APSC 400

PEC Solar
Prepared for Physical Plant Services

Report Prepared by:

James Baillie
Stephanie Chu
Esther Ng
Jeffrey Reid

i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Physical Education Centre (PEC) at Queen’s University provides service to
over 18000 students, staff and faculty members. In 1983, a team of Engineers and
professors designed and implemented a solar heating system to provide heated water for
showers. Due to a malfunction in the system, the piping in the panels burst and the
system has not been in use since 1990. This report represents an economically and
environmentally sound system to replace the current equipment.
Using RETScreen and WATSUN simulation software the required system
components and performance criteria were established. Once all the components were
defined, contractors and distributors were contacted to obtain pricing quotes. The
proposed closed loop system will integrate many components from the previously used
drain-back system to reduce costs. The mounting structure on the roof, the panel casings,
the building piping system, and the water storage tank will all be reused. In addition, a
heat exchanger, solar panel absorbers, a control system and pumps will have to be
implemented.
Currently, there are 150 glazed solar thermal panels on the roof of the PEC.
Keeping the existing panel casings, and retrofitting new solar absorbers will reduce costs.
A Delta-T control system is specified, and is designed by Heliotrope Thermal Inc.
Implementing the Delta-T control system will require integration into the PEC’s main
control system.
A 50/50 propylene glycol/water solution is used to circulate through the panels to
collect thermal energy. Once the solution has circulated through the panels, it flows
through a heat exchanger where the energy is transferred to water. Two pumps are
needed in the system, one at the panels to circulate the propylene glycol solution through
the solar array and another at the storage tank to circulate water between the heat
exchanger and storage tank. The existing building piping will be used in the new
system, with minimal refurbishing to accommodate a closed loop system.
Renewing this system has great economic and environmental benefits.
Approximately 640GJ of energy will be saved annually, and 6.24tons of CO2 emissions
will be reduced. This translates into a monetary value of $8 200/yr. In addition to the
economic value of utilizing solar energy, renewing the system in the PEC will result in

ii
displaying a conscious effort to use clean energy in one of the highest traffic buildings on
campus. It is also important to consider other added benefits to renewing this project.
At the time of its inception, Queen’s University garnered much attention from the
installation of this system. It was a unique project at the time and promoted clean
energy and helped advance an emerging technology.
Financially, the total cost of the project is projected to be $71 780 with a 9-year
payback period. The Net Present Value (NPV) of the project is $16 390 with an
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 10.57%. These numbers show that the project is
financially viable and is a sound investment for Queen’s University.

iii
 Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 The Existing System ........................................................................................... 1
3.0 The Proposed System.......................................................................................... 3
3.1 Solar Energy........................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Design Parameters .............................................................................................. 5
3.2.1 Load Determination ................................................................................ 6
4.0 System Components........................................................................................ 10
4.1 Solar Panels....................................................................................................... 10
4.1.1 Panel Design and Function ................................................................... 10
4.2 Control Systems ................................................................................................ 12
4.3 Heat Exchanger................................................................................................. 14
4.4 Pumps................................................................................................................ 14
4.5 Piping System ................................................................................................... 16
5.0 WATSUN ......................................................................................................... 17
5.1 Simulation Data ................................................................................................ 17
5.2 Collector Data for Group A .............................................................................. 17
5.3 More Collector Data ......................................................................................... 18
5.4 Collector Data for Group B............................................................................... 18
5.5 Tank Data.......................................................................................................... 18
5.6 Heat Exchanger Data ........................................................................................ 19
5.7 Pipe Data........................................................................................................... 19
5.8 Load Data.......................................................................................................... 19
6.0 Environmental Benefits .................................................................................... 20
7.0 Financial evaluations ........................................................................................ 21
8.0 Recommendations............................................................................................. 26
9.0 Conclusions....................................................................................................... 27
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. 28
References......................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix A - Detailed Calculations

Appendix B - WATSUN Output
Appendix C - SWEP Software: Selection of Heat Exchanger
Appendix D - Controls Data Sheets
Appendix E - Pump Data Sheets
Appendix F - RETscreen Output
Appendix G- Financials

iv
 List of Figures

Fig. Pg.

3.1 Solar system efficiency. 6

3.2 Monthly water consumption of the PEC. 7

3.3 Daily hot water consumption of the showers in PEC. 8

3.4 Estimated daily hot water consumption distributed for the PEC. 9

4.1 Schematic of the solar panel. 11

4.2 Schematic of the Delta-T programmable dip switches. 14

4.3 Centrifugal pump chart. 16

7.1 Payback period of the proposed system. 24

v
 List of Tables

Table Pg.

