AnnArbor SolarSiteAssessments

Final Report
U.S. Department of Energy 2007 Solar America City City of Ann Arbor, Michigan Solar Energy Site Assessments and Training
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Energy

September 2008
U.S. Department of Energy 2007 Solar America City
City of Ann Arbor, Michigan Solar Energy Site Assessments and Training
September 2008
This document was prepared under the direction of:
Robert Putnam, P.E. Project Engineer This document was reviewed and approved by:
John Hoffner,P.E. Senior Project Manager
This document was reviewed by:
Greg Kolb Tiger Team Lead
CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI
Table of Contents
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................9 1.0 Introduction...........................................................................................................................13 2.0 Design Factors .......................................................................................................................16 2.1 Electrical Consumption ...........................................................................................17 2.2 Shading Analysis ......................................................................................................17 2.2.1 Solar Angle Data and Physical Measurements ....................................19 2.2.2 Solmetric Analysis....................................................................................23 2.3 Available Area ..........................................................................................................25 2.4 Technology ................................................................................................................25 2.4.1 Solar PV Technology................................................................................25 2.4.2 Spacing.......................................................................................................25 2.5 Interconnection Points .............................................................................................27 2.6 Orientation and Other Factors................................................................................28 2.7 Solar Thermal ............................................................................................................28 2.8 Energy Challenge Goals ..........................................................................................29 3.0 Ann Arbor Facilities - Solar Assessments........................................................................30 3.1 Fire Station #1 ...........................................................................................................30 3.1.1 Electrical Consumption ...........................................................................31 3.1.2 Shading Analysis ......................................................................................31 3.1.3 Available Area ..........................................................................................32 3.1.4 Technology ................................................................................................33 3.1.5 Interconnection Points .............................................................................34 3.1.6 Orientation and Other Factors................................................................34 3.1.7 Solar Thermal ............................................................................................34 3.2 Fire Station #3 ...........................................................................................................35 3.2.1 Electrical Consumption ...........................................................................35 3.2.2 Shading Analysis ......................................................................................36 3.2.3 Available Area ..........................................................................................36 3.2.4 Technology ................................................................................................38 3.2.5 Interconnection Points .............................................................................39 3.2.6 Orientation and Other Factors................................................................39 3.2.7 Solar Thermal ............................................................................................39 3.3 Water Treatment Plant.............................................................................................40 3.3.1 Electrical Consumption ...........................................................................40 3.3.2 Shading Analysis ......................................................................................40 3.3.3 Available Area ..........................................................................................41 3.3.4 Technology ................................................................................................43 3.3.5 Interconnection Points .............................................................................44 3.3.6 Orientation and Other Factors................................................................44 3.3.7 Solar Thermal ............................................................................................44 3.4 Bryant Community Center......................................................................................45 3.4.1 Electrical Consumption ...........................................................................45
3.4.2 Shading Analysis ......................................................................................45 3.4.3 Available Area ..........................................................................................47 3.4.4 Technology ................................................................................................49 3.4.5 Interconnection Points .............................................................................49 3.4.6 Orientation and Other Factors................................................................50 3.4.7 Solar Thermal ............................................................................................50 3.5 William Street Parking Garage ...............................................................................51 3.5.1 Electrical Consumption ...........................................................................51 3.5.2 Shading Analysis ......................................................................................51 3.5.3 Available Area ..........................................................................................53 3.5.4 Technology ................................................................................................55 3.5.5 Interconnection Points .............................................................................55 3.5.6 Orientation and Other Factors................................................................55 3.5.7 Solar Thermal ............................................................................................55 4. Economic Analysis .................................................................................................................56 4.1 Solar PV......................................................................................................................56 4.2 Solar Thermal ............................................................................................................58 4.2.1 Fire Station #3 ...........................................................................................59 4.2.2 Water Treatment Plant.............................................................................59 4.2.3 Summary Results of Solar Thermal Analyses ......................................60 5. Training ....................................................................................................................................61 6. Summary Results of Site Assessments...............................................................................62 7. Template/Framework for Future Site Assessments .........................................................64 7.1 Site Screening/Site Visit ..........................................................................................64 7.2 Analysis......................................................................................................................65 7.3 Reporting ...................................................................................................................65 8. Contact information ...............................................................................................................66 9. References ................................................................................................................................67
Table of Figures
Attachment E-1: Site Survey Form (Page 1)................................................................................... 11 Attachment E-1: Site Survey Form (Page 2)................................................................................... 12 Figure 1: Solar America Cities Map - 2008 ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 2: Shading from air conditioning units on the roof of Fire Station #1. This photo is looking south at approximately 9:05 AM on May 1, 2008. .......................................................... 18 Figure 3: Sun Path - Solar Angle Data for Ann Arbor, MI: Ref. University of Oregon. .......... 19 Figure 4: Calculating shadow length from Sun Angles. .............................................................. 21 Figure 5: Projected shadow from the rooftop to the South of Fire Station #1 at 9:00 am in December (worst case for shadow length) as indicated by the white triangle based on existing structures. ............................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 6: Solmetric Picture and corresponding shading analysis for the Bryant Community Center with tree. ................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 7: Solmetric Picture and corresponding shading analysis for the Bryant Community Center without tree. .......................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 8: Rack-to-rack spacing for framed solar modules is dictated by the azimuth and solar angle of the sun, module dimensions, and the tilt angle of the racking system. ............ 26 Figure 9: Rack-to-rack shading may be seen in the picture above from the National Renewable Energy Laboratorys Distributed Energy Resources Test Facility. ........................ 26 Figure 10: Electrical service panel in the 2E Filter Process Control Room at the Water Treatment Plant. ................................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 11: Solmetric Analysis for Fire Station #1.......................................................................... 31 Figure 12: Available roof area for a PV system at Fire Station #1. ............................................. 32 Figure 13: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system at Fire Station #1. ............... 33 Figure 14: Solar thermal system installed on the roof of Fire Station #1................................... 35 Figure 15: Solmetric Analysis for Fire Station #3.......................................................................... 36 Figure 16: Available roof area for a PV system at Fire Station #3. ............................................. 37 Figure 17: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system on the upper roof of Fire Station #3. ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 18: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system on the lower roof of Fire Station #3. ........................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 19: Solmetric Analysis for the WTP. ................................................................................... 41 Figure 20: Available areas for a PV system at the WTP. .............................................................. 42 Figure 21: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system at the WTP........................... 43 Figure 22: Solmetric Picture and corresponding shading analysis for the BCC with tree. ..... 46 Figure 23: Solmetric Picture and corresponding shading analysis for the BCC without tree.47 Figure 24: Available roof area for a PV system at the BCC. ........................................................ 48 Figure 25: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system at the BCC. .......................... 49 Figure 26: Solmetric Analysis for the William Street Parking Garage. ...................................... 52 Figure 27: Example of Shading from Southwest Corner Stairwell at 1:55 PM on April 30, 2008 looking West.............................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 28: Available roof area for a PV system at the William Street Parking Garage............ 54 Figure 29: Carport system installed at Cal Expo, Sacramento, CA. ........................................... 54 Figure 30: Conceptual Ranking of Ann Arbor Sites for Potential Solar PV Applications....... 62
Table of Tables
Table 1: Electrical Consumption of Ann Arbor Facilities. ........................................................... 17 Table 2: Electrical Consumption of Fire Station #1....................................................................... 31 Table 3: Electrical Consumption of Fire Station #3....................................................................... 36 Table 4: Electrical Consumption of the WTP................................................................................. 40 Table 5: Electrical Consumption of Bryant Community Center. ................................................ 45 Table 6: Electrical Consumption of the William Street Parking Garage.................................... 51 Table 7: Site-specific Inputs to Economic Analyses. ..................................................................... 57 Table 8: SAM Results. ....................................................................................................................... 58 Table 9: Solar Thermal Results. ....................................................................................................... 60
Acronyms and Abbreviations

