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/