4.1 Strength of annealed glass and tempered glass. 10

7.1 Summary of total costs. 23

vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Physical Education Centre (PEC) at Queen’s University provides recreational

services to over 18,000 students, staff and faculty members. In 1983, the
Commercial/Industrial Solar Demonstration Program was installed to aid in the heating
of domestic water, primarily used for showers. The solar panels were designed to heat
up to 135,000 liters per day during the winter term and 68,000 liters per day in the
summer term.
The project was composed of 293 m2 of Nortec TD 1000 Solar Panels, covering
the roof of the PEC. At the time of installation, the thermal solar panels used were first
generation panels in an emerging technology. A piping system brought water up from
the storage tank to these panels where water was heated by solar radiation before
circulating back down for use in domestic hot water applications. The system was
designed by T.Y. Yung, P.Eng, P.J. Strong, C.E.T., Campus Services Division, Queen’s
University.
This project received a large percentage of its funding from government sources,
as it was a unique project at the time of its inception. Unfortunately, due to a
malfunction in the system, the solar panel system has been unused since 1990. The
solar panel heating system has many benefits to the university from a technological,
environmental and financial view. The objective of this project is to determine if the
panels should be fixed, replaced or removed from the PEC.

2.0 THE DRAIN BACK SYSTEM

The previously existing drain back system in the PEC was implemented in 1982,
but has not been operable since 1990. It was classified as a drain-back type system, in
which water circulated directly through the panels. During sub zero temperatures, the
system would shut off and the water would drain down to a holding tank inside to avoid
freezing. In this system, a temperature sensor located near the solar collectors would
record the temperature and compare it to another sensor located at the storage tank. When
the temperature difference was greater than 5˚C, a pump would start sending water to the

1
collectors. At the same time, the drain-back valve would be closed. The water would
keep circulating between the 1500 gallon drain back tank and the collectors until either
the temperature of the tank reached 87˚C, or the temperature difference between the two
dropped to less than 2˚C. When this occurred, the pump would stop and the drain-back
valve opened allowing the water to flow back into the tank via gravity. The drain-back
tank was connected to the cold water storage tank in the basement which was then used to
distribute water throughout the PEC.
The precise cause that led to the system’s failure is not exactly known; however, the
resulting events from that first failure are more clearly understood. Initially, a variety of
problems could have arisen leading to the system’s breakdown: a drain-back valve may
have stuck; a temperature sensor may not have registered properly; or a manual valve
could have been closed when it should have remained open. In any case, water
remained in the piping around the collectors when it should have drained back into the
tank, during sub-zero temperatures. The water in the pipes froze causing extensive
damage. The system was designed so that a single water pipe would run through the solar
collectors gaining energy from the propylene glycol solution that was heated. The
propylene glycol solution was contained in a complex piping system that contained risers
that led up to a cross pipe that encompassed the water pipe. Glycol would evaporate up
the risers, and then condense on the water pipe, transferring the solar energy it absorbed.
When the water pipe burst, ice got into the glycol piping in the collectors. Initially,
replacing the one cross flow pipe that contained the water could have saved the system;
however, the system was left so over time, the ice melted, diluting the glycol in the
collectors. When the temperature got cold enough, the glycol then froze bursting the
pipes in the collectors. Ultimately, the system became completely ineffective and the
piping in the collectors became unsalvageable. Piping up to the collectors was then sealed
off, and the cold water line was moved to bypass the storage tank to connect directly with
the three auxiliary tanks used for domestic hot water heating.

2
3.0 THE PROPOSED SYSTEM

The previous solar collector system was a drain back type system that pumped
water through the solar collectors, which drained back when the temperature dropped
below zero degrees Celsius. Due to the varying Canadian climate, this type of system is
no longer widely in use. It is proposed that the more common closed loop propylene
glycol system be implemented for the PEC instead.
The system consists of two piping circuits that transfer energy by means of a heat
exchanger. The solar collector circuit contains a propylene glycol solution that is
circulated through eight solar collector arrays in parallel. Each of six of the arrays
consists of 19 solar collectors, while the remaining two consists of 18, all of which are
also in parallel. Effectively the system consists of 150 collectors in parallel. Solar
radiation heats the propylene glycol as it is circulated through the collectors. The heated
fluid is transported through insulated pipes to a heat exchanger that transfers the energy
to the water in the storage tank circuit. The cooler water is then pumped back up to the
solar collectors to absorb more solar radiation. A controller specifies when a large
pump circulates the fluid through the collector circuit. An expansion tank is also needed
in the solar collector circuit to allow for expansion of the fluid, which evaporates just
over 100 oC.
The storage tank circuit contains water that is circulated by a pump between the
heat exchanger and a 4.887 m3 storage tank. The drain-back system contained an
expansion tank in this loop, which if deemed serviceable, can be utilized in the proposed
system.
Currently, cold water enters three 10m3 auxiliary tanks that heat the water by means
of steam. From the three tanks, the water is delivered to three locations: the showers,
three washing machines as well as the ice rink for filling the zamboni and melting the ice.
The system is driven by pressure supplied in the cold water line from Utilities Kingston.
Using the solar collector system, the cold water would enter the solar collector storage
tank and circulate through the solar panel loop, absorbing the solar radiation energy
through the heat exchanger. When a hot water load is needed, it is taken from the three
auxiliary tanks, which are then filled with the preheated water from the solar collector

3
storage tank through a mixing valve. The mixing valve adds cold water when the
temperature of the water is above 50 oC to avoid sending scalding water to the loads.
With the proposed system, there is never a shortage of hot water, and the use of the solar
energy is maximized.
A temperature sensor would be located in the outlet pipe directly next to the solar
collector array; another would be located at the inlet pipe to the solar collector storage
tank. The controller sends a signal to the two pumps to circulate the fluids when the
temperature difference between the two sensors is greater than 8 oC.