ac BCC /kWh City cos ft3 dc $/kWh F FS#1 FS#3 GCR hr in kW kWh lbs MBtu N NPV NREL O&M P psi PV alternating current Bryant Community Center cents per kilowatt-hour City of Ann Arbor, MI cosine cubic feet direct current dollars per kilowatt-hour Fahrenheit Fire Station #1 Fire Station #3 Ground Coverage Ratio hour inches kilowatt kilowatt-hour pounds million British Thermal Units North Net Present Value National Renewable Energy Laboratory Operation & Maintenance Power pounds per square inch PhotoVoltaic
sin SAM SRCC S tan DOE WTP
sine Solar Advisor Model Solar Rating & Certification Corporation South tangent United States Department of Energy Water Treatment Plant
Executive Summary
The Tiger Team of Sandia National Labs solar technology staff (Greg Kolb), the City of Ann Arbor (David Konkle and Andrew Brix), and CH2M HILL (Robert Putnam) met in Ann Arbor April 30-May 1, 2008 to visit five (5) sites for the purpose of evaluating the solar potential of each facility based on several criteria including: available roof area, roof age, shading factors, electrical interconnection access, conduit routing, facility consumption, electrical meter location, potential inverter and disconnect mounting locations, structural roof issues, potential solar thermal applications, and other criteria necessary for a successful solar installation. A secondary objective of the site visits was to train a representative from Recycle Ann Arbor (Jason Bing) to conduct future scoping visits to other potential sites in the City independently of the Tiger Team from Sandia National Labs and CH2M HILL. The five sites visited on April 30 and May 1, 2008 were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Fire Station #1 (FS#1), Fire Station #3 (FS#3), Water Treatment Plant (WTP), Bryant Community Center (BCC), and William Street Parking Garage.
On each of the site visits, Jason was trained in evaluating the solar potential of each facility based on several criteria including: available roof area, roof age, shading factors, electrical interconnection access, conduit routing, facility consumption, electrical meter location, potential inverter and disconnect mounting locations, structural roof issues, potential solar thermal applications, and other criteria necessary for a successful solar installation using the site survey form shown in Attachment E-1. Jason was also trained in the use of the Solmetric SunEye to estimate the amount of shading from buildings, trees and other obstructions, and their impact on a facilitys access to the solar resource. The Tiger Team met again in Ann Arbor on May 29, 2008 to present the results of the siting analyses for each of the five sites, and to train Jason in the use of the Solar Advisor Model, or SAM, and the use of Solar Rating & Certification Corporation (SRCC) data to perform solar thermal evaluations. The report finds that Fire Station #1 and Fire Station #3 are the most attractive sites for the economic application of solar PV of the five sites visited in the City of Ann Arbor. Based on the inputs and assumptions used in this study, none of the five sites would have a payback period of less than 30 years without significant federal, state, and/or utility incentives available to the City of Ann Arbor. The lack of federal, state, and/or utility incentives is a major barrier to the installation of such systems. Economic applications of solar thermal technology at the five sites visited in Ann Arbor are limited. The result of the solar feasibility study training is already making changes in the City of Ann Arbor. Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority plan to have solar feasibility studies conducted, in addition to studies at other City facilities.
Meanwhile, the trainee, Jason Bing, is working to include solar feasibility studies in the 100 energy audits that his organization, Recycle Ann Arbor, will be conducting this winter with funding from the Michigan Public Service Commission. The Home Energy Performance Certificate that Recycle Ann Arbor is developing through these audits is expected to include a solar feasibility component, which may ultimately lead to a required solar feasibility study for every Ann Arbor home that goes up for sale. Recycle Ann Arbor is also working with the Rebuild Washtenaw partnership, and may soon be performing solar feasibility analyses for commercial buildings county-wide. Additional field studies have yet to be conducted however or validated. This report represents the satisfactory conclusion of this task and provides a template or framework for evaluating and reporting on the solar potential of other facilities in the City of Ann Arbor. A spreadsheet was also developed to calculate inputs to the SAM model, based on the use of Uni-Solar Framed Solar Modules and Solar Laminates, and inputs to the solar thermal analysis based on information gathered during the site visits. This spreadsheet was provided to the City of Ann Arbor in a separate submittal.
10
Attachment E-1: Site Survey Form (Page 1)
11
Attachment E-2: Site Survey Form (Page 2)
12
1.0 Introduction
The City of Ann Arbor is a Solar America City selected by the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Cities Program. Under this program, the city receives technical assistance and financial support to help the City of Ann Arbor achieve its solar initiatives. There are only 25 total solar cities supported by this program in the United States. The Solar Cities Initiative selected 13 cities in June 2007 and 12 cities in March 2008. The Solar America Cities selected by the DOE Solar Cities Program are shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Solar America Cities Map - 2008 i
Support for the program is drawn from organizations including the DOE, Sandia National Labs, and CH2M HILL. The Solar Cities initiative ii will provide a total of $200,000 in financial assistance to the City of Ann Arbor, which is providing an additional $230,000 in cost-sharing for this two-year project. Additionally, DOE will provide hands-on assistance from technical and policy experts from Sandia National Labs and CH2M HILL valued at $200,000. The goal of the two-year, $630,000 project is to facilitate the integration of solar energy throughout the Ann Arbor community. The technical assistance funding is partially used to fund work from Sandia National Labs and CH2M HILL staff under pre-defined task contracts. The funding is allotted in stages to provide a framework for multi-year solar city support. Under this structure of support, the
13
City of Ann Arbor should have the expertise and help needed to understand the solar availability of city properties, the approximate cost of installations, a prioritization of the sites based on ease (and cost) of installation, technology that is applicable to each site, and guidance to what each site might produce in electricity. The Ann Arbor Solar America Cities program will work to integrate solar technologies into city energy planning, zoning and facilities; to streamline city-level regulations and practices that affect solar adoption by residents and local businesses; and promote solar technology among residents and local businesses. Programs for outreach, education, curriculum development in the schools, and incentive programs are also being considered. Ann Arbor competed with cities across the U.S. with populations over 100,000 to receive the Solar America Designation. Ann Arbor has 114,000 residents, spans 27.7 square miles, and was named one of the top 25 U.S. cities to live in by CNN/Money Magazine in 2006, as well as the third smartest city in the U.S. by Forbes Magazine. The citys mission statement reads: The City of Ann Arbor is committed to providing excellent municipal services that enhance the quality of life for all through the intelligent use of resources while valuing an open environment that fosters, fair, sensitive and respectful treatment of all employees and the community we serve. CH2M HILL and Sandia National Labs renewable energy staff met in Ann Arbor April 30May 1, 2008. The Tiger Team visited five (5) sites for the purpose of evaluating the solar potential of each facility based on several criteria including: available roof area, roof age, shading factors, electrical interconnection access, conduit routing, facility consumption, electrical meter location, potential inverter and disconnect mounting locations, structural roof issues, potential solar thermal applications, and other criteria necessary for a successful solar installation. A secondary objective of the site visits was to train a representative from Recycle Ann Arbor (Jason Bing) to conduct future scoping visits to other potential sites in the City independently of the Tiger Team from Sandia National Labs and CH2M HILL. The five sites visited were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Fire Station #1 (FS#1), Fire Station #3 (FS#3), Water Treatment Plant (WTP), Bryant Community Center (BCC), and William Street Parking Garage.
The team performed a site analysis & assessment of each site including shading analysis, electrical interconnection options, building layout, roof integrity, and electrical consumption. The Tiger Team personnel present at the site evaluations are listed below: Greg Kolb Sandia National Labs -Tiger Team Project Lead, Solar Technologies Dept. Andrew Brix City of Ann Arbor Public Services Energy Office Assistant
14
Robert Putnam CH2M HILL Renewable Energy Technical Services Manager Jason Bing Recycle Ann Arbor Environmental House/Washtenaw Green Building Coalition Program Coordinator David Konkle and Andrew Brix from the City of Ann Arbor were well prepared and helped make the two days of site visits extremely productive, including arranging access to the sites and providing historical electrical consumption of the facilities. Additionally, Greg Kolb of Sandia National Labs provided satellite maps of the selected locations, conducted Solmetric measurements, and supported the evaluation of potential solar thermal applications.
15
2.0 Design Factors

