Performance and economic comparison of fixed and tracking photovoltaic systems in Jordan

Abstract

This study aims at comparing the experimental performance and economic parameters of fixed and double–axis open–loop tracking PV grid–connected systems installed at the Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan. Both systems, having a nameplate capacity of 7.98 kWp each, monitored for one full year from February 9, 2014 to February 8, 2015. The performance analysis was conducted in terms of final yield and conversion efficiency, while the economic analysis investigates the payback period and internal rate of return, in addition to the electricity cost. The actual performance results show that the annual production of the tracking system is 31.29% higher than that of the fixed system. The annual conversion efficiency of the fixed system is 13.83%, while it is 13.85% for the tracking system. Although the temperature of modules is higher for the tracking system, this close match is contributed to the accumulation of dust on the fixed system, whereas the motion of the tracking system cleans out dust continuously. While the double-axis tracking system generates more energy than does the fixed system, the feasibility study over 20 years shows that the fixed PV system is more feasible in Jordan. The economic analysis of payback period, internal rate of return and electricity cost disclose that these parameters are in support of investment in fixed PV systems.

Introduction

Photovoltaics (PV) systems have become a prevalent electricity supplier, changing the way the world is powered, as part of the renewable energy mixture. Global PV installations saw record years between 2013 and 2016, with at least 38.4 GW of newly added capacity in 2013. In 2014, there was a slowdown in the overall increase in newly added system, with an estimated installed capacity of 40 GW. The year 2015 saw a 25% increase in installation, with an estimated newly added capacity of at least 48.1 GW. More than 50% increase in installation was added in 2016, with at least 75 GW newly added capacity. This has brought the global cumulative installed capacity to at least of 303 GW by the end of 2016 [1], [2], [3], with the world leaders in total installed capacity are China (78.1 GW), Japan (42.8 GW), Germany (41.2 GW), and USA (40.3 GW) [2], [3]. In the period extending to 2018, PV installations are expected to grow in China and South–East Asia in general, followed by Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries and India.

The extra gain from PV tracking systems compared to the PV fixed systems has a great deal of attention from researchers. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily imply a greater benefit coming from more generation selling, because the investment, operation and maintenance costs increase as well. A large number of studies were conducted comparing both types of systems based on their geographical location, types of tracking mechanisms, type of PV modules, a variety of operating conditions and parameters and economic feasibility. Hence, this paper aims at providing a review of recent studies related to PV tracking systems in the world with regards to: 1) latest reviews, 2) geographical location studies, 3) performance and methodologies, and 4) feasibility of tracking systems compared to fixed systems. In addition, this paper provides a case study focusing on Jordan, a sunbelt country with great potential of utilizing PV, in terms of experimental performance and economic feasibility of PV tracking systems.

Several review articles that summarize development and directions of research on PV tracking systems are published in the last decade [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. A recent review on photovoltaic systems [4] discussed the technical challenges related with the rising number of distributed generation resources connected to the grid. The authors suggested using tracker system to maximize output power during times of low solar irradiance and high unpredictability. More importantly and directly related to the main scope of this work, they advised that the cost of implementing solar tracking systems could rapidly outweigh the gains due to, for instance, the introduction of moving parts, operations, maintenance costs, service that is more frequent, downtime, and outages. They also refer to a comparison between single–axis tracking and fixed PV systems where the annual operation and maintenance cost of the single tracking system is more than 200% compared to that of fixed system, in addition to longer payback period of 9 years.

A review study on the effect of sun tracking was presented in [5]. It shows that gain rate is approximately between 15% and 45% throughout the year depending on the location and type of PV modules. In addition, it states that double–axis tracking systems give 10–20% more electrical energy generation when compared to single–axis tracking systems. These two findings result in the conclusion that sun trackers should be used with PV modules [5]. Another review [6] presented the case based on the tracking mechanisms, size of the system, geographical conditions, and several time durations. It demonstrated that tracking is not recommended for small systems. Furthermore, it argued that the most efficient tracking systems are polar–axis and azimuth/elevation types.

Passive and active methods of solar PV tracking systems are reviewed in [7]. Passive trackers utilize solar heat to cause an imbalance and move the system, whereas active trackers, which are more commonly used, employ motors, gear mechanisms and control to operate trackers. The review concludes that dual–axis active trackers maximize the efficiency of the PV system and the extra gain is approximately 30% compared to fixed PV systems. Advantages and disadvantages of different types of tracking systems are discussed thoroughly in [8]. It shows that dual–axis tracking is the most efficient compared to other tracking systems in terms of energy production. Moreover, the single–axis tracking system is the most feasible in terms of cost and flexibility.