3.1 Solar Energy

Solar energy is harvested by two main methods. One method utilizes photovoltaic
cells to convert the solar radiation directly into electricity; the other uses thermal cells to
heat a conductive fluid which, in turn transfers the energy to any heat retainin substance
for various applications. The thermal cells are much more efficient than the
photovoltaic ones, and are therefore used in most domestic hot water applications.
In a thermal solar collector system, fluid is pumped through the collectors, and
absorb heat from the solar radiation of the sun. A glazed collector has insulation on the
back to limit thermal losses to the environment. Typically, the performance of a glazed
thermal solar collector is modeled by the following equation:

Q = [ Fr (tau alpha)]*G - [Fr UL]*DT , (Eq. 3.1)

where Q is the energy collected per unit collector area per unit time [W/m²], Fr (tau
alpha) is a parameter used to characterize the collector's optical efficiency
[dimensionless], G is the global incident solar radiation on the collector [W/m²], Fr UL is
a parameter used to characterize the collector's thermal losses [(W/m²)/°C], and DT is the
temperature differential between the working fluid entering the collector and the outdoors
[°C].
The parameters Fr and Fr UL vary depending on the manufacturer of the collector.
Fr, whose typical values range from 0.6 to 0.8, should be as high as possible for
maximum efficiency. The Fr UL parameter in general ranges between 3.5 and 5.5, but

4
it should be as low as possible to limit the thermal losses. All other parameters are
determined by the climate.

3.2 Design Parameters

Although many different variables determine the efficiency of the system, most
values were given due to the already established infrastructure of the drain-back system.
The cost benefit of using components of the old system outweighed the benefit of
changing certain features that would increase the efficiency. For this reason, design
parameters such as storage tank size, pipe size and insulation, and panel area of the
drain-back system should be left unchanged. The main variable parameter that
determines the overall system efficiency is the mass flow rate through the collectors.
Increasing the flow rate will increase the amount of solar energy collected. To get this
increased flow rate, the pumping power of the fluid would also need to be increased,
using up a fraction of the solar energy collected. Therefore there is an optimum flow
rate that maximizes the net energy gained by absorbing a large amount of solar energy
and expending only a tiny amount. Other losses in the system include tank heat losses
and piping heat losses but both are relatively independent of the flow rate. Through an
iterative process, using WATSUN simulation software, the optimum flow rate through
each collector was determined to be 0.07 kg/s. This occurs in parallel through all 150
panels for an overall flow rate of 10.5 kg/s as shown in Fig. 3.1. As shown in the graph,
the pumping energy required increases significantly after approximately 30 kg/s. The
reason for this is that the flow becomes turbulent near this point, causing the flow losses
in the pipe to increase, which in turn increases the pumping power required.

5
 System Efficiency

2000
Solar Energy
1500 Created
Net Solar Energy (GJ)

1000
Pumping
500 Energy
Required
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 Net Energy
-500

-1000
Flowrate (kg/s)

Fig. 3.1 Solar system efficiency.

3.2.1 Load Determination

One of the most significant parameters in specifying the size of the solar collector
system is the hot water load. The load and its monthly, daily and even hourly
distribution determine how much a solar collector system can reduce the energy
consumption. If peak hot water consumption occurs at midnight, then it is evident that a
solar collector would be of no benefit. Even if most of the hot water is needed early in
the morning, because of the incidence angle of the sun, very little energy is being
absorbed; as opposed to mid day, when the sun is directly overhead. Therefore
determining the load and the distribution of the load is extremely important.
From utility bill information, the total water consumption and the total steam
consumption for the past three years was obtained. Steam is used to heat a percentage
of the water for the hot water loads, but also to heat the building. Therefore, the total
hot water consumption is not given directly from that information alone. The monthly
consumption of hot water for September is calculated using the amount of steam used in
that month (based on the average of the previous three years), the initial temperature of
the water, and the final temperature of the water as shown in Appendix A. September
was chosen as the representative month because it is a month of full load operation

6
(during the school year), but it is warm enough that none of the steam would be used for
heating the building. This gave us a percentage of the total water consumption that is
heated for hot water use. This fractional value was then used to determine the hot water
consumption in all the other months. The data is shown in Fig 3.2.

Monthly Water Consumption

9000
Water Consumption (m3)

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000 Cold
3000 Hot (Est.)
2000
1000
0
M J J A S O N D J F M A
Month

Fig. 3.2 Monthly water consumption of the PEC.1

To arrive at a more accurate weekly and daily distribution of the load, a water meter
was installed in the PEC. Unfortunately, because of the limited resources, this meter did
not read the total output of hot water consumed. The hot water is used for three separate
applications in the PEC: showers, three washing machines, and for melting the ice and
running the Zamboni in the arena. PPS did not have a water meter that was big enough
to measure the total water coming out of the hot water tanks and were unable to purchase
one in the limited timeframe, so a smaller water meter was installed in a pipeline that
runs to the men’s showers. This line feeds 36 of the total 80 showers in the PEC.
Initially, it was thought that the majority of the load came from the showers. Readings
from the water meter, adjusted to represent all the showers, are taken to give an hourly
distribution as shown in Fig. 3.3.