Several factors influence the design of solar PhotoVoltaic (PV) systems. It is important to understand the design drivers before completing individual site analysis. Design factors may influence the prioritization of one facility over another, and help to understand the available capacity of each facility. Design factors for solar PV (electric) and solar thermal systems include: 1. Electrical Consumption 2. Shading 3. Available Area 4. Technology 5. Electrical Interconnection Points 6. Orientation and other Factors (e.g., roof surface, age, warranties, integrity) 7. Energy Challenge Goals Additional design factors for solar thermal systems include: 1. Daily Demand for Hot Water 2. Efficiency of the Existing Hot Water Heater To understand these factors for each facility, the Tiger Teams group of solar experts visited the sites of interest to the City of Ann Arbor. Roof layouts were measured, electrical rooms were visited, roof features heights were measured, and facility operators/personnel were interviewed. Each facility is given an evaluation, based on the site assessment. Additionally, plans for future construction were also considered.
16
2.1 Electrical Consumption

The electrical consumption varies from site to site, and has impacts on system feasibility. It makes sense to apply PV on facilities with high electrical costs and high peak demand loads. PV systems produce electricity during times of peak electrical consumption, and therefore have higher value than the average cost of electricity per kWh (although the owner of the system may not be compensated for this higher value by the local utility or offtaker). The reduction in demand costs may be significant, and would have more attractive economics if applied to a building with high demand during peak hours. A breakdown of the Ann Arbor facilities electrical consumption and cost is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1: Electrical Consumption of Ann Arbor Facilities.
2.2 Shading Analysis

