Geer RD Glare Study - Array #1,2,4 (West) PDF

Barrett Energy Resources Group
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696

www.barrettenergygroup.com
Technical Memorandum
To: Michael Doud, Matrix Development, LLC

From: Stephen Barrett
Date: November 30, 2019
RE: Glare Study, Solar Photovoltaic Project, Geer Road WEST, Hudson Falls, New York
Executive Summary
Matrix Development, LLC (Matrix) is developing a nominal 18.6 MWdc solar photovoltaic (PV)
project northwest of the intersection of Geer and Underwood Roads in Hudson Falls, NY
referred to as Geer Road WEST. Another project proposed by Matrix located on the opposite
side of Geer Road, which is not the subject of this memorandum, is referred to as Geer Road
EAST.
The Geer Road WEST Project is comprised of three single axis tracking arrays: #1 (6.65 MWdc),
#2 (6.65 MWdc), and #4 (5.28 MWdc). Matrix has engaged Barrett Energy Resources Group
(BERG) to analyze potential impacts of glare from the project on aviation receptors at Floyd
Bennett Memorial Airport (GFL) located in Queensbury approximately 2 miles west of the
project, and receptors close to the project such as motorists and residences.
To complete this work, BERG has utilized the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) which
was developed by the US Department of Energy for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
to protect aviation sensitive receptors from unintended glare from solar projects. For this
project, SGHAT has been used along with the FAA’s Solar Policy and ocular hazard standard to
evaluate glare on aircraft on final approach to four runway ends at GFL. SGHAT has also been
used to assess potential glare impacts on motorist receptors traveling on Geer and Underwood
Roads and on representative residential receptors in the vicinity of the project.
The modeling reports, which are included as Attachment A for the aviation receptors and
Attachment B for the non-aviation receptors, show no potential glare impacts on any of the
receptors analyzed. This is primarily due to the use of the single axis tracking system which
limits the potential for glare on receptors relatively close to the ground including pilots landing
at the airport runway ends. For aviation receptors, the results demonstrate that the project as
designed meets the FAA’s Solar Policy and ocular hazard standard. This Technical
Memorandum describes the project, methodology, and results.
11/30/2019 1
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
Project Description
The Geer Road-West Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Project is located on about 100 acres of
undeveloped farmland northwest of the intersection of Geer and Underwood Roads in Hudson
Falls, NY as shown on Figure 1. The project is designed as a single axis tracking array and has a
nameplate capacity of 18.6 MWdc. It is adjacent to another project proposed by Matrix referred
to as Geer Road East.
Figure 1. Geer Road West Solar Project Locus
FAA Solar Policy

In 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published “Interim Policy, FAA Review of
Solar Energy System Projects on Federally-Obligated Airport,” which sets forth methods for
assessing glare and the standards for determining impact for projects proposed on airport
property. It also requires the use of modeling to assess glare and directs project proposers to
the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) which was developed by the US Department of
Energy at the request of the FAA. The US Department of Defense (DOD) has also adopted
SGHAT and the associated requirements to analyze glare under Instruction (DODI) 4165.57. In
addition to providing a clear method for assessing potential impacts of glare on aviation
11/30/2019 2
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
receptors, the model also produces a highly credible result for evaluating other glare sensitive
receptors such as motor vehicles and residences.
Glare Methodology and Standard of Impact