1
Estimated (hot water)

7
 Projected Daily Shower Hot Water Distribution

2000
1800
1600
Shower Hot Water
Consumption (L)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
8:30 10:30 12:30 2:30 4:30 6:30 8:30 10:30
Time

Fig. 3.3 Daily hot water consumption of the showers in the PEC.

Unfortunately, when the total daily consumption was tallied, the amount only
represented approximately 10% of the total hot water use. In other words, the ice rink
and the washing machines accounted for a majority of the load. Due to time
restrictions, installing two more water meters and taking daily readings of the hot water
consumption of the zamboni and the washing machines was not feasible. Talking to
PEC employees, it was determined that the washing machines are used fairly consistently
throughout the day indicating an even distribution. Talking to the PPS maintenance
crew, it was discovered that hot water was not only used to fill the zamboni at Jock Harty
Arena, but it was also used to melt the ice in it afterwards. This accounts for a huge
amount of hot water since during peak times, the ice is flooded every 50 minutes
throughout the day. Again the load was determined to be evenly distributed.
Given the approximated total daily hot water use along with the shower load
distribution and the fact that the ice rink and washing machine have a fairly even
distribution, the hourly distribution was adjusted as shown in Fig. 3.4.

8
 Daily Hot Water Use Distribution

8000
Hot Water Consumed (L)
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
7:30 9:30 11:30 1:30 3:30 5:30 7:30 9:30 11:30
Time

2
Fig. 3.4 Daily hot water consumption distribution for the PEC

2
Estimated

9
4.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS

4.1 Solar Panels

The solar panels are at the heart of the water heating system. The goal was to
keep as much from the drain-back system as possible to reduce costs.
Specialists were contacted to examine the existing mounting structure on the roof of
the PEC. They concluded that this component of the system was still in good condition
and should be kept in the new system. This greatly reduces the cost as replacing the
mounting structure would be a huge expense. The new system, as the old system, will
have panels installed facing south at an angle of 45° where optimal sunlight could be
achieved. The mounting structure supports two rows of panels totaling 150 panels
connected to form an array with a total area of 293 m2.

4.1.1 Panel Design and Function

The PEC panels are glazed solar thermal panels. One attribute of glazed thermal
panels is that the cover of the panel casing is made of tempered glass. The glazing has a
shallow stipple pattern ingrained in the glass. This reduces reflectance and gives the
glass a frosted appearance. Tempered glass is used because of its durability against the
elements like hail and rain while maintaining transmissivity (see Table 4.1). It has low
iron content and ensures high transmission with low reflection of sunlight and results in
an increase in collector efficiency.
Table 4.1 Strength of annealed glass and tempered glass.
Annealed Glass Tempered Glass
Typical Breaking Stress
(large light 60 sec. load) 6,000 psi 24,000 psi
Typical Impact Velocity Causing Fracture
(1/4" light 5 gm missile, impact normal to surface) 30 ft/sec 60 ft/sec
Resist Temperature Differences differences of
200°F - 300 ° F

To prevent thermal loss, the rest of the case used to house the panels is
constructed of aluminum with fiberglass insulation behind and on the sides of the panel.

10
They will be retrofitted with rubber gaskets all around the case. The panels will also
have headers on the top and the bottom of the panels for the glycol solution to feed
through panels. This will be custom made by the installers and will provide a decreased
potential for failure.

Fig. 4.1 Schematic of the solar panel.

The innards of the panels are constructed of copper tubing in a serpentine
configuration (see Fig. 4.1) bonded on a stainless steel backing. Copper tubing with a
diameter of 3/8 of an inch, is used in the panel and it is a very good conductive material.
Typically, copper tubing in serpentine arrangement is considered inefficient because the
temperature of the solution in an average collector will be higher due to the repeated
passages through the collector. However, due to the geographical location Kingston,
Ontario and its yearly average sun exposure, multiple passes through the collector would
benefit the system and increase the average temperature of the glycol solution. The
stainless steel backing of the panel is selectively coated with a solution to maximize heat

11
absorption and retention. The materials used in constructing the panels will help
maintain durability. Panel design and manufacturing is a product of Enerworks Inc.
from Dorchester, ON.
One of the challenges for this project was deciding what existing equipment could
be reused in the new system. As mentioned earlier, the mounting rack was the first
piece of equipment that could be brought into the new system. The second challenge
was to determine the condition of the existing panel casings. Although the panels have
been unused since 1990, the casings for the panels are still in good condition. The cost
of retrofitting custom panels into the existing casings and using industry standard cells in
new casings was investigated. Since the drain-back system used panels with dimensions
of 3 ft by 7 ft, the number of casings fit perfectly into the mounting rack. A collective
agreement was reached to retrofit the old cases instead of creating new cases with
industry standard panels of dimension 4 ft by 8 ft. This would ensure that the panels
would all fit in the mounting rack and the area would be maximized for solar radiation
absorbtion.
These two elements were kept to reduce costs as well as to make sure the new
panels would accurately fit onto the mounting structure.

