You are on page 1of 9

1

I. ABSTRACT
This solar potential map was created to discover buildings on campus that possess the greatest potential for generating solar power with photovoltaic panels. Solar projects are expensive and PV panels must be placed in optimal locations in order to maximize energy production and decrease the time needed for a return on the initial investment. The resulting map aims to provide a geographic representation and database for UCSB administrators, faculty, and students to assess and prioritize optimal locations for solar energy production on campus.

II. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Motivation
The initial motivation for taking on this project occurred after researching the Los Angeles County Solar Potential Map and realizing that this type of project may be feasible to do for the UCSB campus. After several productive meetings with faculty, staff, and graduate students on campus we realized that a UCSB solar potential map of this kind did not exist. The lack of a solar map for the UCSB campus provided us with the motivation and opportunity to move forward with this project. There is an increasing effort toward large scale solar projects, as well as energy efficiency improvement, across the entire University California system in order to reach the targeted goal of zero emissions by 2020. In order to achieve this ambitious goal, the University must have accurate and specific information as to where on campus suitable sites for solar arrays are.

2.2 Problem
Renewable energy projects are essential in order to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, reduce the dependency on finite resources, and reduce costs associated with rising energy prices. Solar energy is on the rise, becoming cheaper and more efficient, and is a viable renewable energy source especially in Southern California. In order to pursue such projects, detailed and accurate spatial information is required, including building orientation, slope and topography of rooftops, local weather phenomenon, as well as the obvious availability and abundance of solar radiation. GIS is an excellent means to consolidate and analyze spatial information in order to make informed decisions on solar projects. Our hope is that our work will provide useful and detailed information that can help prioritize potential locations for solar energy production on the UCSB campus. 2

III. METHODS
3.1 Overview
We used a high resolution (1m) DEM of the continuous campus to create slope and aspect rasters which served as inputs into the GRASS GIS r.sun model (Figure 1). We compiled monthly models into a yearly average kWh potential map. This map does not represent power production associated with PV panels, however it is the average kWh/day supplied by solar radiation. Using available energy consumption data of most buildings on campus and comparing that with the amount of kWh of solar radiation the respective rooftops received, we were able to determine which rooftops would be the most suitable for photovoltaic projects.

3.2 Procedure
3.2.1 Data Acquisition Originally we created our own 2 meter DEM from raw LIDAR data available on the campus server however after reaching out to numerous contacts in the Geography
Figure 1: DEM, Slope and Aspect Rasters

Department we obtained a more suitable 1 meter DEM courtesy from Thomas Pingel. However, this DEM excluded vegetation which was needed because the r.sun model accounts for shadowing effects of tall trees on buildings. In order to remedy this problem, we were able to obtain a 1 meter resolution DEM that included vegetation as well as more of the UCSB campus and Isla Vista areas from Bodo Bookhagen. We chose this DEM, to create slope and aspect rasters. Figure one illustrates the DEM, slope and aspect rasters from left to right.

3.2.2 Modeling with GRASS GIS The original DEM and the slope and aspect rasters that we created were used as inputs for the r.sun model in GRASS. The r.sun model in GRASS computes direct (beam), diffuse and reflected solar irradiation raster maps for a given day, latitude, and surface and atmospheric conditions. Solar parameters (e.g. sunrise, sunset times, declination, extraterrestrial irradiance, daylight length) are saved in the map history file. Alternatively, a local time can be specified to compute solar incidence angle and/or irradiance raster maps. We picked the first day of each month and ran the model at 15 minute intervals for the entire day. When this was completed, we had 12 raster maps, one for each month displaying the direct beam solar irradiation in W/m2. Using the map calculator in GRASS we were able to compile the results from all 12 months to create a single map that displayed a daily average direct beam solar irradiation for the entire year. 3.2.3 Opacity Phenomenon Since the UCSB campus is in such close proximity to the ocean, the campus and nearby coastal areas experience variable weather related to frequent cloud and fog cover throughout the year, heaviest in the summer months. We understood that this variable weather and cloud cover could decrease the solar potential so we wanted to take these parameters into consideration. We accessed pyranometer data which included archived radiometer readings at the Coal Oil Point Reserve for each day at fifteen minute intervals. We amassed the shortwave radiation measurements for every day of the month for the year 2011, and calculated a monthly average in excel. Using this average, we used excel to calculate a coefficient for optical thickness and then calculated a scaling factor for each month. These results and calculations are indicated in Figure 2. Using the raster calculator in GRASS we applied the scaling coefficient for each month to arrive at an opacity adjusted map. We then overlaid all 12 maps with the new solar 4
Figure 2: Opacity Adjustments

