2025). Evaluating the economic impact of solar 

energy on local industries in Semnan, Iran. Future 

Sustainability, 3(1), 49-58. 

https://doi.org/10.55670/fpll.fusus.3.1.5 

[3] Jawad, A., Hasan, M. S., &Faruqui, M. F. I. (2023). Small-

scale floating photovoltaic systems in university 

campus: A pathway to achieving SDG 7 goals in 

Bangladesh. Energy Conversion and Management, 297, 

117722. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117722 

[4] Renné, D. S. (2022). Progress, opportunities, and 

challenges of achieving net-zero emissions and 100% 

renewables. Solar Compass, 1, 100007. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solcom.2022.100007 

[5] Aleksandra, A., Sara, B. P., Małgorzata, J., Brian, B., 

Davide, P., & Miguel, C. (2024). Role of solar PV in net‐

zero growth: An analysis of international 

manufacturers and policies. Progress in Photovoltaics: 

Research and Applications, 32(9), 607-622. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3797 

[6] Paul, D., Devaprakasam, D., Patil, S., &Agrawal, A. 

(2023). Floating Solar: A Review on the Comparison of 

Efficiency, Issues, and Projections with Ground-

Mounted Solar Photovoltaics. International Journal of 

Sustainable Development & Planning, 18(10). 

https://doi.org/110.18280/ijsdp.181021 

[7] Kumar, N. M., Chakraborty, S., Yadav, S. K., Singh, J., & 

Chopra, S. S. (2022). Advancing simulation tools 

specific to floating solar photovoltaic systems–

Comparative analysis of field-measured and simulated 

energy performance. Sustainable Energy Technologies 

and Assessments, 52, 102168. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102168 

[8] Lee, N., Grunwald, U., Rosenlieb, E., Mirletz, H., Aznar, 

A., Spencer, R., & Cox, S. (2020). Hybrid floating solar 

photovoltaics-hydropower systems: Benefits and 

global assessment of technical potential. Renewable 

Energy, 162, 1415-1427. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.08.080 

[9] Shi, W., Yan, C., Ren, Z., Yuan, Z., Liu, Y., Zheng, S., ...& 

Han, X. (2023). Review on the development of marine 

floating photovoltaic systems. Ocean Engineering, 286, 

115560. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115560 

[10] Liu, G., Guo, J., Peng, H., Ping, H., & Ma, Q. (2024). 

Review of recent offshore floating photovoltaic 

systems. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 

12(11), 1942. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse12111942 

[11] Claus, R., &López, M. (2022). Key issues in the design of 

floating photovoltaic structures for the marine 

environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy 

Reviews, 164, 112502. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112502 

[12] Ghigo, A., Faraggiana, E., Sirigu, M., Mattiazzo, G., 

&Bracco, G. (2022). Design and analysis of a floating 

photovoltaic system for offshore installation: The case 

study of Lampedusa. Energies, 15(23), 8804. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238804 

[13] Manolache, M., Manolache, A. I., & Andrei, G. (2025). 

Floating Solar Energy Systems: A Review of Economic 

Feasibility and Cross-Sector Integration with Marine 

Renewable Energy, Aquaculture and Hydrogen. Journal 

of Marine Science and Engineering, 13(8), 1404. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse13081404 

[14] Attar, H., Alahmer, A., Borowski, G., &Alsaqoor, S. 

(2025). Comprehensive review of advancements, 

challenges, design, and environmental impact in 

floating photovoltaic systems. Ecological Engineering 

& Environmental Technology (EEET), 26(2). 

[15] Santafé, M. R., Soler, J. B. T., Romero, F. J. S., Gisbert, P. 

S. F., Gozálvez, J. J. F., &Gisbert, C. M. F. (2014). 

Theoretical and experimental analysis of a floating 

photovoltaic cover for water irrigation reservoirs. 

Energy, 67, 246-255. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.01.083 



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

225 

 

[16] Siecker, J., Kusakana, K., &Numbi, E. B. (2017). A 

review of solar photovoltaic systems cooling 

technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy 

Reviews, 79, 192-203. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.053 

[17] Silalahi, D. F., &Blakers, A. (2023, September). Global 

atlas of marine floating solar PV potential. In Solar 

(Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 416-433). Multidisciplinary Digital 

Publishing Institute. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/solar3030023 

[18] Klugmann-Radziemska, E. (2020). Shading, dusting 

and incorrect positioning of photovoltaic modules as 

important factors in performance reduction. Energies, 

13(8), 1992. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13081992 

[19] Paydar, M. A. (2020). Optimum design of building 

integrated PV module as a movable shading device. 