4.2 Control Systems

Two types of control systems were investigated for use in the PEC solar heating
system. One is the ORCA control system by Delta Controls and the second is Delta-T
model Differential temperature thermostat by Heliotrope Thermal. In the PEC system we
are only concerned with two temperature readings, one taken at the water storage tank
and one at the solar panels.
When the differential temperature between the tank and the glycol solution at the
panels is greater than 8°C the system is then turned on. The measurement at the tank
also ensures that if the water leaving the tank exceeds a maximum temperature of 50°C a
3-way valve is turned on and cold water in introduced into the system. The cold water
is mixed with the maximum temperature hot water before going to the showers. This
prevents water temperatures at the showers from scalding users. Monitoring these

12
points will also ensure that the system is shut off at the appropriate times as to prevent
freezing of the system.
The ORCA system is the control system currently used to monitor all systems in
the PEC. ORCA was investigated because it use into the PEC system would conform to
the existing control system in the building. After consulting with Mr. Mike Finn from
Physical Plant Services, the control system would need to feed through the building from
the control points (storage tank and panels) to the basement of the PEC where there exists
a control panel capable of monitoring the system. The storage tank, located in the
basement is simple to wire into the system. The control point on the roof where the
panels are would require cables to feed from the roof, through a panel in the mechanical
room and into the basement. An additional panel would have to be added to the existing
control panel and the two differential points would have to be programmed into the
system. Currently the ORCA system used in the PEC is no longer available by its
manufacturer Delta Controls. For the ORCA system to be implemented, control wiring
would have to run from the differential points to the basement panel. This would cost
the project approximately $1000 to implement.
The Heliotrope Thermal Delta-T is designed specifically to monitor solar heating
systems. It is a compact module and can be attached right to the water tank and controls
the system based on the two temperature differential points. The Delta-T has
programmable dip switches (see Fig. 4.2) that can be set at a certain temperature for the
system to turn on or off. This control system is easy to implement, is all inclusive and is
cost effective. However, to implement this into the PEC ORCA control system for
monitoring would cost $800-1000 as the Delta-T would have to have a feed into the main
control panel. The Delta-T is easy to implement and requires little to no monitoring.
The cost of installing and purchasing the Delta-T is highlighted in the financial section of
this report.

13
Fig. 4.2 A schematic of the Delta-T programmable dip switches.

It is recommended that the Heliotrope Thermal Delta-T be used in the PEC system.

4.3 Heat Exchanger

The heat exchanger was selected using the SWEP SSP CBE simulation software,
taking into account the flow rates and desired effectiveness; both of which are obtained
using simulation software called WATSUN. Specifying a heat exchanger is difficult
because it relies on the values of the inlet and outlet temperatures to optimize operation.
For solar panels, these temperatures vary over a wide range. When utilizing an
oversized heat exchanger, it is likely that the flow rate is reduced and fouling, a process
where minerals and impurities clog the heat exchanger inhibiting the flow and heat
transfer, occurs. When using an undersized heat exchanger, the pressure loss increases
and the heat transfer coefficient will also be reduce. Therefore, an average temperature
is assumed in specifying the heat exchanger that minimizes the heat exchanger
inefficiency.
The heat exchanger selected is a SWEP B65H X150. Product specifications are
shown in Appendix C, along with the SSP CBE simulation software data.

4.4 Pumps

Using a flow loss analysis in the piping system, the pumping power required is
approximated, which consists the power needed for two pumps. The first one is to
pump the propylene glycol solution through the circuit that contains the solar collector
array and the heat exchanger. A basic pressure loss of 30 kPa is assumed for the heat
exchanger, which is well within normal heat exchanger operating parameters. Along
with the pipe sizes and lengths of the drain-back system, and the pressure loss per

14
collector, which is calculated to be 20 kPa from the design data, the overall pumping
power for the first pump is found to be 3.7 kW or 5hp (at an efficiency of 60%). The
second pump is to pump the water in the storage tank up to the heat exchanger and back
down. With the same heat exchanger pressure loss, lengths and sizes of pipe from the
drain-back system, and a flow rate which at first is assumed to be 10.5 kg/s as before, the
pumping power is found to be 650 W or about 1 hp (at 60% pump efficiency). When
sourcing heat exchangers, the flow rate for the second pump is adjusted to 8 kg/s with
negligible performance effects. This flow rate and piping loss method calculates the
theoretical pumping power required. In reality, a pump must be found which matches
the input parameters. The two parameters used for pump selection are flow and head
loss. The flow was determined previously and the flow loss analysis determines the
head loss (the values were then converted to pumping power). Using this information
and the centrifugal pump charts, as shown in Fig. 4.3, two Goulds Pumps are selected.
Using these charts, the specific design parameters for the pumps are specified which
include pump size, power used, impeller size and efficiency.
The two pumps recommended are Goulds 3656/3756 S Group models 4BF1J1H0-5
Hp and 4BF1H1k0 3Hp. Product specifications and pump charts are shown in
Appendix E.