Shading can have adverse effects on the PV system, as a partially shaded module does not produce a linear current output corresponding to the percentage area of the shaded module. This can lead to low string voltage, and can interfere with the operation of the inverter, as the inverter requires a minimum threshold voltage to become enabled. To avoid shading issues, both physical measurements and Solmetric SunEye analysis are used to guide the design of the solar array. In some cases, physical measurements are more helpful to identify the shading impact of air conditioners and roof vents, for example, because the steel piping and structural supports of the facility interfere with the Solmetrics internal compass. This makes it difficult to obtain a correct reading when very close to the roof surface as is needed to obtain the shading factors from a roof vent. This problem with
17
the Solmetric internal compass can be solved by using a Global Positioning System device to determine true south. The Solmetric is helpful in cases such as estimating the shading factor from a tall building across the street. The Tiger Teams engineers, technicians, and experts utilized both methods for the candidate sites in the City of Ann Arbor. Figure 2 shows shading from air conditioning units on the roof of Fire Station #1.
Figure 2: Shading from air conditioning units on the roof of Fire Station #1. This photo is looking south at approximately 9:05 AM on May 1, 2008.
18
2.2.1 Solar Angle Data and Physical Measurements

Based on the latitude of Ann Arbor, MI, University of Oregon solar path data may be used to determine the shading, or shadow cast by a vertical object. The solar angle chart may also be used to help determine row-to-row spacing of sub-arrays and the roof array layout around physical features of the building such as air conditioning units, vents, and elevator rooms. The solar angle database is maintained by the University of Oregon, and is found by using zip codes, or latitude and longitude inputs. iii
Figure 3: Sun Path - Solar Angle Data for Ann Arbor, MI: Ref. University of Oregon.
The sun path chart is a graph of the solar angle (angle from the horizon to the sun) vs. solar azimuth (the cardinal direction of the sun in the sky 180 degrees is due South). The shadow cast from a vertical object will depend on the solar angle at a specific time in the year (the sun sits at a lower angle from the horizon in the winter months). The solar angle on December 21st represents the worst case, as the sun is the lowest in the sky and will cast the longest shadow. It is a commonly-accepted practice to use a six-hour window (9:00am till 3:00 pm) on December 21st to calculate the minimum solar angle as a design basis for shading factors. The solar energy available past this six hour window in the winter is not
19
significant, and the use of lower solar angles would result in a significant reduction in available roof area. Fire station #1 will be used as an example for the shading analysis. At 9:00 AM on the shortest day of the year (worst case scenario), the sun will be at 138 azimuth (180 is due South) at a 12.5 angle from the horizon. This sun angle correlates to a shadow distance, based on the height (h) of the rooftop to the South of Fire Station #1, of 68 feet as shown in Figure 4 on the following page. This calculation will drive the array placement from various roof objects, such as roofmounted air conditioning units, parapet walls, elevator housings, as well as the shading from the row of modules when mounted at a tilt. Based on this calculation, the white triangle shown in Figure 5 represents the amount of shading that could be expected from the rooftop to the South of Fire Station #1 at 9:00 AM on the shortest day of the year (worst case scenario). Figure 5 also shows the shadow cast by City Hall to the East (and across the street) from Fire Station #1. It is estimated that this satellite photo was taken between 7 and 8 AM in the late Spring or early Summer, as the shadows suggest a solar azimuth of about 90 and a relatively low solar angle. The 80 ft. tall Courts and Police building planned for construction in front of City Hall approximately 65 ft. east of Fire Station #1 will extend the shadows shown in Figure 5 in the early morning hours in late Spring and early Summer. For example, at 7 AM on April 20, the shadow cast by the Courts and Police building can be expected to extend 232 feet (80ft. * 1/tan 19), covering the entire roof area of Fire Station #1 (232-65=167 ft.) and beyond. At 8 AM on June 21, the shadow cast by the Courts and Police building can be expected to extend 104 feet (80ft. * 1/tan 37.5), covering 56% of the roof area of Fire Station #1 (104-65=39 ft./~70 ft.=0.56). Fortunately, the amount of lost energy production represented by the area under the curve in Figure 3 in the early morning hours of late Spring and early Summer is not significant.
20
9:00 AM shadow length calculation Ann Arbor, MI
Solar Angle = 12.5 h=15
4.51 * (h) 4.51 X 15 = 68
Solar module
Shadow length = h * (1/(tan(solar angle) = 15 * (1/(tan (12.5)) = 15 * (1/0.2217) = 15 * 4.51 = 68
Figure 4: Calculating shadow length from Sun Angles.
21
Figure 5: Projected shadow from the rooftop to the South of Fire Station #1 at 9:00 am in December (worst case for shadow length) as indicated by the white triangle based on existing structures.
22
2.2.2 Solmetric Analysis

Solmetric analysis is very helpful to estimate the amount of shading from buildings, trees and other obstructions, and their impact on the facilitys access to the solar resource. For example, Figure 6 shows a Solmetric shading analysis performed at the Bryant Community Center. There is a large tree directly south of this facility, as well as other trees further southeast and southwest of the facility. These trees have a significant shading effect on the Community Centers access to the solar resource during the winter months when the sun sits lower in the sky (has a lower sun angle). Thus, a reduction in solar access is expected from November through March as shown in the bar chart in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Solmetric Picture and corresponding shading analysis for the Bryant Community Center with tree.
23
The Solmetric SunEye can also be used to analyze the impact of removing obstructions, such as trees, on the solar access results. Figure 7 shows the results of a Solmetric analysis with the tree directly south of the Bryant Community Center removed or trimmed. The results show that removing or trimming the tree directly south of the Bryant Community Center would increase Annual Solar Access to 94% from 88%, and significantly increase access to the solar resource from October through February.
Figure 7: Solmetric Picture and corresponding shading analysis for the Bryant Community Center without tree.
Results of the Solmetric analysis are input into the Solar Advisor Model (SAM) to calculate net annual energy production (more on that later in the Economic Analysis Section).
24
2.3 Available Area