Determination of glare occurrence from a solar PV project requires knowledge of the sun
position, observer location, and the characteristics of the solar panels (e.g. tilt, orientation,
location, extent, etc.). Vector algebra is then used to determine if glare is visible from the
prescribed observation points. Figure 2 provides a simple representation of how the sun can
produce glare on an air traffic control tower for a specific time and location. The angle of the
light source from the sun must be equal to the angle of the reflection on a receptor. Therefore,
when receptors are close to the ground (like a landing aircraft or a car), the reflection is only
possible when the sun is also close to the ground (i.e., near sunrise or sunset). As the sun
moves, the incidence of glare ends.
Figure 2. Geometric Representation of Potential Glare Impacts from the Sun
The FAA’s Solar Policy specifies the glare methodology and ocular hazard standard required for
solar PV projects located at airports. For this analysis, BERG used SGHAT version 3 released in
the spring of 2016 under the brand “GlareGauge.” For consistency with the FAA Policy, the
model is referred to herein as SGHAT.
11/30/2019 3
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
If glare is recorded by the SGHAT model, the predicted intensity of the glare is reported in a
color-coded system at three levels:
• green, a low potential for an after-image1;
• yellow, a potential for an after-image; and
• red, a potential for retinal burn.
The Policy includes an ocular hazard standard which sets forth the intensity of glare using the
color-coded system that is deemed significant and thereby determined to produce a potential
hazard to air navigation. The standard prohibits any glare from impacting the air traffic control
tower (ATCT) (i.e. results with green, yellow or red represent a significant impact), but allows
for a low potential for an after image (green) for pilots on approach to the airport with yellow
and red results representing a significant impact. Table 1 presents the airport sensitive
receptors that must be evaluated for glare using the SGHAT model, the potential results
reported by the model, and whether the result complies with the FAA’s Solar Policy.
Table 1. SGHAT Model Levels of Glare and Compliance with FAA Policy
Airport Sensitive Level of Glare Glare Color Does Result
Receptor Result Comply with FAA
Policy?
ATCT No glare None Yes
Low Potential for After-Image Green
Potential for After-Image Yellow

No
Potential for Permanent Eye Red
Damage
Aircraft on No glare None

approach Yes
Low Potential for After-Image Green
Potential for After-Image Yellow
Potential for Permanent Eye Red No

Damage
1An after-image occurs when you look directly into a bright light, then look away. It typically takes several seconds for your vision to
readjust and return to normal. It is also referred to as a temporary visual disability or flash blindness.
11/30/2019 4
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
The FAA Policy and ocular hazard standard apply to the assessment of aviation receptors and
are not specifically relevant for the evaluation of glare impacts on other receptors. For non-
aviation receptors, the results are simply used to determine if glare is predicted (any color) or
not (no color).
SGHAT Model Setup for Proposed Project

Regardless of the receptor to be analyzed, the model set-up entails locating the solar project,
inputting its design characteristics, and identifying sensitive receptors for analysis. The position
and movement of the sun throughout the year is built into the SGHAT model.
For the Geer Road West Solar Project, BERG used the PV project polygon tool to draw the
footprint of the solar arrays on SGHAT’s interactive Google map. The specific attributes of the
solar arrays were then input into the model. As the project proposes a single axis tracking array,
SGHAT includes relevant fields for those elements including for this project design: tilt angle of
0°, azimuth orientation of 0°, beginning and ending panel rotational angle of 60°, average
height of 6 feet above ground level (agl), and a panel surface with no anti-reflective coating as a
baseline. Figure 3 is a simple schematic showing how the solar panels track the sun’s position
throughout the day.
Figure 3. Schematic of Solar Tracking System Through a One-Day Cycle