irradiance values to get a yearly total. We then used the map calculator again to calculate the yearly average solar potential. Our final product included a map showing solar irradiance values across campus that factored in the opacity data (Figure 4). 3.2.4 Analysis in ArcGIS We exported the final maps as GTIFF files, and imported them into ArcGIS. After importing the models into ArcGIS, we then imported the campus vector data obtained from Dylan Parenti that is used for the Campus Interactive Map. We first had to re-project the vector shapefiles so that the raster and vector projections matched ours, the NAD 1983 Datum with UTM Zone 11 coordinate system. After we matched our projections, we then used the manual georeferencing tool on ArcMap to match the building layers with an aerial photo of the campus area. The layers from this data set that we used were two shapefiles, one that
Figure 3: Annual Clear Sky Potential (kWh/day)

contained polygons of the buildings on campus and one that contained polygons of the parking structures on campus. Our next step was to use the extract by mask tool so that we could extract the building and parking structure polygons from the raster. By using the buildings and parking lots as a mask, we were able to display the solar irradiance values for just the buildings and discard all other values. We then needed to classify the values into different color classes. The values for kWh/day for the clear sky map ranged from 0 to ~6.9 and the values for kWh/day for the opacity adjusted map only ranged from 0 to ~2.6. We decided to separate the values for the opacity adjusted map into 3 classes. One class represented kWh/day

values ranging from 0.00-1.00, the next class represented values ranging from 1.01-2.00 and the third class represented values ranging from 2.00-2.6. The lowest class was dark blue, the middle class light blue, and the highest class was bright green. Since the range of values was so much larger for the clear sky map we decided that 6 classes was a more appropriate measure. The classes represented values ranging from 0.00-1.00 kWh/day, 1.01-2.00 kWh/day, 2.01-3.00kWh/day, 3.01-4.00 kWh/day, 4.01-5.00 kWh/day, and all values greater 5

Figure 4: Annual Opacity Adjusted Potential (kWh)

than 5.00 kWh/day (Figure 3). The lowest three classes were represented by the same colors as the three classes in the opacity adjusted map, dark blue, light blue, and bright green. We decided to do this to show consistency between the two maps. The next 3 classes were given the colors yellow, orange and red respectively. 3.2.5 Potential Energy Generation We used the raster to point tool to create a map in which the 1m raster cells were converted to points. After the to raster points, was we converted

employed the intersect tool so that only the points that fell within the building and parking structure polygons were shown (Figure 5). The points were then dissolved by the attribute building name and the sum of the solar irradiation for each building was calculated. Once the total input of solar irradiation was known the potential electricity generation could be estimated. A typical solar cell can absorb about 18% of the incoming radiation and about 77% of this can be generated into electricity (generated electricity=incoming solar radiation*0.18*0.77). The potential electricity production for Figure 5: Ellison Hall Annual Clear each building was calculated for our clear sky solar map and then Sky Potential (kWh/day) compared with the current energy use to see potential energy offset.