The shading factors help to define the available area for each site. Shading factors may include roof features, such as rooftop air conditioners, roof vents, parapets, neighboring buildings, elevator housings, and pipes. The area available should receive six hours of sun at a minimum, and not be significantly shaded (a general rule-of-thumb would be >95% solar access on an annual basis as measured by the Solmetric SunEye). Based on this area, the number of solar panels may be determined using standard dimensions of solar modules. Based on the number of modules available per facility, this will help determine the potential solar output, based on various technologies, whether thin film, crystalline silicon, or other technology.
2.4 Technology
2.4.1 Solar PV Technology
Several technologies exist for converting solar energy into electricity. Solar technologies range from crystalline silicon to thin-film PV. In the case of the City of Ann Arbor, the assumed technology is Uni-Solar US-Series Framed Solar Modules or PVL-Series Laminates based on a partnership between the City and United Solar Ovonic LLC (UniSolar).
2.4.2 Spacing
Ballasted rack-to-rack or row-to-row spacing for framed solar modules is dictated by solar angles and the angle of pitch for the racking systems. Uni-Solar framed modules are mounted on permanent, fixed position module racks that can be adjusted for optimum tilt, wind resistance and orientation to sunlight. Rack-to-rack spacing is determined by two factors: 1. The height difference (H) between the top of Rack 1 and the bottom of Rack 2. H = sin(angle of tilt) * module height 2. The azimuth and solar angle of the sun that will create shading from Rack 1 to Rack 2. Shadow length is therefore equal to H*[cos(180-azimuth)]*[1/tan(solar angle)]. For example, at a solar azimuth of 138 degrees on December 21st (the shortest day of the year) at a solar angle of 12.5 degrees (9:00 AM), a module with dimensions of 40 inches by 65 inches (height by width) tilted at 10 degrees would cast a shadow equal to [sin(10)*40] * [cos(180-138)] * [1/tan(12.5)] or 23.3 inches (or 3.35 times H). The relationship between these factors is shown conceptually in Figure 8. Figure 9 shows an example of rack-to-rack shading resulting from these factors. According to Jesse Denver,
25
City of San Jose, Pacific Gas & Electric uses a shadow spacing factor of 3 times H as a ruleof-thumb in their design analysis. Using the Ground Coverage Ratio (GCR) chart found on the PV Watts web site (www.pvwatts.org), a 3H spacing results in a GCR of 65.5% which correlates to a shading loss of 1-2% (generally, a shading loss of <2.5% is desired).
Shadow length
South
Spacing
H Rack 2 Rack 1
10 Tilt
Figure 8: Rack-to-rack spacing for framed solar modules is dictated by the azimuth and solar angle of the sun, module dimensions, and the tilt angle of the racking system.
Figure 9: Rack-to-rack shading may be seen in the picture above from the National Renewable Energy Laboratorys Distributed Energy Resources Test Facility. iv
26
2.5 Interconnection Points

The solar system must be tied into the electrical service of the facility. In a commercial setting, this is usually done at a circuit breaker, or panel board switch (often referred to as buckets). The PV system is usually connected to the circuit breaker, or panel board switch as a load. The three wires and neutral from the inverter would tie in to the circuit breaker or panel board switch lugs. This allows the electrical system to be protected if the circuit breaker detects more current than the system is designed for. As an example, Figure 10 shows three spare panel board switches indicated by the green arrows available for interconnection at the Water Treatment Plant in the 2E Filter Process Control Room.
Figure 10: Electrical service panel in the 2E Filter Process Control Room at the Water Treatment Plant.
The facilities manager confirmed these connection points are available. The switches are rated at 100-200 Amps each, 400 Volt, three-phase. So a 100 Amp, 400 Volt bucket would accommodate a PV system rated at approximately 32 kWac [Pac(kW)=((100*400)/1000)/1.25]. Other factors to consider include the distance from the proposed array location to the electrical service panel, conduit routing, access, electrical meter location, and potential inverter and disconnect mounting locations near the electrical service panel.
27
2.6 Orientation and Other Factors

For maximum annual energy production, the PV system should have a solar azimuth of 180 degrees, or due South, and a tilt angle equal to the latitude of the facility (42 degrees for Ann Arbor). Practical considerations however may not allow this, such as roof orientation and obstructions, roof tilt, and wind and snow loading. In Ann Arbor, a PV system oriented east or west at a tilt angle of 42 degrees would produce approximately 20% less energy than a system oriented due south. Systems with tilt angles lower than latitude can be expected to produce less energy on an annual basis using the same technology. For example, a system with a tilt angle of 10 degrees oriented due South using Uni-Solar US-64 modules, can be expected to produce 4% less energy on an annual basis than a system oriented due South with a tilt angle of 42 degrees. SAM can be used to estimate energy production at different tilt angles and orientations.
2.7 Solar Thermal

Much of the previous discussion in this section applies to solar thermal applications as well. Additional considerations for solar thermal applications include the daily demand for hot water and the efficiency of the existing boiler. Other factors include boiler pressure, the efficiency of the solar thermal collector system, and the cost of natural gas (assuming electric hot water heaters are not used in Ann Arbor). Solar thermal technology is discussed in the context of unglazed versus glazed collector systems. The performance of unglazed collectors is quite a bit lower than that of glazed collectors. For example, a Fafco, Inc. Polymer Drainback unglazed collector (system number 2007004A) measures 4.4 square meters and saves 6.5 Mbtu compared to a Heliodyne, Inc. Heliopak glazed collector (system number 1998001A) that measures 3.7 square meters and saves 9.5 Mbtu. The above figures are based on Solar Rating & Certification Corporation (SRCC) data which can be accessed at www.solar-rating.org. The SRCC data includes the total panel area and energy savings estimates in Therms (100,000 Btus) for a comprehensive list of unglazed and glazed collector system models from various manufacturers. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the calculation of energy savings for unglazed collectors is optimistic, since they don't properly include actual wind effects (not important for glazed collectors, but important for unglazed). NREL believes that a better analysis would show that an unglazed collector saves about 50% of the energy that a glazed collector saves for a given collector area. However given a reasonable deployment scenario (like putting them on 5,000 roofs in Ann Arbor), the cost of a residential polymer-unglazed system should be less than 50% of the cost of a copper-glazed system.
28
2.8 Energy Challenge Goals