The performance of PV systems depends significantly on the geographical location of these systems, and tracking systems follow the same trend [4], [5], [6]. Several research groups conducted studies on performance of trackers in different parts of the world; including Jordan [9], [10], [11], Egypt and Germany [12], Tunisia [13],Saudi Arabia [14], the Mediterranean coastal part of Algeria [15], [16], Malaysia [17], [18], Turkey [19], [20], [21], USA [22], [23], Ghana [24], Spain [25], Brazil [26], Europe and Africa in [27], Europe [28], and Nigeria [29]. The studies ranged in their methodology between experimental, analytical, or simulation of tracking system.

Multi–axis sun–tracking systems at different modes of operation (N–S and E–W) are evaluated experimentally in Jordan for 22 days (from June 10, 2004 to July 2, 2004) [9]. It found that the overall increase is about 30–45% in the output power for the N–S axis tracking system compared to the fixed and E–W tracking PV system. In other studies in Jordan [10], [11], single– and dual–axis, open–loop PV trackers were constructed and controlled by a programmable logic controller. For a 4–day experiment, an increase in the collected energy of 24.5% and 41% were obtained for single– and dual–axis trackers, respectively, compared with the fixed surface. However, these results were not conclusive for Jordan due to the short period of collecting performance data for the PV systems. In addition, the economic feasibility of utilizing tracking in this study was not considered.

In [12], an analytical model was developed to predict the performance of a PV panel as a function of tracking the sun and the operating conditions, and validated in Egypt conditions. Then, based on the model and available data from Egyptian and German Meteorological Authorities, they simulated the PV performance for the 15th of July in hot and cold conditions in Egypt and Germany, respectively. They found that the gain does not exceed 8% in hot areas and is approximately 39% in cold areas. Another study in Tunisia [13], the authors simulated the performance of fixed, and single and double axes tracking PV systems. They found that the system should generate an extra 10.34% and 15% in the summer and winter solstice days, respectively, in single–axis system compared to the fixed system with an annual extra gain of 5.76%. In addition, the same study reported that the simulation results show that the double–axis tracking system generates extra energy of 30% and 44% in the winter and summer solstice days, respectively, compared to the fixed PV system.

PV modules were exposed to outdoor atmospheric condition for several months in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia [14]. It was found that solar tracking can reduce dust accumulation effect by 50% at off–peak time. The performance data of seven PV systems was collected and analyzed over short periods (18 days) at different seasons [15] and over a full one year [16] in Bouzareah (Mediterranean coastal city in Algeria). The systems were dual-axis tracker, vertical axis single rotating axis with yearly optimum slope tracker, vertical axis single rotating axis with seasonal optimum slope tracker, single rotating axis inclined at yearly optimum slope tracker, single rotating axis inclined at seasonal optimum slope tracker, fixed system inclined at yearly optimum slope and fixed system inclined at seasonal optimum slope. It was found that the trackers are very beneficial during clear days reaching an increase of 58.91% additional electrical energy output when comparing dual–axis tracker to yearly-optimal-slope fixed system. However, in cloudy days, tracking systems produced additional electrical energy output that is less than 5%, when comparing dual–axis to other tracking system, necessitating the need for economic investigation. Moreover, for the partially cloudy days, the clearness index and length of days are the main factor in determining the energy gain.

A study in Malaysia [17] analyzed and compared the performance of different types of PV systems (fixed, dual–axis tracking and concentrating systems) based on energy yield, yield factor, capacity factor, power efficiency and PV array efficiency. They concluded that the dual–axis tracking system is the most suitable system in terms of energy performance for Malaysia compared to the fixed and concentrating systems. In [18], an experimental comparison of the efficiency and output power for single–axis tracking and fixed PV systems was conducted in Malaysia, as well. This study concluded as expected that the single–axis tracking panel yields more electricity than the fixed one.