This study has evaluated both aviation and non-aviation receptors. For the aviation receptors,
the FAA’s solar policy requires assessment of the control tower and pilots on final approach.
11/30/2019 5
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
Floyd Bennett Airport does not have an air traffic control tower (ATCT); therefore, the only
receptors requiring analysis are the approach pathways associated with the four runway ends.
To analyze the aviation sensitive receptors, BERG activated the flight path tool and selected the
threshold (or end) of the first runway and selected a second point away from the threshold to
represent a straight-on approach pathway, and the model automatically draws the flightpath
from the threshold out to two miles for analysis. This step was repeated for the other three
approach pathways. The model assumes a 3-degree glide path for each runway approach,
which was confirmed for three of the four approach pathways; however, arrivals to Runway 12
are designed for a 3.85-degree glide slope which was used. Figure 4 shows the location of the
solar project, and the two-mile flight paths (in light purple) analyzed in accordance with FAA
methodology.
Figure 4. Airport Sensitive Receptors at Floyd Bennett Airport
For the non-aviation analysis, BERG identified representative motor vehicle receptors
associated with the roadways near the project as well as nearby residential receptors. The
11/30/2019 6
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
model’s observation point tool was used to select individual points located on the Google map.
Four motorist and eight residential locations were analyzed as shown on Figure 5. For the
motorist receptors, the driver’s height above the roadway was set at 5 feet. For the residential
receptors, the viewpoint was set at 5 feet above ground level to represent the view of a person
standing on the property.
Figure 5. Motorist and Residential Receptors Analyzed for Glare
For each model run, the glare analysis button was activated, and the model evaluated glare
from various sun angles at 1-minute intervals throughout the year to predict if glare could be
observed by the sensitive receptors.
Glare Model Results

The SGHAT-generated report for aviation receptors is included in Attachment A and for non-
aviation receptors as Attachment B. No glare was predicted for any of the receptors, aviation
and non-aviation, analyzed.
11/30/2019 7
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
The single axis tracking system is effective in eliminating potential glare from receptors close to
the ground. This is due first to the design and operational elements where the face of the panel
is always perpendicular to the sun as the sun moves across the sky during the day. The effect is
that the sun’s rays contact the panel and the portion that is reflected returns back toward the
sun and not toward any receptor on the ground. This concept is illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Tracking System Mitigates Glare for Low-to-Ground Receptors
The second project element of the tracking system that mitigates glare is the starting and
stopping angle of the panels, which for this project is set at 60° (compared to 90° if the panel
continued tracking to the horizon). Because the panels do not extract much energy from the
sun when it is low on the horizon, the tracking system does not remain perpendicular to the sun
at the beginning and end of each day. If it did, the sun may contact the panel surface and reflect
back toward the sun at a low angle and close to the ground. Instead, the panel is already angled
such that any reflection from the rising or setting sun is cast upward and away from the ground.
Once the sun rises to a position in the sky where it is perpendicular to the panel “resting” angle,
the tracking commences. At the end of the day, the panel reaches the same angle where it
started the day, stops tracking, and, as the sun continues to set, any reflection off the panel is
cast upward. This concept is also shown in Figure 6.
Conclusions
Barrett Energy Resources Group (BERG) has utilized the SGHAT modeling tool developed by
the US Department of Energy to assess the potential effects of glare from a solar photovoltaic
(PV) project on both aviation and non-aviation receptors near Matrix Development’s proposed
11/30/2019 8
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
solar project at Geer and Underwood Roads in Hudson Falls, NY. There are two solar projects
adjacent to each other and the project addressed in this study is referred to as Geer Road West.
The modeling reports, which are included as Attachment A for the aviation receptors and
Attachment B for the non-aviation receptors, show that the project has no potential to produce
glare on aviation and non-aviation receptors. Impacts are fundamentally mitigated by the
single axis tracking system design which directs any reflections back skyward. For aviation
receptors, the results demonstrated that the project as designed meets the FAA’s Solar Policy
and ocular hazard standard.
11/30/2019 9
PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
Attachment A
Glare Modeling Results
Floyd Bennett Airport Receptors
11/30/2019 10
FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS
Project: Matrix Geer Road West

A ground-mounted single axis tracking facility comprised of arrays 1 (6.65 MWdc), 2 (6.65 MWdc), and 4 (5.28 MWdc) .
Site configuration: Preferred Design - Airport

Analysis conducted by Stephen Barrett (steve@barrettenergygroup.com) at 17:53 on 30 Nov, 2019.
U.S. FAA 2013 Policy Adherence