In a speech to the City Council on September 19, 2005, Mayor Hieftje issued his Green Energy Challenge, calling for Ann Arbor to use 20% green energy by 2010 for municipal operations and by 2015 for the whole city. After the Energy Commission reported to the Council on a path to 30% green energy, Mayor Hieftje raised the goal for municipal operations to 30% by 2010. On May 1, 2006, the City Council unanimously passed a resolution to formally adopt these goals. Ann Arbor currently uses 23% renewable electricity in its municipal operations (including landfill gas and hydroelectric generation), or approximately 10,300,000 kWh. The 30% goal by 2010 represents the use of 13,680,000 kWh in its municipal operations. Since transportation and other renewable energy generation options are limited, the City estimates that in order to meet the 30% goal, they would need to make up a shortfall of aproximately 12,500,000 kWh from solar electric technologies. Assuming an average capacity factor of 13% (net of losses assuming >95% solar access) for solar PV installations in the city, the City of Ann Arbor would need to install approximately 10,976 kW of PV to meet this goal. The total estimated energy production from PV systems installed at the five sites visited as part of this task (given available roof area, solar access, etc.) would contribute 1.5% toward meeting the balance of the City of Ann Arbors Energy Challenge Goals. As part of the Mayor's Energy Challenge, the City Council passed a resolution setting a goal of 5,000 Solar Roofs in Ann Arbor by 2015. The Energy Commission anticipates that many of these solar installations will be solar hot water systems, with more solar electric systems appearing as the program grows. If 5,000 residential buildings in Ann Arbor had a 1 kW solar electric system on its roof, the City of Ann Arbor could possibly generate enough renewable energy to meet its internal Energy Challenge Goals from this program alone.
29
3.0 Ann Arbor Facilities - Solar Assessments

Five (5) sites were analyzed by the Tiger Team for possible application of solar electric and solar thermal systems. The sites were evaluated based on the design factors discussed in Section 2. The sites evaluated were: 3.1 Fire Station #1 3.2 Fire Station #3 3.3 Water Treatment Plant 3.4 Bryant Community Center 3.5 William Street Parking Garage Design factors for each site are discussed in greater detail in subsections: x.1.1 Electrical Consumption x.1.2 Shading Analysis x.1.3 Available Area x.1.4 Technology x.1.5 Interconnection Points x.1.6 Orientation and Other Factors x.1.7 Solar Thermal
3.1 Fire Station #1

Fire Station #1 meets the design factor criteria with high marks. It has available roof area, relatively easy interconnection access, excellent solar orientation, and relatively high electricity consumption and electricity rates. The buildings shading from an adjacent building to the South and future construction to the East is somewhat of a concern, but the arrays may be placed to minimize disruption caused by any shadowing effects, and the shadow will only be an issue in winter months, as modeled by the Solmetric analysis.
30
3.1.1 Electrical Consumption

A breakdown of Fire Station #1s electrical consumption and cost is shown below in Table 2.
Table 2: Electrical Consumption of Fire Station #1.
The average electric rate for Fire Station #1 including demand charges over the period 11/30/05-12/7/07 was 9.5 /kWh. The average electric rate shown in the last column of Table 2 excludes demand charges. Demand charges represent 9.5% of Fire Station #1s total electrical costs. The economic analysis takes the most conservative approach by excluding demand savings from the calculation since data was unavailable to estimate the amount of peak demand reduction that could be expected by installing a PV system at Fire Station #1. The economic analysis also assumes that tariff (D4) rates will increase over time at the general rate of inflation, assumed to be 2.5% (This value is considered to be conservative. The Consumer Price Index, which represents changes in the price of all goods and services purchased for consumption by urban households, has averaged ~3% over the last 20 years).
3.1.2 Shading Analysis

Solmetric measurements were taken at five separate unobstructed locations on the roof of Fire Station #1 and then averaged to estimate the impact of shading on the facilitys access to the solar resource. Figure 11 shows that the resulting annual average solar access is 96%. This factor was used in the economic analysis to derate the electrical output from a PV system installed on the roof of Fire Station #1.
Annual 96%
Summer 99%
Winter 93%
Figure 11: Solmetric Analysis for Fire Station #1.
31
3.1.3 Available Area

Fire Station #1 has at least 2,400 square feet of largely unobstructed roof area available for a PV system. The approximate location of this area is shown as the green rectangle in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Available roof area for a PV system at Fire Station #1.
Figure 13 shows a close-up view of the most likely location for a PV system on the roof of Fire Station #1 looking southeast.
32
Figure 13: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system at Fire Station #1.
3.1.4 Technology
Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules and Solar Laminate Model PVL-124 were considered for possible installation at Fire Station #1. Based on power rating and dimensions, the use of Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules would result in a total installed capacity of approximately 11 kWdc, assuming a 20% reduction in the available roof area 1 for spacing between rows of modules and to allow access to perform maintenance activities and to reduce losses due to shading (the actual reduction in available roof area, at a total weight of approximately 3,450 lbs. 2 The ability of the roof of Fire Station #1 to support this weight is subject to further study. The economic analysis assumes that the modules would be tilted to latitude (42 degrees). At this tilt angle, wind and snow loading is also subject to further study to determine whether or not the roof of Fire Station #1 can
1 Note that this value is assumed for preliminary screening purposes only. The actual reduction in available roof area will depend on such factors as the installed tilt angle and the actual dimensions of the modules selected for the project. The installed tilt angle will be affected by the wind and snow loads that the roof structure can support. These factors are subject to further study. 2 171 modules * 64 W/module 11 kW . Roof area required = 10.9 sq. ft./module (53.8 in. x 29.2 in. * 0.006944 sq. ft./sq. in.) * 171 modules = 1,864 sq. ft. or ~78% of approximately available roof area. Total weight = 171 modules * 20.2 lbs./module = 3,454 lbs.
dc
33
support this. If the City of Ann Arbor were to elect to use Uni-Solar Framed Solar Modules at Fire Station #1, a more detailed calculation of the shading between rows of modules would need to be performed based on the model series selected and the tilt angle to determine the actual installed capacity and layout of the system within the available roof area. Based on power rating and dimensions, the use of Uni-Solars Solar Laminate Model PVL124 would result in a total installed capacity of approximately 14 kWdc for the available roof area at a total weight of approximately 1,770 lbs. 3 Since Uni-Solars Solar Laminates are installed flat on the roof surface, the tilt angle at Fire Station #1 would be 0 degrees.
3.1.5 Interconnection Points

