the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Floating photovoltaics and lake thermal responses: monitoring-based assessment of meteorological drivers across contrasting climates
Abstract. Floating photovoltaic (FPV) systems influence lake heat budgets by altering radiative input, wind exposure, and air–water heat exchange. However, harmonised field observations describing these processes across contrasting climatic settings and FPV system designs remain scarce, limiting the calibration and validation of hydrodynamic and ecological impact assessments. Here, we present a high-resolution monitoring dataset from three sites: Lake Toules (deep alpine reservoir, elevated open design, Switzerland), Lake Sekdoorn (humid lowland lake, dense east–west design, Netherlands), and Lake Leimersheim (shallow temperate–continental lake, low-profile design, Germany). Water temperature anomalies between FPV-covered and open-water sites (ΔTw) can be analysed analysed during cold- and warm-period extremes. Water temperature anomalies between FPV-covered and open-water sites (ΔTw) can be analysed during cold- and warm-period extremes. The dataset captures cooler conditions beneath FPV at Toules (–0.12 °C) and Leimersheim (–0.04 °C) but warmer conditions at Sekdoorn (+0.14 °C) during cold periods. Warm-period extremes amplified these contrasts, with alternating cooling and warming at Toules (–0.06 °C mean), negligible differences at Sekdoorn, and strong shading-driven cooling at Leimersheim (–0.55 °C). While mean differences were small, short-term deviations reached –0.75 to +0.5 °C, reflecting variable meteorological forcing. The observations further encompass contrasting meteorological controls and seasonal transitions between lake mixing regimes. Seasonal analysis of the large-scale system at Lake Sekdoorn revealed regime-dependent shifts: air temperature dominated during fully mixed winter conditions, shortwave radiation during stratification onset, and wind speed during stable summer stratification. The ΔTw–air temperature relationship reversed from positive in winter (heat retention) to negative in summer (shading-driven cooling), dampening the seasonal amplitude of surface water temperatures. All monitoring systems were harmonised across sites and synchronised using a common data acquisition framework. The dataset enables applications ranging from hydrodynamic model calibration and FPV impact parameterisation to comparative assessments across climatic regions and system designs. The underlying monitoring dataset is openly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21156967.
- Preprint
(2254 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 22 Oct 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on essd-2026-177', Fabian Bärenbold, 04 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Konstantin Ilgen, 15 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Mr. Bärenbold,
Thank you for your comments and for raising these two relevant aspects of the monitoring design.
1) Thermistor accuracy and cross-validation
The temperature chains used in this study were custom-built by ecoTech Umwelt-Messsysteme GmbH. The reported accuracy of ±0.1 °C corresponds to the manufacturer's specification. Importantly, the sensors were cross-validated in a common water bath prior to deployment to verify consistency among the individual sensors.
We agree that mean temperature differences close to the stated absolute sensor accuracy should be interpreted with appropriate caution. However, the ±0.1 °C specification represents the absolute accuracy of an individual sensor and does not directly correspond to the uncertainty of the paired difference between simultaneously operated and previously cross-validated sensors. Furthermore, the reported ΔTw values are averages over extended periods and therefore do not represent the full magnitude and temporal variability of the observed FPV–reference differences. Positive and negative deviations can partly compensate when averaged.
This distinction is particularly relevant for the analyses presented in the manuscript. During specific meteorological conditions and lake mixing regimes, deviations substantially exceeded 0.1 °C, reaching, for example, −1.0 °C during the selected cold period at Lake Toules and a mean of −0.55 °C during the selected warm period at Lake Leimersheim. The small mean differences observed during other periods are also an important result, as they indicate that FPV installations do not necessarily produce persistent large temperature differences despite locally modifying the surface energy balance. Consequently, the temporal dynamics of ΔTw and their variation across meteorological conditions and lake mixing regimes are more informative for characterising FPV-related thermal responses than the absolute magnitude of long-term mean differences alone.
2) Horizontal exchange between FPV and reference locations
We agree that horizontal exchange is an interesting and currently poorly constrained aspect of FPV–lake interactions. The monitoring design of the present study was primarily developed to characterise temporal and vertical differences between FPV-covered and adjacent open-water conditions rather than to quantify horizontal transport.
