**3. Results**

Once the normalised generation patterns and demand profiles have been determined, it is possible to obtain ε by applying Equations (5)–(8). The calculation was made individually for the 844 locations defined in Section 2.1 by using a Microsoft VBA macro programme in Excel.

The results, sorted by the Köppen–Geiger climate areas, are shown in Table 8.

The global matching factor obtained for PV facilities ε*PV* is 0.46. As it can be noted, this value is quite homogeneous in all the climatic regions.

The global matching factor for the wind facilities ε*<sup>W</sup>* is 0.6, that means 30% worse adaptation to demand profiles than PV plants. The results present a low dispersion degree with respect to the climatic areas. The minimum value of 0.56 is obtained for polar climates (−5% out of global value), while the maximum, 0.63, is found for tropical climates (+7% out of global).

For PV+W hybrid plants, depending on the normalisation method, the results obtained for ε*PV*+*<sup>W</sup>* go from 0.4 if the method 1 is used, to 0.42 if the method 2 is used and 0.43 if the method 3 is used.Once again, the minimum factor is obtained for sites located in polar climates and the maximum for tropical areas. The degree of dispersion is also very negligible.

Figure 12 illustrates the comparison of the matching factor for the PV+W hybrid plants ε*PV*+*<sup>W</sup>* versus PV facilities <sup>ε</sup>*PV*. As it can be noted, in a global context, the adaptation of the hybrid facility is 15% higher for the method 1, 9% higher for the method 2 and 7.7% for the method 3. The highest improvement is given for polar climate areas and the lowest for arid and tropical areas.


**Table 8.** <sup>ε</sup>*pv*, ε*<sup>w</sup>* and ε*pv*+*<sup>w</sup>* for every single individual Köeppen–Geiger climatic regions (See Figure 4 for climate zone codification).

The comparison of the matching factor for the PV+W hybrid facility ε*PV*+*<sup>W</sup>* versus wind ε*<sup>W</sup>* is shown in Figure 13. The adaptation is much higher in this case than when it is compared with the PV facility; as it has obtained an improvement of 35% for the method 1, 30% for the method 2 and 29% for the method 3. The values are quite similar in all the climate areas.