Fire Station #1s main service panel is located in the fire engine bay at the rear of the building and directly below (3 stories) the most likely location for a PV system on the roof. The main service panel has three (3) available spares, two of which are rated at 225 Amps, 120/208 Volts, three-phase, and the third rated at 100 Amps, 240 Volts, three-phase. There is approximately 64 square feet of available wall space next to the main service panel for inverter and disconnect mounting, and access is available 24/7.
3.1.6 Orientation and Other Factors

The roof of Fire Station #1 is oriented N-S and has very good solar access (96% annual average based on the Solmetric analysis). The roof surface is single-ply rubber and no longer under warranty, but in very good condition. There is some history of leakage, but no plans to repair or replace the roof in the near future. Fire Station #1 also offers a unique opportunity to educate the public about PV systems given its location adjacent to the Hands-On Museum next door where an exhibit related to the solar hot water system is already installed by tying in an educational component to a PV system project.
3.1.7 Solar Thermal

In 2007, Fire Station #1 installed a solar thermal system as shown in Figure 14 that is expected to save $600/year in the cost of natural gas to heat station use of over 200 gallons/day.
3 114 modules * 124 W/module 14 kW . Roof area required = 21.2 sq. ft./module (197.1 in. x 15.5 in. * 0.006944 sq. ft./sq. dc in.) * 114 modules = 2,417 sq. ft. or ~100% of the approximately available roof area. Total weight = 114 modules * 15.5 lbs./module = 1,767 lbs.
34
Figure 14: Solar thermal system installed on the roof of Fire Station #1.
3.2 Fire Station #3

Fire Station #3 meets the design factor criteria with high marks. It has available roof area, relatively easy interconnection access, excellent solar orientation, and relatively high electricity rates. The age and condition of the buildings roof is an issue. The roof is planned for replacement in the next 1-2 years.

A breakdown of Fire Station #3s electrical consumption and cost is shown below in Table 3.
Table 3: Electrical Consumption of Fire Station #3.
35
The average electric rate for Fire Station #3 over the period 11/30/05-12/10/07 was 10 /kWh. Fire Station #3 does not pay a demand charge under Tariff D3. The economic analysis assumes that tariff (D3) rates will increase over time at the general rate of inflation, assumed to be 2.5%.

Solmetric measurements were taken at four separate unobstructed locations on the roof of Fire Station #3 and then averaged to estimate the impact of shading on the facilitys access to the solar resource. Figure 15 shows that the resulting annual average solar access is 96%. This factor was used in the economic analysis to derate the electrical output from a PV system installed on the roof of Fire Station #3.
Annual Summer Winter 96% 99% 91%
Figure 15: Solmetric Analysis for Fire Station #3.

Fire Station #3 has approximately 1,770 square feet of largely unobstructed roof area available for a PV system between the upper and lower roof of the Station. The approximate location of this area is shown as the green rectangles in Figure 16.
36
Figure 16: Available roof area for a PV system at Fire Station #3.
Figure 17 shows a close-up view of the most likely location for a PV system on the upper roof of Fire Station #3 looking southwest. The taller roof obstruction in the center of Figure 17 is for diesel exhaust and could be relocated to make room for a PV system.
Figure 17: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system on the upper roof of Fire Station #3.
37
Figure 18 shows a close-up view of the most likely location for a PV system on the lower roof of Fire Station #3 looking southeast.
Figure 18: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system on the lower roof of Fire Station #3.
3.2.4 Technology
Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules and Solar Laminate Model PVL-68 were considered for possible installation at Fire Station #3. Based on power rating and dimensions, the use of Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules would result in a total installed capacity of approximately 8 kWdc (assuming a 20% reduction in the available roof area 4 for spacing between rows of modules and to allow access to perform maintenance activities) at a total weight of approximately 2,600 lbs. The ability of the roof of Fire Station #3 to support this weight is subject to further study. The economic analysis assumes that the modules would be tilted to latitude (42 degrees). At this tilt angle, wind and snow loading is also subject to further study to determine whether or not the roof of Fire Station #3 can support this. If the City of Ann Arbor were to elect to use Uni-Solar Framed Solar Modules at Fire Station #3, a more detailed calculation of the shading between rows of modules would need to be performed based on the model series selected and the tilt angle to determine the actual installed capacity and layout of the system. Based on power rating and dimensions, the use of Uni-Solars Solar Laminate Model PVL-68 would result in a total installed capacity of approximately 10 kWdc at a total weight of
4 Note that this value is assumed for preliminary screening purposes only. The actual reduction in available roof area will depend on such factors as the installed tilt angle and the actual dimensions of the modules selected for the project. The installed tilt angle will be affected by the wind and snow loads that the roof structure can support. These factors are subject to further study.
38
approximately 1,270 lbs. Since Uni-Solars Solar Laminates are installed flat on the roof surface, the tilt angle at Fire Station #3 would be 0 degrees.

Fire Station #3s main service panel is located at ground level at the rear of the building and directly below (approximately 40 feet) the most likely location for a PV system on the upper roof of the Station. The main service panel has eight (8) available spares rated at 100 Amps, 120/240 Volts, three-phase. There is approximately 119 square feet of available wall space near the main service panel for inverter and disconnect mounting, and access is available 24/7.