In addition to the continuous thermistor chains at MFPV and MREF I, our monitoring programme included a second open-water reference location (MREF II), where multiparameter profiles were collected during dedicated field campaigns. As shown in Fig. 1 of the Data Description, these stations were located farther away from the FPV installations. The approximate distances were 120 m at Lake Leimersheim, 250 m at Lake Sekdoorn, and 1000 m at Lake Toules from the FPV boundary.
Comparisons with these additional open-water measurements provided an independent assessment of conditions away from the immediate FPV vicinity.
Nevertheless, MREF I should be considered an adjacent open-water reference rather than a completely hydrodynamically isolated control. Horizontal advection and dispersion may transport FPV-modified water beyond the physical footprint of the installation. Quantifying the magnitude and spatial extent of this process would require additional measurements of lake currents or spatially distributed temperature fields, or dedicated three-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling, which were outside the scope of the present monitoring programme.
We agree that the spatial propagation of FPV-induced thermal modifications beyond the physical footprint of an installation represents an interesting topic for future FPV research.
Thank you again for your interest in our dataset and for contributing to the discussion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-177-AC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Fabian Bärenbold, 17 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Mr. Ilgen
Thanks for this additional insight.
1) I largely agree and especially this statement: "The small mean differences observed during other periods are also an important result, as they indicate that FPV installations do not necessarily produce persistent large temperature differences despite locally modifying the surface energy balance."
I had the impression that these thoughts were not as well reflected in the initial submission and would welcome them in a revised manuscript.
Is there anything quantitative from this cross-calibration experiment that could be added as additional information? Ideally, you should be able to say that, for example, mean differences between sensors are smaller than 0.05 °C according to the cross-calibration, which would further strengthen the significance of observed temperature differences.
2) I agree that properly addressing this quickly goes out of scope of this study but I thought that the effects of horizontal exchange are worth mentioning in a revised submission.
Best regards
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-177-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Konstantin Ilgen, 25 Sep 2026
reply
Dear Mr. Bärenbold,
Thank you for your follow-up and the helpful suggestions.
Unfortunately, we do not have a very detailed documentation of the water-bath cross-validation. However, we could describe the cross-validation procedure in more detail in a potential revision.
We also agree that potential horizontal exchange between FPV-covered and adjacent open-water areas is worth acknowledging when discussing the spatial interpretation of the measurements. We will consider both points together with the reviewers' feedback in a potential revision.
Thank you again for the constructive discussion.
Best regards,
Konstantin IlgenCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-177-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Konstantin Ilgen, 25 Sep 2026
reply
-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Fabian Bärenbold, 17 Sep 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Konstantin Ilgen, 15 Sep 2026
reply
Data sets
High-resolution multi-site monitoring dataset of floating photovoltaic (FPV) impacts on water temperature, water quality, and meteorological conditions across three European lakes (2023–2024) K. Ilgen et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21156967
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 135 | 52 | 98 | 285 | 121 | 88 |
- HTML: 135
- PDF: 52
- XML: 98
- Total: 285
- BibTeX: 121
- EndNote: 88
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors
I have to concerns about this work:
1) The reported differences between open water and fvp-covered water are usually on the order of 0.1 °C. Yet, the reported accuracy of the thermistors is also
± 0.1 °C. Depending on the sensor type, this accuracy usually gets worse with time (sensor drift can be around 0.1 °C/year). What is the sensor
type that was used in this work and what is the sensor drift? Has there been any cross-validation between sensors before deployment? Without any
cross-validation, I am not convinced that differences on the order of 0.1 °C can be considered significant.
2) What is the horizontal distance between the open water and the fvp-covered thermistor chain? Horizontal transport in lakes is often on the order of
K=1e6 m2/s and the horizontal length scale of mixing is L=sqrt(2*K*T), where T is elapsed time. If T is 1 hour, then the associated length scale is
around 85 m, meaning that the effect of the fvp very quickly extends into the open water. If the horizontal distance between the two thermistor chains
is small, then I think this horizontal mixing effects would need to be discussed.