The Netherlands has agreed, by signing the Paris Agreement, to be climate-neural by 2050. To reach this goal, many large-scale renewable energy projects need to be developed in the coming years using for example wind, geothermal or solar energy. The problem with these projects is that they require large amounts of land and are especially needed in densely populated areas where the energy demand is high. For solar energy, a solution is to move it to bodies of water, creating a floating photovoltaic (FPV) system. Besides not requiring valuable land, FPV offers other benefits; The water has a cooling effect on the panels, increasing the efficiency of the solar panels. There is less water evaporation, which is desired in for example drink water basins. FPV systems have a high potential for system integration with nearshore and offshore wind turbines, optimizing space utilization and making cable pooling possible.

Multiple companies have already developed an FPV system, each designed for specific water categories and having its own (dis-)advantages. This thesis analyses different types of FPV systems and offers a tool for project developers to help decide what kind of system to select in a preliminary phase of project development.

As input to this decision tool, the environmental loads acting on FPV systems are calculated. The forces due to the wind, current and waves are found for three different types of systems. These systems are Floating Solar, Zimfloat and OceanSun. The forces are first found on a small section of the structures and then scaled up to a size of one hectare including sheltering factors. The results show that the membrane-type structure of OceanSun has significantly lower environmental forces than the Floating Solar and Zimfloat systems. These two are both built up of high-density polyethylene floaters and a metal frame holding the PV panels. The wind force is the highest on the Floating solar structure due to the larger tilt angle. The wave forces are found to be the highest for the Zimfloat structure which can be explained by the floaters. These are square blocks instead of circular tubes, making them less aerodynamic and having a larger volume which increases the inertia forces.

The decision tool uses a multi-criteria analysis that takes twelve important aspects of an FPV system
into account including the environmental loads. Examples of these criteria are energy production, costs, energy density and also less quantifiable criteria such as ecological impact, safety and the technical readiness level of the systems. The tool compares six different types of systems and can easily be adjusted to a specific location by changing the weight factors. With these weight factors, the tool provides a clear overview of the most important aspects of an FPV system and helps to decide in an early phase of project development whether a system is suitable for the desired location or not.

The decision tool is used for the case study ’Haringvliet’. Haringvliet is a former estuary in the Netherlands and is chosen as a potential location for an FPV park. The calculations mentioned above are performed using the site conditions found at Haringvliet. The conclusion of the decision tool is that the structure of Floating Solar is the most suitable for the Haringvliet. This is partly because Haringvliet is an ecologically protected area and the floating solar structure is very open, letting sunlight pass through the system into the water.