Cargando…
Effects of fishery complementary photovoltaic power plant on radiation, energy flux and driving forces under different synoptic conditions
The underlying surface was the important media of air-lake interaction by transferring energy. The deployment of photovoltaic arrays on the lake has formed a new underlying surface type. But the new underlying surface is different from the natural lake. The impact of fishery complementary photovolta...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10241848/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37277549 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-36314-x |
Sumario: | The underlying surface was the important media of air-lake interaction by transferring energy. The deployment of photovoltaic arrays on the lake has formed a new underlying surface type. But the new underlying surface is different from the natural lake. The impact of fishery complementary photovoltaic (FPV) power plants on the radiation, energy flux, and driving force is unclear. Therefore, the analysis of radiation, energy flux, and driving force by comparing the difference in the two sites under various synoptic conditions. The results indicated that the radiation components are not significantly different in the two sites under diverse synoptic conditions. The downward shortwave radiation (DSR) and net radiation ([Formula: see text] ) were presented with one peak on a sunny day. The daily average DSR and Rn in the two sites were 279.1 W·m(−2), 209.3 W·m(−2), respectively. The daily average (cloudy day and rainy day) sensible heat flux in the two sites was 39.5 W·m(−2) (FPV site), 19.2 W·m(−2) (REF site), respectively. The latent heat flux was 53.2 W·m(−2) and 75.2 W·m(−2) on counterpart. The water body generally absorbs heat from the air (daily average ∆Q was 16.6 W·m(−2)) in the FPV site on a sunny day. The driving force of sensible heat flux in the FPV site was governed by the temperature of the FPV panel under sunny and cloudy conditions. The latent heat flux was determined by the product between wind speed and water-atmosphere temperature difference. |
---|