IV. RESULTS
We compared building energy consumption per year with annual potential solar power production in order to determine optimal locations. Figure 6 illustrates the potential energy offset if each building were retrofitted with photovoltaic panels with a conversion efficiency of 18% and a system efficiency of 77%. Optimal locations are
6

those where energy demand is mostly or entirely supplied by photovoltaic panels. Energy intensive buildings do not benefit as much as low to medium energy consuming buildings because the Figure 6: Potential Energy Offset initial cost of installing solar panels does not produce a long term benefit that makes the initial investment worthwhile over the long term. Due to the uncertainty of our absolute kWh potential, our results are assumed to be realized with ideal conditions and are subject to some adjustment and reduction.

V. UNCERTAINTY AND ERRORS


5.1 Issue of Scale Our models were completed using 1 meter DEM, each 1 meter raster cell contains a specific value in kWh. In order to determine the feasibility of installing photovoltaic arrays on a particular building there needs to be enough suitable cells to comprise an entire array. 5.2 Accuracy of Modeling In order to avoid heavy computations and to save time, we chose to model only one day for each month and extrapolated the results to provide information about the entire month. There are subtle changes in the available sunlight, for example in January 2011, the earliest sunrise was 6:51 AM whilst the latest was 6:59 AM. The earliest sunset in January was 4:55 PM and the latest was 5:22 PM. Furthermore, the angle and obliquity of the sun changes over the course of a month which were not represented by our modeling based on one day per month. 5.3 Opacity and Local Meteorological Phenomenon When we applied our scaling factor to the clear sky map we arrived at significant reductions in kWh potential (Figure 4). There is uncertainty in the accuracy of our scaling because the factor in the values was not measured directly on campus, but instead, was located at the Coal Oil Point Reserve. At UCSB there is significant marine fog, notably in the summer months, however it is unclear whether this phenomenon has reduced the solar potential for the campus significantly or if it is due to an imprecise scaling factor. 5.4 Energy Consumption 7

Provided energy consumption data was difficult to compare with our potential solar power generation data. The energy consumption data often included multiple locations in one building. This issue became problematic when comparing a particular buildings potential solar production against its total consumption. We decided to sum the annual kWh of each location and compare it our results. In order to offer accurate recommendations the unsuitable areas for solar need to be excluded and the area of the rooftop measured. We did not conduct these steps in our recommendations and chose only to measure total annual potential solar energy production of the entire roof area. Further analysis of our data is needed in this regard in order to make specific recommendations for campus solar projects.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Our project represents one of the first attempts to identify optimal locations for rooftop solar projects on the UCSB campus. Beyond this project we hope that others can build upon and improve our work by using similar methodologies. We intend to publish our results on the Interactive Campus Map so that administrators, faculty, and students can compare the solar potential of particular buildings on campus and assess the feasibility of actually installing solar panels. Future work is needed to evaluate suitable solar locations in terms of their potential energy offset, carbon savings, as well as structural viability and economic feasibility. These areas of work are outside the scope of this project, however they represent important additions to the foundation that our project has created. Our hope is that with the foundation that our project has set, others may build and improve upon our methodology in order to formulate the necessary information required to conduct a robust cost benefit analysis of a given solar project.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have contributed to making our GIS final project possible, wed l ike to extend much thanks and credit to the following: UCSB Department of Geography Mike Goodchild and Yingjie Hu Shane Grigsby and Mark Greninger for assisting us with technical and methodological issues. Bodo Bookhagen, Keith Clarke, Dylan Parenti, Paul Bartsch, Thomas Pingel, Jordan Sager, and Christopher Still for assisting us with acquiring the necessary data to complete this project.

VII. REFERENCES
Campus 1m DEM: Bodo Bookhagen Campus Vector Dataset: Dylan Parenti Navigating GRASS GIS r.sun models- Shane Grigsby Methods, Solar Efficiency and Payback infromation: Mark Greninger, LA County GIS Analyst Local opacity data: Coal Oil Point Reserve, Professor Christopher Still, Dept of Geography Vector Shapefiles from the Interactive Campus Map: Paul Bartsch, GIS Specialist at UCSB