15
Fig. 4.3 Centrifugal pump chart.

4.5 Piping System

It is decided that the existing pipes that were used for the drain-back solar system
will be used for the proposed system. The original piping will be slightly altered to
accommodate the proposed two-loop system. Slight alterations must be made in order to
run glycol from the collectors through a heat exchanger and also to run water form the
storage tank to the heat exchanger.

16
5.0 WATSUN

WATSUN is a DOS-based simulation program developed by the University of

Waterloo with the support of Energy, Mines and Resources Canada. Its purpose is to
evaluate the performance of thermal systems that incorporate solar panels by determining
the economical feasibility of such projects. There is a set of predefined system types,
which incorporate variables assigned by the user. The program uses the simulation data,
along with weather data obtained from a weather file to create an output file that displays
the energy absorbed, consumed, and lost from the particular system, indicating the
overall energy savings and efficiency. The output can be set to display yearly, monthly
or hourly performances of the system. The weather file used in the simulation for the
PEC project was the 1994 readings taken in Toronto, Ontario, which is assumed to be a
fair projection of the weather in Kingston, Ontario by 2005.
The simulation for the PEC project was run with the system type “Domestic Hot
Water System With Storage and Heat Exchanger,” with eight sections which require
different input variables. The following describes each of the sections.

5.1 Simulation Data

This section contains the initial parameters for the simulation such as simulation
length, the year analysed and length of detailed analysis. For the PEC project, the
simulation ran with a detailed analysis for 365 days.

5.2 Collector Data for Group A

This section contains the information used to calculate how much energy the solar
collectors absorb from the sun. The main data includes the solar collector arrangement
and orientation, area per panel, mass flow rate through the collectors, and the pumping
power required.
The PEC Project arrangement contains eight groups of solar collectors in parallel.
As previously mentioned, six of these groups contain 19 solar panels each; the other two
each contains 18 solar panels. Every panel has an area of 1.95 m2 giving a total area of
292.6 m2. Due to the limitations of the software, the simulation for PEC had to

17
approximate the arrangement as eight groups of solar collectors in parallel, with 19 solar
panels per group. This gives a total area of 296.4 m2, an error of 1.3%. The eight
collector groups are all orientated so that the panels face the east and have a tilt angle of
45o. The flow rate was altered to find the optimum position. Generally, the higher the
flow rate, the more energy is absorbed by the panels and expended by the pumps. The
pumping power required was found using a piping loss spreadsheet that approximated the
head loss during flow through the system.

5.3 More Collector Data

This section, like the last, contains information used to calculate the amount of
energy the collector absorbs from the sun. This includes the collector parameters,
incidence angle modifiers and specific heat of the collector fluid.
The collector parameters were based on standard values obtained from other
products. These parameters are ideally determined by manufacturer test results. Since
the proposed collectors are custom-made, approximated values were used. The
propylene glycol solution was obtained from Dowfrost, a supplier of propylene
glycol-based heat transfer fluids.

5.4 Collector Data for Group B

This section contains data for another collector type for systems that use more than
one collector type. The PEC project will only utilize one collector type therefore this
section is not applicable.

5.5 Tank Data

This section contains the information used to determine the amount of energy stored
and the heat loss from the tank. It includes the sizes and heat loss factors for the storage
and the auxiliary tank as well as the maximum temperature values for the tanks.
The PEC currently has three auxiliary tanks and one storage tank. The heat loss
coefficients were found based on the standard values of well-insulated pipes and tanks.
The auxiliary tank temperature is a standard value set by Queen’s University, and the
storage tank maximum is simply set to the point before evaporation occurs.

18
5.6 Heat Exchanger Data

This section contains parameters used to determine the amount of energy

transferred from the solar panel loop to the storage loop. It includes the heat exchanger
type, its effectiveness, the flow rate in the storage tank and the specific heat for the
storage fluid.
The effectiveness is varied to find an optimum point. While increasing the
effectiveness will increase the energy the collectors transfer to the domestic hot water
load, the cost of the heat exchanger and the pressure loss must be considered to find the
optimum effectiveness.

5.7 Pipe Data

This section contains the parameters used to determine the heat losses associated
with the transportation of fluids delivered to the storage tank. It includes variables such
as the collector inlet pipe surface area, fraction of inlet pipe surface area outside, collector
outlet surface area, fraction of outlet surface area outside, and the indoor and outdoor heat
loss coefficients.
The Surface area of the pipe was calculated using the known pipe diameters and
lengths from the system schematics. The heat loss coefficients were assigned as
common values for insulated pipes indoor and outdoor.

5.8 Load Data

This section contains the information to calculate the amount of hot water needed,
and the temperature of the water. It accounts for monthly, weekly, and even hourly
distributions.
With meters and utilities information, a rough estimate of the hot water
consumption was determined for the PEC.