A study [19] conducted in the city of Elazig, Turkey, for two PV systems of identical modules. One was fixed and other was two–axis tracking, both were tested for a sunny day and a cloudy–sunny day. The study showed that the solar tracking array generates 13–15% more power than the fixed system on the days when the experiments were conducted. In another study in Turkey [20], an experimental comparison between double–axis tracking and fixed PV systems was conducted in Mugla, Turkey, for one year of operation. It illustrated that the average extra electricity gain in the tracking system is 30.79% than that in the fixed system at 28° tilt angle, with the lowest extra gain of 16.97% in January, and the highest extra gain of 42.45% in June for Mugla climate. In a separate study in Turkey [21], a PV prototype has been created to test a control strategy for a double–axis tracking PV system that utilizes a dynamic controller composed of open– and closed–loop tacking strategies. For January, the tracking prototype produced 34.02% more energy than a fixed PV system. The theoretical calculations and control strategy has been implemented for a larger system in south–east Turkey. An increase of 36–40% was measured for the electricity generation of the tracking system when compared to a fixed system.

For 50 cities in USA, a comprehensive study [22] comparing single– and dual–tracking systems to south–facing fixed systems with 25° tilt angle was presented. Horizontal single– and dual–axis trackers increase energy output by 12–25% and 30–45%, respectively. Humid and cloudy regions (Pacific Northwest and Coastal Atlantic states) were in the lowest of that range, while arid regions (southwest states) were in the highest range. This study demonstrates the wide range in gain achieved by tracking systems as a function of location. Another study simulated the solar irradiance on fixed, azimuth tracking and dual–axis tracking at 217 locations in USA based on National Solar Radiation Data Base (NSRDB) Typical Meteorological Year 3 (TMY3) and Perez radiation model [23]. It was found that the dual–axis tracking systems results in an average irradiance increase of 34% compared to fixed systems, and monthly–tilt changes result in irradiance increase of 5% for fixed panels compared to single–optimal–angle systems. However, an economic trade–off between the extra cost of labor and mechanical supports from one side and extra energy from the other side should be investigated before implementing monthly–tilt systems [23].

In a study in Ghana [24], seasonal, monthly, and hourly simulation of ten different array configurations (fixed, single– and dual–axis trackers) was performed for water pumping PV systems. The dual–axis tracking more received 17.6% more irradiance on hourly basis and 8.5% on seasonal and monthly basis than received by non–tracking horizontal systems. However, single–axis trackers have approximately the same gain as dual–axis trackers for monthly or seasonal basis. An experimental study conducted in Spain in 2009 [25] measured the energy production of four photovoltaic systems (fixed, 1–axis and 2–axis tracking flat plate, and concentrating photovoltaics). The study compared the results to the predicted gains based on the data from Photovoltaic Geographical Information System (PVGIS) that calculates long–term average values and daily profiles of the irradiation on PV modules. The authors found that the actual annual gain for the 1–axis and 2–axis tracking systems are 22.3% and 25.2%, respectively, more than that of the fixed systems. However, the simulation estimated gains of 32.1% for 1–axis and 38.7% for 2–axis tracking compared to the fixed system.

A comparison between 5°–tilted fixed and east–west single–axis tracking PV systems was performed experimentally in a Brazilian semiarid area [26] under dry and hot conditions, in a region with high solar radiation near the equator, where no significant change in the position of the sun during the year. The experiment was conducted in sunny, cloudy, and scattered (partially cloudy) days for a total of eight days in July 2014. The increase of energy production of the tracking system compared to the fixed system ranges from negative (fixed produced more energy) to zero difference in cloudy days to a maximum increase of 20%, with an average of 11%. The authors of this study attribute this low average gain to high radiation over almost all times of the days where both systems operate at their rated capacity, and to the linearity of the sun path over the horizon due to the proximity to the equator.

The effect of latitude on the performance of five types of solar trackers was examined for different locations around Europe and Africa in [27]. They showed that the tracking performance changes with the latitude, and the gain of double–axis trackers varies from 17.72% to 31.23% compared to the optimal fixed panel for the locations considered in [27]. The work presented in [28] shows a comparison between fixed and tracking systems for a monitoring period of 30 days in Europe, considering the power consumed by the tracking systems. The experimental results showed an increase of 10–20% of the energy generated by the tracking system. An analytical study carried out for different locations in Nigeria [29] (sub–equatorial location; latitudes within 4° and 14°N and longitudes within 2° and 15°E) to determine the additional seasonal and annual energy obtained for dual–axis tracking PV systems compared to horizontal fixed systems. The highest seasonal energy potential occurs in the winter with a range from 32% to 62%, and the lowest seasonal energy happens in the summer with a range of 10–26% resulting in an annual energy potential increase from 20% to 40%. Nevertheless, the effect of additional cost of tracking mechanisms on economic feasibility of such systems was not demonstrated.