The following table summarizes the policy adherence of the glare analysis based on the 2013 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration
Interim Policy 78 FR 63276. This policy requires the following criteria be met for solar energy systems on airport property:
• No "yellow" glare (potential for after-image) for any flight path from threshold to 2 miles
• No glare of any kind for Air Traffic Control Tower(s) ("ATCT") at cab height.
• Default analysis and observer characteristics (see list below)
ForgeSolar does not represent or speak officially for the FAA and cannot approve or deny projects. Results are informational only.
COMPONENT STATUS DESCRIPTION
Analysis parameters PASS Analysis time interval and eye characteristics used are acceptable
Flight path(s) PASS Flight path receptor(s) do not receive yellow glare
ATCT(s) N/A No ATCT receptors designated
Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only):
• Analysis time interval: 1 minute

• Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5
• Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters
• Eye focal length: 0.017 meters
• Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians
FAA Policy 78 FR 63276 can be read at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-24729

SITE CONFIGURATION
Analysis Parameters
DNI: peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2

Time interval: 1 min
Ocular transmission
coefficient: 0.5
Pupil diameter: 0.002 m
Eye focal length: 0.017 m
Sun subtended angle: 9.3
mrad
Site Config ID: 33811.6210
PV Array(s)
Name: Array 2
Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation
Tracking axis orientation: 180.0°
Tracking axis tilt: 0.0°
Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0°
Max tracking angle: 60.0°
Resting angle: 60.0°
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass without AR coating
Reflectivity: Vary with sun
Slope error: correlate with material
Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
1 43.361096 -73.562376 291.01 6.00 297.01

2 43.360440 -73.568041 293.40 6.00 299.40
3 43.358880 -73.567526 288.33 6.00 294.33
4 43.358880 -73.566625 288.36 6.00 294.36
5 43.359036 -73.565251 286.19 6.00 292.19
6 43.359910 -73.565423 288.47 6.00 294.47
7 43.359972 -73.564178 288.97 6.00 294.97
8 43.357851 -73.564135 286.99 6.00 292.99
9 43.357632 -73.563191 310.36 6.00 316.36
10 43.358818 -73.562548 311.54 6.00 317.54
11 43.360159 -73.562633 291.86 6.00 297.86
Name: PV array 2
Rated power: -
1 43.358506 -73.567182 287.73 6.00 293.73

2 43.357382 -73.567140 289.98 6.00 295.98
3 43.353451 -73.565895 277.65 6.00 283.65
4 43.353388 -73.565080 275.40 6.00 281.40
5 43.354761 -73.565165 279.67 6.00 285.67
6 43.354824 -73.564393 280.69 6.00 286.69
7 43.353888 -73.564307 270.59 6.00 276.59
8 43.353888 -73.563621 266.94 6.00 272.94
9 43.356509 -73.564221 276.03 6.00 282.03
10 43.358568 -73.565251 284.42 6.00 290.42
Name: PV array 3
Rated power: -
1 43.359945 -73.562052 303.34 6.00 309.34

2 43.357355 -73.562953 312.84 6.00 318.84
3 43.355935 -73.563210 295.35 6.00 301.35
4 43.354250 -73.563339 283.31 6.00 289.31
5 43.354313 -73.562374 285.28 6.00 291.28
6 43.355873 -73.561880 310.78 6.00 316.78
7 43.355920 -73.561515 306.32 6.00 312.32
8 43.356840 -73.561258 315.07 6.00 321.07
9 43.356903 -73.560914 312.29 6.00 318.29
10 43.358135 -73.560678 321.57 6.00 327.57
11 43.358244 -73.561129 326.39 6.00 332.39
12 43.358931 -73.560936 324.64 6.00 330.64
13 43.358931 -73.560464 325.47 6.00 331.47
14 43.360117 -73.560249 323.10 6.00 329.10
Flight Path Receptor(s)
Name: Rwy 1
Description:
Threshold height: 50 ft
Direction: 358.0°
Glide slope: 3.0°
Pilot view restricted? Yes
Vertical view: 30.0°
Azimuthal view: 50.0°
Point Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft)
Threshold 43.335754 -73.608705 320.63 50.00 370.63