Sustainable Cities and Society, 62, 102368. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102368 

[20] Kim, S. H., Yoon, S. J., & Choi, W. (2017). Design and 

construction of 1 MW class floating PV generation 

structural system using FRP members. Energies, 10(8), 

1142. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10081142 

[21] Kumar, M., Niyaz, H. M., & Gupta, R. (2021). Challenges 

and opportunities towards the development of floating 

photovoltaic systems. Solar Energy Materials and Solar 

Cells, 233, 111408. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2021.111408 

[22] Silvério, N. M., Barros, R. M., Tiago Filho, G. L., Redón-

Santafé, M., dos Santos, I. F. S., & de Mello Valerio, V. E. 

(2018). Use of floating PV plants for coordinated 

operation with hydropower plants: Case study of the 

hydroelectric plants of the São Francisco River basin. 

Energy Conversion and Management, 171, 339-349. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.05.095 

[23] Kumar, N. M., Subramaniam, U., Mathew, M., Ajitha, A., 

&Almakhles, D. J. (2020). Exergy analysis of thin-film 

solar PV module in ground-mount, floating, and 

submerged installation methods. Case Studies in 

Thermal Engineering, 21, 100686. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2020.100686 

[24] Gorjian, S., Sharon, H., Ebadi, H., Kant, K., Scavo, F. B., & 

Tina, G. M. (2021). Recent technical advancements, 

economics, and environmental impacts of floating 

photovoltaic solar energy conversion systems. Journal 

of Cleaner Production, 278, 124285. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124285 

[25] Essak, L., &Ghosh, A. (2022). Floating photovoltaics: A 

review. Clean Technologies, 4(3), 752-769. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol4030046 

[26] Fakouriyan, S., Saboohi, Y., &Fathi, A. (2019). 

Experimental analysis of a cooling system effect on 

photovoltaic panels' efficiency and its preheating 

water production. Renewable Energy, 134, 1362-1368. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.09.054 

[27] Farrar, L. W., Bahaj, A. S., James, P., Anwar, A., &Amdar, 

N. (2022). Floating solar PV to reduce water 

evaporation in water-stressed regions and powering 

water pumping: Case study Jordan. Energy Conversion 

and Management, 260, 115598. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115598 

[28] Katircioğlu, S. T. (2014). Estimating higher education 

induced energy consumption: The case of Northern 

Cyprus. Energy, 66, 831-838. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.040 

[29] Giritli, N., &Kalmaz, D. B. (2022). Re‐examining the 

impact of financial development on the economic 

growth of North Cyprus through the moderating role 

of the education sector. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(3), 

e2517. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2517 

[30] Akçaba, S., &Eminer, F. (2022). Sustainable energy 

planning for the aspiration to transition from fossil 

energy to renewable energy in Northern Cyprus. 

Heliyon, 8(6). 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09813 

[31] Prăvălie, R., Patriche, C., &Bandoc, G. (2019). Spatial 

assessment of solar energy potential at global scale. A 

geographical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 

209, 692-721. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.239 

[32] Dhamran, M. A. A. (2023). Techno-Economic Analysis 

of Integrating Renewable Electricity and Electricity 

Storage in a Typical Family House in the Turkish 

Republic of Northern Cyprus (Master's thesis, Eastern 

Mediterranean University (EMU)-

DoğuAkdenizÜniversitesi (DAÜ)). 

[33] Damdelen, O., &Şeker, U. (2020). Investigation and 

implementing on photovoltaic systems in North 

Cyprus. AvrupaBilimveTeknolojiDergisi, 380-395. 

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.802784 

[34] Yosef, E., &Damdelen, Ö. (2022). The reduction of 

energy consumption in sustainable buildings for North 

Cyprus. Journal of Construction Engineering, 

Management & Innovation, 5(4), 286-301. 

[35] Dakyen, M. M., Dagbasi, M., &Özdenefe, M. (2022). 

Energy models for cost-optimal analysis: Development 

and calibration of residential reference building 

models for Northern Cyprus. Indoor and Built 

Environment, 31(3), 657-681. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X211013076 

[36] Abbasoglu, S. (2011). Techno-economic and 

environmental analysis of PV power plants in 

Northern Cyprus. Energy EducSciTechnol Part A, 28, 

357-368. 

[37] Yenen, M.; Ercan, F.; Fahrioglu, M. Solar thermal 

system analysis of Northern Cyprus. In proceedings of 

the EECS'12—7th International Symposium on 

Electrical and Computer Systems, Lefke, Northern 

Cyprus, November 2012. 