Another area of research in PV tracking focuses on the effect of operating conditions and tracking methodology on performance of PV. The effect of cloudy weather is discussed in [30], [31], effect on grid in [32], new tracking strategies and control proposed in [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and tracker misalignment effect on maximum power output in [38].

The study in [30] considered the cloudy conditions in which nearly all of the solar irradiance is isotropically–distributed diffused radiation over the whole sky. They showed that a horizontal module orientation increases the solar energy capture by nearly 50% compared to 2–axis solar tracking during the cloudy periods. Hence, in order to improve the performance of solar tracking systems on cloudy days, tilting a solar module toward the zenith (horizontal module tilt) is recommended. A study to find the optimum tracking strategy for cloudy conditions in high latitude locations was developed in [31]. This tracking strategy took into consideration the following concept: below a certain threshold of total solar irradiance, the PV panel in a horizontal position receives more energy than it receives by tracking the sun. The study used a dual–axis PV tracker in Montreal, Canada. The authors found that the tracker system could produce 25% less energy than fixed horizontal panels on cloudy days in springtime. However, setting the PV modules in horizontal position during cloudy days in summertime is not beneficial.

The authors of [32] investigated the variability characteristics of fixed and tracking systems and their expected impacts on the electricity grid for 21 PV systems of different cell technology, sizes, and tracking mechanisms. They found that the proportional difference of variability between fixed and tracking systems is heavily dependent on the time of day (approximately 0% around noon and a maximum of 70% at the beginning and end of the day), but is relatively independent of the month. Consequently, this is a very critical issue to be considered when connecting PV systems to the grid, and has been heavily investigated for high PV grid-connected penetration of “island” systems, such as the case in California [39]. Design and implementation of two tracking mechanisms are presented in [33]. In the first tracking strategy, called the normal tracking, both the primary and secondary axes rotate to keep the tracking error smaller than a predetermined value. It is a hybrid strategy that combines time–based control and sensor–based control. In the second strategy, called daily-adjusted tracking, the primary axis is kept fixed during the working period and making an adjustment on it at the end of the tracking. In the second strategy, the energy consumption by the tracking is reduced resulting in a lower cost of operation. Compared to a fixed PV system for two days, it is found that the average energy efficiencies of normal and daily adjusted trackers are 23.6% and 31.8% more than that of the fixed system, respectively [33].

A comparative study among four tracking strategies was performed [34] by using a methodology combined of two approaches: point projection and Monte Carlo ray–tracing methods. This methodology was validated against a widely used software in design and calculation, PVsyst, for accurate and fast calculation. However, further improvement will be applied to this methodology before adopting it in the design and calculation for PV field. A tracking methodology combining open– and closed–loop control to predict the energy production of single and dual PV tracking system is proposed in [35]. The sun path was calculated for each day in advance. Based on estimating the energy production, the second derivative of PV system is evaluated. Consequently, the orientation follows the azimuth change during the time interval. Comparing to the step–by–step tracking systems, up to 2% higher annual energy yield by this new control method is obtained using simulation.

The work in [36] offered an adaptation scheme based on the Kaczmarz's projection that offers less computational complexity and quick convergence, and an algorithm for adapting polynomial models of dual–axis solar trackers. Simulation showed that the developed adaptive controller is effective in correcting date changes and modelling errors such as deviation in sun position data, friction and environmental changes. When compared to non–adaptive controllers, the proposed adaptive controller reduces the square error by 21% and 51% for azimuth angle and altitude, respectively, in case of modelling. It reduces square error by 55% and 90% for azimuth angle and altitude, respectively, in case of the date change. Applying Kirigami [37], the art of paper cutting, a cut pattern is fabricated in thin–film solar cells, which upon stretching, generating an array of tilted surface elements and resulting in a tracking mechanism at the substrate level. Comparing this novel tracking mechanism with fixed and traditional single–axis systems in Phoenix, AZ, USA during the summer solstice showed that output power density of the Kirigami trackers approaches that of single–axis trackers. Deformation-induced misalignment of a 2 kW PV solar tracking and its effect on maximum power output is investigated in [38] using a finite element analysis and experiments. The study took into consideration effect of gravity due to mass of PV panels, and wind speed and direction. For the tracker used in [38], the maximum misalignment was 1.48° for a wind speed of 12 m/s and stresses are lower than the yield stress of the materials used for the components implying that, based on von Mises criterion, structural failure is impossible to occur.