Two-mile 43.306859 -73.607309 209.98 714.11 924.09
Name: Rwy 12
Description:
Direction: 110.0°
Glide slope: 3.85°
Threshold 43.341473 -73.619004 326.44 50.00 376.45

Two-mile 43.351362 -73.656405 326.91 760.22 1087.14
Name: Rwy 19
Description:
Direction: 178.0°
Glide slope: 3.0°
Threshold 43.349345 -73.609209 323.71 50.00 373.72

Two-mile 43.378240 -73.610598 298.61 628.56 927.17
Name: Rwy 30
Description:
Direction: 290.0°
Glide slope: 3.0°
Threshold 43.337696 -73.605079 322.51 50.00 372.52

Two-mile 43.327807 -73.567680 268.28 657.69 925.97
GLARE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Summary of Glare
PV Array Name Tilt Orient "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare Energy
(°) (°) min min kWh

Array 2 SA SA 0 0 -
tracking tracking
PV array 2 SA SA 0 0 -
tracking tracking
PV array 3 SA SA 0 0 -
tracking tracking
Total annual glare received by each receptor
Receptor Annual Green Glare (min) Annual Yellow Glare (min)
Rwy 1 0 0
Rwy 12 0 0
Rwy 19 0 0
Rwy 30 0 0
Results for: Array 2
Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min)
Rwy 1 0 0
Rwy 12 0 0
Rwy 19 0 0
Rwy 30 0 0
Flight Path: Rwy 1

0 minutes of yellow glare
0 minutes of green glare
Flight Path: Rwy 12

Flight Path: Rwy 19
Flight Path: Rwy 30

Results for: PV array 2
Rwy 1 0 0
Rwy 12 0 0
Rwy 19 0 0
Rwy 30 0 0
Flight Path: Rwy 1

Flight Path: Rwy 12

Flight Path: Rwy 19

Flight Path: Rwy 30

Results for: PV array 3
Rwy 1 0 0
Rwy 12 0 0
Rwy 19 0 0
Rwy 30 0 0
Flight Path: Rwy 1

Flight Path: Rwy 12

Flight Path: Rwy 19

Flight Path: Rwy 30

Assumptions
"Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time.
"Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time.
Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour.
Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings, tree cover and
geographic obstructions.
Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect
results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare.
The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections
will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size.
Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous
point on related limitations.)
Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ.
Glare vector plots are simplified representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may differ.
The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of view, and typical blink
response time. Actual results and glare occurrence may differ.
Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual
ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum.
2016-2019 © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved.

PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696
Attachment B
Glare Modeling Results
Motor Vehicle and Residential Receptors
11/30/2019 11
11/30/2019 Preferred Design Site Config | ForgeSolar
GlareGauge Glare Analysis Results
Site Con guration: Preferred Design

Project site configuration Created Nov. 30, 2019 11:24 a.m.
details and results. Updated Nov. 30, 2019 12:04
p.m.
DNI varies and peaks at 1,000.0
W/m^2
Analyze every 1 minute(s)
0.5 ocular transmission coefficient
0.002 m pupil diameter
0.017 m eye focal length
9.3 mrad sun subtended angle
Timezone UTC-5
Site Configuration ID: 33810.6210
Summary of Results No glare predicted!