19
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Not only does solar thermal power make use of a renewable natural resource which
is readily available, using solar energy to provide some of the energy needed reduces
emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
CleanAir Canada is an organization which promotes the reduction of emissions in
Canada by “assisting business and government in the validation, verification and
registration processes required to transact offsets in Canada against required obligations”
(www.cleanaircanada.org). The basic idea behind the emission credits is to achieve a
set limit of emissions in Canada. A company can bank or sell to other companies the
amount of emissions that it has under its target emission. However, the Ontario
Emissions Trading Regulation does not include reductions of CO2 or other greenhouse
gases; but CleanAir Canada is continuing to review and to register these types of
emission reduction projects.
RETscreen is an international renewable energy project analysis software. It is
available for free at the RETscreen International Renewable Energy Decision Support
Centre and seeks to promote the deployment of renewable energy systems. It uses a
variety of tools to allow users to better analyse the technical and financial possibilities of
projects. A complete RETscreen financial summary is found in Appendix F which
projects a reduction of 6.24tons of CO2 a year.
REDI is a $24 million program run by the government, designed to stimulate the
demand for renewable energy systems for space and water heating and cooling. To
encourage the private sector to gain experience with active solar and large biomass
combustion systems, businesses are eligible for a refund of 25 percent of the purchase
and installation costs of a qualifying system, up to a maximum refund of $80,000. Of
the systems included, active solar hot water systems such as that of the PEC meet the
requirements for incentives. Though Natural Resources Canada is currently
re-evaluating the program and its objectives, funding details for future years depend upon
the results of an independent review which are expected by the end of April of 2004.
Having the solar panels on top of the PEC refurbished will promote Queen’s
University and the city of Kingston as leaders of renewable energy. From an
environmental standpoint the new solar panel system will lead to a reduction in

20
greenhouse gases, and Queen’s can boast an environmentally friendly conscious to the
public. Regarding technology, this effort will help position the university in the minds
of the public as being dedicated towards improvement and sustainability.

7.0 FINANCIAL EVALUATIONS

The control system we recommended to purchase is from Heliotrope Thermal, a

company based out of Richmond California. They supply the following items:
Differential temperature control, Sensors, Sensor Wire, Brass Check Valve, and Repair
items for Draindown Valve. These items from Heliotrope total $331.40, however this
figure is in US dollars. Using an exchange rate of 24.88% these costs will increase to
$441.15.
The pumps selected (Goulds Pumps,model number 3656/3756 S Group, models
4BF1J1H0, and 4BF1H1k0) are also purchased from the US at prices of $1 776.99 and
$1 482.99 USD. When converting to Canadian funds our costs increase to $2 365.44
and $1 972.75 respectively. The heat exchanger being recommended can be found
locally at a cost of $8 046.00.
Rick Rooney is an Energy Systems Specialist from Quantum Renewable Energy
Inc. It is a local firm based in Kingston and has submitted a bid for the installation of
this project. Mr. Rooney has quoted a price for the installation of $35 200. This brings
the costs of equipment and installation to a total value of $52 950. Standard project costs
to be added include the need for scaffolding, disposal and acquiring a plumbing permit.
Physical Plant Services has quoted a price of $4 500 for these expenses based upon past
experience. After adding a 10% contingency and a 15% tax rate for purchase of goods
and services, the total cost to install this project is $71 780.
With the total installation costs now finalized, financial calculations can be made to
determine if this is a worthy investment from a quantitative standpoint. With the
assumption of a 25 year project life for the new system, this will generate yearly savings
of 643 GJ, which translates to $8 260/yr. For simplicity, inflationary expectations and
approximated rises in energy costs have not been included in the calculations. The
impact these attributes have to our result is negligible, barring an extreme economic

21
crisis, and it can be reasonably expected that the Bank of Canada will continue with its
monetary policy of keeping inflation between one and three percent on an annual basis.
When deciding upon any investment, the Net Present Value (NPV) of that venture
must first be evaluated. NPV is defined as the present value of an investment's future
net cash flows minus the initial investment. Due to inflation, $100 today is worth less a
year from now. This calculation (NPV) takes into consideration the time value of
money and helps us to understand if it is a worthwhile investment. Anytime an
investment results in a positive NPV it should be made, and when an NPV is negative the
investment should be avoided. Accordingly, if NPV is equal to zero then one will have
to consider other reasons to make the investment as this is a point of indifference.
Based upon a pessimistic discount rate of 8% the NPV for this project is $16 390, which
is well into the positive range. Clearly, this investment is very much worth our while
from a financial standpoint when using a net present value approach.
Two other calculations of interest are the payback period and internal rate of return.
Given the above data concerning our initial investment and the amount saved each year,
it can be found that the payback period is approximately nine years (8 years, 8 months).
The internal rate of return (IRR) is defined as the rate of return that would make the
present value of future cash flows plus the final market value of an investment equal the
current market price of the investment. This is used as a comparison tool with other
potential investments. The IRR for this project is currently an astounding 10.57%.
This means another investment would have to be located in the market that generates a
return of 10.57% over the same time period, in order to consider reallocating the money.
It is clear that after considering the net present value, payback period, and internal
rate of return for our investment that is well recommended from a financial standpoint.

N.B.
Expected annual maintenance costs for the system have been estimated at $500. Should
this figure be subtracted from our annual energy cost savings, we are presented with the
following results: NPV = $11 044; IRR = 9.75%; Payback Period = 9.25 years. All
figures still represent this as an attractive investment.