Although there is a large number of studies comparing tracking to fixed PV systems from technical performance point of view, fewer studies investigated these systems from economic assessment point of view. These economic–related studies employed some economic parameters such as Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), Net Present Value (NPV), Payback Period (PBP), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and Net Present Benefits (NPB) [40]. The studies in [41], [42] revealed that the feasibility of tracking systems is highly dependent on tax and tariff policies, along with the initial extra cost of the system. It is emphasized in [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] that PBP relies on technology, size used in tracking mechanisms, and its cost. In addition to the previous economic studies, [22], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] showed cases where LCOE and PBP are location–dependent in terms of solar irradiance, weather conditions, cost, incentives, strategies, and policies.

Performances of eight small PV systems of different cell technology, tracking mechanisms, and optic devices in Forli (Italy) were compared for different environmental conditions [41]. In addition, economic assessment was conducted for these systems through LCOE and NPV methods [41]. It is found that tracking systems can be the most profitable if the Italian tax deduction of 50% of the initial investment is considered. Study in [42] utilized NPV and IRR in the feasibility of a PV system when compared to a CSP system of the same size. It was found that both IRR and NPV for CSP are more than these of PV system, indicating that the analysis in this case is not decisive. PV systems implementing open– and closed–loop dual–axis solar tracker with very small tracking error were discussed by the same research group in [43], [44]. The estimated daily energy, based on measurement in Athens, Greece, for representative days in four seasons, increased by 24.59% and 35.22% for open– and closed–loop trackers, respectively. The extra cost incurred by additional components of tracking systems made the PBP for the extra cost 6.5 years for the open–loop tracking system [43]. Using the same reasoning in [43], the group reports in [44] that the payback period for the extra cost becomes 15.6 years for the closed–loop tracking system, rationalized by the high initial cost of sensors and related components in closed–loop tracking system.

The authors of [45] utilized the data collected for 5 h from a sunny day in winter with extrapolation for the entire year based on the historic sunny days in Texas, USA. Their calculations yielded an 82% increase in tracker versus fixed systems, which should not be conceded, due to the impracticality of their extrapolation approach. They calculated the payback period for 1–, 4–, and 9–panel dual–axis trackers, taking into account many factors, such as annual PV degradation, interest rate, energy price index, and energy consumption for active trackers. They found that the payback period is never reached for 1–panel tracking system, but it is 13 years for 4– panel trackers, and 6.5 years for 9–panel trackers. Technical and economic studies [46] comparing off–grid, single– and dual–axis PV tracking systems with a fixed system, based on simulation over a year, in six locations in United Arab Emirates (UAE) were presented. Both technical and economic studies revealed that the single–axis tracker is viable compared to the dual–axis and fixed systems. The single– and dual–axis required 33–44% less PV panels to satisfy the assumed load compared to fixed system. However, the economic study showed that the payback period for single–axis is shorter by 0.9–1.1 years compared to fixed systems, and is shorter by 0.2–0.3 years compared to dual–axis systems.

In order to enhance electricity output of a PV–wind hybrid system, especially during low wind conditions, six different types of PV trackers are simulated using a commercially available software package, HOMER, for western Himalayan region, India [47]. Although the dual–axis tracker attained 26.29% more energy than energy from horizontal and vertical trackers and fixed system, its LCOE and NPV are 7.5% higher than those of fixed system, taking into consideration initial investment, operation, inverters, batteries, and tracking mechanism cost. In [48], a comparison between fixed, vertical single–axis, horizontal single–axis and dual–axis PV systems was simulated for Ontario, Canada for one year considering NPV, IRR, and PBP, but with the net present benefits (NPB) for all PV systems are the same. Based on these constraints, the most feasible system was vertical single–axis system, followed by dual–axis tracker, and the least feasible system was horizontal single–axis tracking system.