PV name Tilt Orientation "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare Energy Produced
deg deg min min kWh
Array 2 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0 -

PV array 2 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0 -
PV array 3 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0 -
Component Data
PV Array(s)
https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/6210/configs/33810/ 1/6
Name: Array 2
Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Ground Height above Total
Vertex Latitude Longitude elevation ground elevation
Tracking axis orientation: 180.0 deg
Tracking axis tilt: 0.0 deg
Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0 deg deg deg ft ft ft
Maximum tracking angle: 60.0 deg
1 43.361096 -73.562376 291.01 6.00 297.01
Resting angle: 60.0 deg
2 43.360440 -73.568041 293.40 6.00 299.40
Rated power: -
Panel material: Smooth glass without 3 43.358880 -73.567526 288.33 6.00 294.33
AR coating 4 43.358880 -73.566625 288.36 6.00 294.36
Vary reflectivity with sun position? 5 43.359036 -73.565251 286.19 6.00 292.19
Yes 6 43.359910 -73.565423 288.47 6.00 294.47
Correlate slope error with surface
7 43.359972 -73.564178 288.97 6.00 294.97
type? Yes
8 43.357851 -73.564135 286.99 6.00 292.99
Slope error: 6.55 mrad
9 43.357632 -73.563191 310.36 6.00 316.36
10 43.358818 -73.562548 311.54 6.00 317.54
11 43.360159 -73.562633 291.86 6.00 297.86
Name: PV array 2
1 43.358506 -73.567182 287.73 6.00 293.73
2 43.357382 -73.567140 289.98 6.00 295.98
Rated power: -
AR coating 4 43.353388 -73.565080 275.40 6.00 281.40
Yes 6 43.354824 -73.564393 280.69 6.00 286.69
7 43.353888 -73.564307 270.59 6.00 276.59
type? Yes
8 43.353888 -73.563621 266.94 6.00 272.94
9 43.356509 -73.564221 276.03 6.00 282.03
10 43.358568 -73.565251 284.42 6.00 290.42
Name: PV array 3
1 43.359945 -73.562052 303.34 6.00 309.34
2 43.357355 -73.562953 312.84 6.00 318.84
Rated power: -
AR coating 4 43.354250 -73.563339 283.31 6.00 289.31
Yes 6 43.355873 -73.561880 310.78 6.00 316.78
7 43.355920 -73.561515 306.32 6.00 312.32
type? Yes
8 43.356840 -73.561258 315.07 6.00 321.07
9 43.356903 -73.560914 312.29 6.00 318.29
10 43.358135 -73.560678 321.57 6.00 327.57
11 43.358244 -73.561129 326.39 6.00 332.39
12 43.358931 -73.560936 324.64 6.00 330.64
13 43.358931 -73.560464 325.47 6.00 331.47
14 43.360117 -73.560249 323.10 6.00 329.10
Discrete Observation Receptors

Number Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total Elevation
deg deg ft ft ft
OP 1 43.360918 -73.559842 316.52 5.00 321.52

OP 2 43.360039 -73.559348 318.87 5.00 323.87
OP 3 43.359181 -73.559648 319.01 5.00 324.01
OP 4 43.358884 -73.560078 323.98 5.00 328.98
OP 5 43.358229 -73.559820 309.95 5.00 314.95
OP 6 43.357854 -73.559949 307.58 5.00 312.58
OP 7 43.356597 -73.560764 304.06 5.00 309.06
OP 8 43.355725 -73.561525 303.08 5.00 308.08
OP 9 43.355148 -73.561718 294.86 5.00 299.86
OP 10 43.352971 -73.562030 282.97 5.00 287.97
OP 11 43.352347 -73.561773 279.14 5.00 284.15
OP 12 43.352784 -73.566622 279.00 5.00 284.00
PV Array Results
Array 2
Component Green glare (min) Yellow glare (min)
OP: OP 1 0 0
OP: OP 2 0 0
OP: OP 3 0 0
OP: OP 4 0 0
OP: OP 5 0 0
OP: OP 6 0 0
OP: OP 7 0 0
OP: OP 8 0 0
OP: OP 9 0 0
OP: OP 10 0 0
OP: OP 11 0 0
OP: OP 12 0 0
PV array 2
OP: OP 1 0 0
OP: OP 2 0 0
OP: OP 3 0 0
OP: OP 4 0 0
OP: OP 5 0 0
OP: OP 6 0 0
OP: OP 7 0 0
OP: OP 8 0 0
OP: OP 9 0 0
OP: OP 10 0 0
OP: OP 11 0 0
OP: OP 12 0 0
PV array 3
OP: OP 1 0 0
OP: OP 2 0 0
OP: OP 3 0 0
OP: OP 4 0 0
OP: OP 5 0 0
OP: OP 6 0 0
OP: OP 7 0 0
OP: OP 8 0 0
OP: OP 9 0 0
OP: OP 10 0 0
OP: OP 11 0 0
OP: OP 12 0 0
Assumptions
Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour.
Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings,
tree cover and geographic obstructions.
Detailed system geometry is not rigorously simulated.
The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of
view, and typical blink response time. Actual values and results may vary.
Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm
limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide
additional information on expected glare.
The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays
into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare
spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can
provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.)
Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid. Actual ocular impact
outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum.
Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ.
Glare vector plots are simplified representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may differ.
Refer to the Help page for assumptions and limitations not listed here.