22
 A summary of the total costs as well as a graph of the payback period are found in
the following two pages.

23
Table 7.1 Summary of the total costs.
Equipment & Installation Costs

Panel removal, refit, and replacement*

$75 labour / panel, 144 panels $10,800
Set up, disposal, equipment rental* $800
Absorbers ($150 each) $21,600
Internal plumbing* $2,000
SAS-10 Sensors $30
Sensor Wire $40
Brass Check Valve $50
Repair Items
Valve kit, O-rings, Replacement of
O-rings $130
Differential Temperature Control $190
Mixing Valve* $1,100
Monitoring $1,000
Heat Exchanger SWEP Type B65HX150/1P-SC-S,
4x2-1/2" NPT, P/N 11487-220 $8,000
Pump style 3656/3756 S Group, model 4BF1J1H0 $2,400
Pump style 3656/3756 S Group, model 4BF1H1k0 $2,000
Integration Costs with PEC Controls $800
General Installation Costs $2,000
Total Equipment & Installation Costs $52,940

Standard Project Costs

Scaffolding $2,000
Disposal $2,000
Permits $500
Total Project Costs $4,500

Total Before Taxes and Contingency $57,440

Tax 15% $8,600
Contingency 10% $5,700

TOTAL $71,740

Expected Annual Maintenance Costs $500

* - Quoted values

24
 200000

150000
Savings (Costs)

100000

50000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-50000

-100000
Years

Fig. 7.1 Payback period of the proposed system.

25
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Though time constraint was the main factor hindering the team’s goals as set out in
the beginning of the project, the major milestones were met during the course of the last
eight months. Some recommendations are suggested prior to the implementation of the
solar panels.
Firstly, more accurate recordings of the loads should be made. Meters can be
installed to track an accurate hot water consumption. If possible, year-long readings of
the three loads should be made; this task can be made easy by arranging for the PEC
employees to take hourly or at least daily readings. Secondly, the selection of the heat
exchangers should be further researched and studied in detail. Thirdly, the flow loss
analysis in the piping system should also be investigated in depth. Lastly, it is important
to confirm the status of the government funded program, REDI; since their contribution
to the project would reduce the cost up-front by a great margin.

26
9.0 CONCLUSIONS

There are three key aspects to be evaluated before undertaking this project:
financial, environmental, and technological. Financially, our studies have shown that
this is not just a feasible, but an attractive investment. This has been determined
through the results acquired by calculating the net present value, internal rate of return,
and payback period.
From an environmental standpoint, there are both quantitative and qualitative
aspects to consider. Quantitatively, there is a market being established in the near future
for the trading of greenhouse gas emission credits. As the new solar panel system will
lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases, Queen’s can expect to receive monetary
compensation from the selling of these recently acquired emission credits.
Qualitatively, the university will be able to boast an environmentally friendly conscious
to the public through efforts such as the solar panel system. This can positively
contribute to the image of Queen’s, and the benefits of such contributions will be seen
over time.
This leads to the third aspect which concerns technology. This is an impressive
move forward by the university and helps position it in the minds of the public as an
institution dedicated towards continuous improvement and sustainability. Few facilities
of this size are capable of successfully implementing such systems, especially ones that
are to be relied upon on a daily basis.

27
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The APSC400 PEC Solar Team would like to thank the following individuals for their

invaluable contributions to our project over the past year:

Mr. Eric Neuman - Client, Queen’s University Physical Plant Services

Ms. Annette Bergeron, Dr. Barry Jackson, Mr. Dale Dilmarter - TEAM Project
Instructors

Dr. Stephen Harrison and the Solar Calorimetry Lab - Queen’s University, Department of
Mechanical and Materials Engineering

Mr. David Moody – Advisor, APSC 400

Mr. Rick Rooney – Energy Systems Specialist, Quantum Renewable Energy

Mr. Larry Dougan – Foreperson, Arena and Stadium, Queen’s University Athletics

Mr. Herb Steacy – PEC Facilities/Services Manager, Queen’s University

Mr. Mike Finn, Physical Plant Services

28
REFERENCES

1. CleanAir Canada. Retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://www.cleanaircanada.org.

2. Incropera, F.,Dewitt, D. 2002. Introduction To Heat Transfer 4th Ed. New York:
JohnWiley & Sons.

3. Moran, M.,Shapiro, H. 2000. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics 4th Ed.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

4. Munson, B., Okiishi, T., Muson, B. 1998. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics 3rd Ed.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

5. Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved February 14, 2004, from

http://www.retscreen.net/ang/menu.php.

6. Swep A Dover Company. Retrieved on March 20, 2004, from http://www.swep.se/.

7. The Dow Chemical Company. Dowfrost Engineering and Operation Guide. 1996.

8. Water Tanks. Retrieved on March 15, 2004, from

http://www.watertanks.com/products/0516-080.asp.

9. Watsun User Service. 1986. Watsun User Manual and Program Documentation.
University of Waterloo.

10. White, F. 1999. Fluid Mechanics 4th Ed. Toronto: WBC McGraw Hill.

29