A series of economic and technical reports conducted by NREL [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] to study the feasibility of implementing PV systems in different US locations has taken into consideration the different types of systems, location, payback periods, and local incentives. Each study had a different conclusion whether to adopt fixed or tracking system based on the precise conditions of the location. There was no general rule as to which system that should be universally adopted. LCOE is found to be highly sensitive to operation and maintenance costs, which should be taken into consideration in PV tracking systems [22]. In addition, PV tracking systems can reduce LCOE in most USA states only when tracking costs are at the low range.

Table 1 presents a summary of some of the work conducted in comparing PV systems based on the location of the study, type of the study (experimental or simulation), duration of the study, comparative system type (single and/or double axis versus fixed), main outcome of the study, and economic feasibility and investment payback period.

Jordan has historically suffered from the lack of sufficient and reliable supplies of energy, importing at least 96% of its energy needs [54]. This scarcity of conventional energy sources, political turmoil in the region, and high and fluctuating oil and gas prices (leading to high and fluctuating electricity tariff as shown in Table 2 for a sample of sectors and consumptions) forced the Jordanian government to think seriously to include the oil shale, nuclear power and renewable energy (RE) in the energy mix. Being a sunbelt country (direct normal radiation of 2700 kWh/m²/year [55]), the potential for harnessing RE sources to offset its energy needs has been recognized, with PV being one of the lead technologies [54]. In 2007, an ambitious plan was put forward with a target to increase the contribution of RE to 7% by 2015 and 10% by 2020 [56]. Such plan is not limited to non–oil–producing countries in the MENA region, but many of the oil producing countries (such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries) have set plans towards involving RE in their energy mix (Table 3 shows their RE targets) [56], [57]. However, in 2015, Jordan has generated electrical energy of 19,012 GWh. Out of this total amount, only 184 GWh h of the electricity generated were from RE resources divided as: 123.1 GWh from wind, 52.5 GWh from hydropower, 6.4 GWh from biogas,1.6 GWh from solar energy, and 1.5 GWh from all other RE resources [58]. This indicates that less than 1% was from RE contribution in the energy mix, which fell far below the target set in [56] of 7% by 2015. Out of the 99% of the fossil fuels generated energy, the local contribution of crude oil and natural gas to the total consumed energy is 3% in 2014 [59].

Recognizing this economic and energy climate in Jordan, studies of the overall investment climate to adopt PV compared to its potential to harness PV technology put Jordan in the middle of the pack of world–wide countries, and ahead of most of the MENA countries, allowing for an outstanding RE potential investment [1], [54]. Jordan has adopted the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Law (REEEL) No. 13 in 2012 as a legislative and organizational platform for aspects relating to the technical and economic adoption of RE in Jordan. According to this law, amendments, and its subsequent legislations, two main business models can be used to commercially harness electricity from RE resources [60]. The first model allows consumers to invest in PV plants up to 5 MWp for direct consumption within their facility, and export the excess to the national distribution grid through a net-metering scheme. In addition, the law also allows for the generation of electricity at different sites away from the consumer facility in a wheeling scheme (which is still considered as a net-metering scheme). The second model is the Independent Power Producers (IPP) that allows delivering electricity from RE sources to National Electric Power Company (NEPCO) within a long–term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) at an electricity tariff that is approved, and is annually revised by Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR). Jordan's predominant PV installed systems are fixed systems. In attempts to maximize energy production, researchers and system providers have been very interested in the efficacy of PV tracking systems. In such systems, allowing sun position tracking throughout the day, the sun is always orthogonal to PV modules. This enables maximizing the incoming solar radiation, and increasing the total output of a similarly–sized fixed system.

It is clear from surveying more than 60 published works in the literature that the performance of PV systems (especially tracking systems) depends on the location. In addition, much of the work done in Jordan or the world in comparing fixed and tracking PV systems depends on simulation, short–time periods, and/or technical performance only. There is a small number of works based on experimental, long-term performance, and considering economic assessment. We present in this work, conducted at the Hashemite University (Jordan) for one full year, an experimental comparison between the performance of grid–connected, fixed and double–axis tracking PV systems, taking into consideration the economic feasibility of each system.

This remaining sections of the paper are organized as follows: The subsequent Section 2, Material and Methods, presents the PV systems, the data acquisition setup, and the methodology employed in the technical and economic evaluations of the PV systems considered in this study. The main results of the performance analysis and feasibility study are presented and discussed in Section 3. Section 4 summarizes the main conclusions of technical and economic investigations of fixed and double–axis PV systems performed in this study.