Geer RD Glare Study - Array #1,2,4 (West) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geer RD Glare Study - Array #1,2,4 (West) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barrett Energy Resources Group

PO Box 1004 | Concord, MA 01742 | 339-234-2696

To: Michael Doud, Matrix Development, LLC

Figure 1. Geer Road West Solar Project Locus

FAA Solar Policy

Glare Methodology and Standard of Impact

Figure 2. Geometric Representation of Potential Glare Impacts from the Sun

• green, a low potential for an after-image1;

• yellow, a potential for an after-image; and

• red, a potential for retinal burn.

ATCT No glare None Yes

Low Potential for After-Image Green

Potential for After-Image Yellow

Aircraft on No glare None

Potential for After-Image Yellow

Potential for Permanent Eye Red No

SGHAT Model Setup for Proposed Project

Figure 3. Schematic of Solar Tracking System Through a One-Day Cycle

Figure 4. Airport Sensitive Receptors at Floyd Bennett Airport

Figure 5. Motorist and Residential Receptors Analyzed for Glare

Glare Model Results

Figure 6. Tracking System Mitigates Glare for Low-to-Ground Receptors

Glare Modeling Results

Floyd Bennett Airport Receptors

Project: Matrix Geer Road West

Site conﬁguration: Preferred Design - Airport

U.S. FAA 2013 Policy Adherence

COMPONENT STATUS DESCRIPTION

• Analysis time interval: 1 minute

FAA Policy 78 FR 63276 can be read at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-24729

DNI: peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2

1 43.361096 -73.562376 291.01 6.00 297.01

1 43.358506 -73.567182 287.73 6.00 293.73

1 43.359945 -73.562052 303.34 6.00 309.34

Flight Path Receptor(s)

Threshold 43.335754 -73.608705 320.63 50.00 370.63

Threshold 43.341473 -73.619004 326.44 50.00 376.45

Threshold 43.349345 -73.609209 323.71 50.00 373.72

Threshold 43.337696 -73.605079 322.51 50.00 372.52

PV Array Name Tilt Orient "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare Energy

(°) (°) min min kWh

Total annual glare received by each receptor

Receptor Annual Green Glare (min) Annual Yellow Glare (min)

Results for: Array 2

Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min)

Flight Path: Rwy 1

Flight Path: Rwy 12

Flight Path: Rwy 30

Results for: PV array 2

Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min)

Flight Path: Rwy 1

Flight Path: Rwy 12

Flight Path: Rwy 19

Flight Path: Rwy 30

Results for: PV array 3

Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min)

Flight Path: Rwy 1

Flight Path: Rwy 12

Flight Path: Rwy 19

Flight Path: Rwy 30

2016-2019 © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved.

Glare Modeling Results

Motor Vehicle and Residential Receptors