[38] Okoye, C. O., &Atikol, U. (2014). A parametric study on 

the feasibility of solar chimney power plants in North 

Cyprus conditions. Energy conversion and 

management, 80, 178-187. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.01.009 

[39] Maltini, F.; Minder, R. The Serhatköy photovoltaic 

power plant and the future of renewable energy on the 

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Eco-Friendly 

Innov. inElectr. Transmiss. andDistrib. Netws. 2015, 

377–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-78242-

010-1.00018-5 

[40] Ozerdem, O. C.; Tackie, S.; Biricik, S. Performance 

evaluation of Serhatkoy (1.2 MW) PV power plant. 9th 



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

226 

 

International Conference on Electrical and Electronics 

Engineering (ELECO 2015), Bursa, Turkey, 26-28 

November  2015. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/ELECO.2015.7394510 

[41] Kamali, S. (2016). Feasibility analysis of standalone 

photovoltaic electrification system in a residential 

building in Cyprus. Renewable and Sustainable Energy 

Reviews, 65, 1279-1284. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.07.018 

[42] Dagbasi, M., Bamisile, O., &Adii, C. (2016, October). The 

techno-economic comparison of solar power 

generation methods for Turkish Republic of North 

Cyprus. In 2016 HONET-ICT (pp. 17-23). IEEE. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/HONET.2016.7753430 

[43] Cabacaba, N., &Abbasoğlu, S. (2017). Evaluation of 

Wind–Solar Hybrid System for a Household in 

Northern Cyprus. In Towards 100% Renewable Energy 

(pp. 313-321). Springer, Cham. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45659-1_34 

[44] Ouria, M.; Sevinc, H. Evaluation of the potential of solar 

energy utilization in Famagusta, Cyprus. Sust. Cities 

and Society. 2018, 37, 189–202.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.10.036 

[45] Al-Ghussain, L., Abujubbeh, M., &Fahrioglu, M. (2018). 

Assessment of PV investments in Northern Cyprus. In 

16th Int. Conf. Clean Energy (pp. 9-11). 

[46] Hastunç, M., &Tekbıyık-Ersoy, N. (2018). Optimizing 

Residential Renewable Energy Utilization in North 

Cyprus: Case Study of Solar Energy. no. May, 9. 

[47] Ogbeba, J.; Hoskara, E. The Evaluation of Single-Family 

Detached Housing Units in terms of Integrated 

Photovoltaic Shading Devices: The Case of Northern 

Cyprus. Sust. 2019, 11(3), 593. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030593 

[48] Oner, H. (2019). Economic feasibility assessment of 

solar powered seawater desalination plants: 

Unconventional fresh water supply for Guzelyurt, 

Northern Cyprus (Master's thesis, Middle East 

Technical University). 

[49] Al‐Ghussain, L., &Taylan, O. (2019). Sizing 

methodology of a PV/wind hybrid system: Case study 

in cyprus. Environmental Progress & Sustainable 

Energy, 38(3), e13052. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.13052 

[50] Kassem, Y., Çamur, H., &Alhuoti, S. M. A. (2020). Solar 

energy technology for Northern Cyprus: Assessment, 

statistical analysis, and feasibility study. Energies, 

13(4), 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13040940 

[51] Al-Turjman, F., Qadir, Z., Abujubbeh, M., &Batunlu, C. 

(2020). Feasibility analysis of solar photovoltaic-wind 

hybrid energy system for household applications. 

Computers & Electrical Engineering, 86, 106743. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2020.106743 

[52] Kassem, Y., Gökçekuş, H., &Güvensoy, A. (2021). 

Techno-economic feasibility of grid-connected solar 

PV system at Near East University hospital, Northern 

Cyprus. Energies, 14(22), 7627. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/en14227627 

[53] Ünlükuş, U. A. (2023). Economic feasiblity of floating 

solar PV and land-based solar PV in Northern Cyprus 

(Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University). 

[54] Kassem, Y., Gökçekuş, H., & Gökçekuş, R. (2024). 

Towards Sustainable Energy Solutions: Evaluating the 

Impact of Floating PV Systems in Reducing Water 

Evaporation and Enhancing Energy Production in 

Northern Cyprus. Energies, 17(21), 5300. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/en17215300 

[55] Paudel, B., Regmi, N., Phuyal, P., Neupane, D., Hussain, 

M. I., Kim, D. H., &Kafle, S. (2021). Techno-economic 

and environmental assessment of utilizing campus 

building rooftops for solar PV power generation. 

International Journal of Green Energy, 18(14), 1469-

1481. Paudel, B., Regmi, N., Phuyal, P., Neupane, D., 

Hussain, M. I., Kim, D. H., &Kafle, S. (2021). Techno-

economic and environmental assessment of utilizing 

campus building rooftops for solar PV power 

generation. International Journal of Green Energy, 

18(14), 1469-1481. 

[56] Mahmoud, M., Sayed, E. T., Abdelkareem, M. A., Rabaia, 

M. K. H., &Olabi, A. G. (2023). Modeling and simulation 

of solar photovoltaic energy systems. In Renewable 

Energy-Volume 1: Solar, Wind, and Hydropower (pp. 

281-295). Academic Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99568-9.00017-

0 

[57] Zhu, Y., Liu, J., & Yang, X. (2020). Design and 

performance analysis of a solar tracking system with a 

novel single-axis tracking structure to maximize 

energy collection. Applied Energy, 264, 114647. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114647 

[58] Huang, B., Huang, J., Xing, K., Liao, L., Xie, P., Xiao, M., & 

Zhao, W. (2023). Development of a solar-tracking 

system for horizontal single-axis PV arrays using 

spatial projection analysis. Energies, 16(10), 4008.  

https://doi.org/10.3390/en16104008 

[59] Gurfude, S. S., &Kulkarni, P. S. (2019, December). 

Energy yield of tracking type floating solar PV plant. In 

2019 National Power Electronics Conference (NPEC) 

(pp. 1-6). IEEE. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/NPEC47332.2019.9034846 

[60] Choi, Y. K. (2014). A study on power generation 

analysis of floating PV system considering 

environmental impact. International journal of 

software engineering and its applications, 8(1), 75-84. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijseia.2014.8.1.07 

[61] Niccolai, A., Grimaccia, F., Di Lorenzo, G., Araneo, R., 

Ughi, F., &Polenghi, M. (2023). A review of floating PV 

systems with a techno-economic analysis. IEEE Journal 

of Photovoltaics, 14(1), 23-34. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2023.3319601 

[62] Tina, G. M., &Scavo, F. B. (2022). Energy performance 

analysis of tracking floating photovoltaic systems. 

Heliyon, 8(8). 

[63] Vodapally, S. N., & Ali, M. H. (2022). A comprehensive 

review of solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies, 

architecture, and its applications to improved 

efficiency. Energies, 16(1), 319. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/en16010319 

[64] Liu, Z., Zhang, Y., Yuan, X., Liu, Y., Xu, J., Zhang, S., & He, 

B. J. (2021). A comprehensive study of feasibility and 

applicability of building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) 

systems in regions with high solar irradiance. Journal 



Y. Kassem et al. /Future Technology                                                                         November 2025| Volume 04 | Issue 04 | Pages 216-227 

227 

 

of Cleaner Production, 307, 127240. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127240 

[65] Abd-Elhamid, H. F., Ahmed, A., Zeleňáková, M., 

Vranayová, Z., &Fathy, I. (2021). Reservoir 

management by reducing evaporation using floating 

photovoltaic system: A case study of Lake Nasser, 

Egypt. Water, 13(6), 769. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/w13060769 

[66] Ilgen, K., Schindler, D., Armbruster, A., Ladwig, R., 

Eppinger Ruiz de Zarate, I., & Lange, J. (2024). 

Evaporation reduction and energy generation 

potential using floating photovoltaic power plants on 

the Aswan High Dam Reservoir. Hydrological Sciences 

Journal, 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2024.2332625 

[67] Kim, S. M., Oh, M., & Park, H. D. (2019). Analysis and 

prioritization of the floating photovoltaic system 

potential for reservoirs in Korea. Applied Sciences, 

9(3), 395. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9030395 

[68] de Oliveira Azevêdo, R., Rotela Junior, P., Rocha, L. C. S., 

Chicco, G., Aquila, G., &Peruchi, R. S. (2020). 

Identification and analysis of impact factors on the 

economic feasibility of photovoltaic energy 

investments. Sustainability, 12(17), 7173. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177173 

[69] Mohammadi, K., Naderi, M., &Saghafifar, M. (2018). 

Economic feasibility of developing grid-connected 

photovoltaic plants in the southern coast of Iran. 

Energy, 156, 17-31. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.05.065 

[70] Elminshawy, N. A., Osama, A., Gagliano, A., Oterkus, E., 

& Tina, G. M. (2024). A technical and economic 

evaluation of floating photovoltaic systems in the 

context of the water-energy nexus. Energy, 303, 

131904. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131904 

  

This article is an open-access article distributed under the 

terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

(CC BY) license 

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