The roof of Fire Station #3 is oriented N-S and has very good solar access (96% annual average based on the Solmetric analysis). The roof surface is single-ply rubber covered with stone and no longer under warranty. There is a history of leakage, and plans are to replace the roof in the next 1-2 years.
3.2.7 Solar Thermal

Fire Station #3 has the highest potential of the five sites visited in Ann Arbor for a solar thermal application. Fire Station #3 consumes hot water on a daily basis. The base load is two man-showers/day and other needs in the kitchen, etc. The Tiger Team also learned that Fire Station #3 consumes a significant amount of hot water for their washing machine. Approximately 20 times per month they wash their fire clothes and this drains the existing 50 gallon tank. Fire Station personnel are frustrated with the setup; it takes 1.5 hrs to recharge the tank and nobody can take a shower during the recharge. If Fire Station #3 were to decide to replace their gas water heater with an electric tankless water heater, a solar thermal application would be more cost effective.
39
3.3 Water Treatment Plant

The Water Treatment Plant (WTP) meets the design factor criteria with average to below average marks. It has available roof area, relatively easy interconnection access, high electricity consumption, and excellent solar orientation. Unfortunately, the WTP has low electricity rates and peak demand is typically after midnight.

A breakdown of the WTPs electrical consumption and cost is shown below in Table 4.
Table 4: Electrical Consumption of the WTP.
The average electric rate for the WTP including demand charges over the period 11/30/0512/7/07 was 7.2 /kWh. The average electric rate shown in the last column of Table 2 excludes demand charges. Demand charges represent about 36% of the WTPs total electrical costs. The economic analysis excludes demand savings from the calculation since the WTPs peak demand occurs after midnight, and therefore a PV system installed at the WTP would not reduce the WTPs demand charges. The economic analysis also assumes that tariff (D6) rates will increase over time at the general rate of inflation, assumed to be 2.5%.

Solmetric measurements were taken on the roof of Filter Process Control Room to estimate the impact of shading on the facilitys access to the solar resource. Figure 19 shows that the resulting annual average solar access is 98%. This factor was used in the economic analysis to derate the electrical output from a PV system installed on the roof of the WTP.
40
Figure 19: Solmetric Analysis for the WTP.

The WTPs Filter Process Control Room has at least 2,500 square feet of unobstructed roof area available for a PV system. The approximate location of this area is shown as the green rectangle in Figure 20. A PV system could also be installed on the flat roof area just south of this location indicated by the yellow line in Figure 20. Another possible location for a PV array at the WTP is on top of the covered reservoir indicated by the white rectangles in Figure 20. The reservoir has an emergency communication tower and gas generator housed on it at the present time. A PV system
41
installed on top of the reservoir could provide power for emergency communications and displace the use of the gas generator, helping the City of Ann Arbor to meet emergency preparedness goals with renewable energy. These areas total approximately 21,500 sq. ft., enough to accommodate over 100 kWdc of PV consisting of Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules with a generous allowance for spacing between rows of modules to allow access to perform maintenance activities and to reduce losses due to shading. The maximum amount of weight the reservoir is able to support is subject to further study. Solmetric measurements taken on top of the reservoir estimate the annual average solar access to be 97%. The emergency communications tower at the Ann Arbor WTP currently uses an annual average of 20,126 kWh based on data from July 2005 through June 2008 provided by the City of Ann Arbor. At a 13% net capacity factor, a 100 kW PV system consisting of Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules on top of the reservoir at the Ann Arbor WTP would produce approximately 113,880 kWh.
Figure 20: Available areas for a PV system at the WTP.
Figure 21 shows a close-up view of the most likely location for a PV system on the roof of the Filter Process Control Room looking west.
42
Figure 21: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system at the WTP.
3.3.4 Technology
Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules and Solar Laminate Model PVL-136 were considered for possible installation on the roof of the Filter Process Control Room at the WTP. Based on power rating and dimensions, the use of Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules would result in a total installed capacity of approximately 11.7 kWdc (assuming a 20% reduction in the available roof area 5 for spacing between rows of modules and to allow access to perform maintenance activities) at a total weight of approximately 3,700 lbs. The ability of the roof of the Filter Process Control Room to support this weight is subject to further study; however the roof construction appears to be concrete and steel and therefore expected to support this weight. The economic analysis assumes that the modules would be tilted to latitude (42 degrees). At this tilt angle, wind and snow loading is also subject to further study to determine whether or not the roof of Filter Process Control Room can support this. If the City of Ann Arbor were to elect to use Uni-Solar Framed Solar Modules at the WTP, a more detailed calculation of the shading between rows of modules would need to be performed based on the model series selected and the tilt angle to determine the actual installed capacity and layout of the system.
5 Note that this value is assumed for preliminary screening purposes only. The actual reduction in available roof area will depend on such factors as the installed tilt angle and the actual dimensions of the modules selected for the project. The installed tilt angle will be affected by the wind and snow loads that the roof structure can support. These factors are subject to further study.
43
Based on power rating and dimensions, the use of Uni-Solars Solar Laminate Model PVL-136 would result in a total installed capacity of approximately 15.2 kWdc at a total weight of approximately 1,900 lbs. Since Uni-Solars Solar Laminates are installed flat on the roof surface, the tilt angle would also be 8.5 degrees.

The WTPs Filter Process Control Room electrical service panel is located on floor E2 which is located approximately 120 feet from the location of the proposed array. The main service panel has three (3) available spares rated at 100-200 Amps each, 400 Volt, three-phase. There is approximately 175 square feet of available wall space near the main service panel for inverter and disconnect mounting, and access is available 24/7.

The roof of the Filter Process Control Room is oriented N-S and has excellent solar access (98% based on the Solmetric analysis). The roof surface is single-ply rubber and no longer under warranty. There is no history of leakage. If the City of Ann Arbor chooses to pursue a PV installation on top of the water reservoir, the ability of the reservoir to support the weight would require further study.
3.3.7 Solar Thermal

The WTP uses very little domestic (~125 F) hot water on a daily basis. However, the WTP does use a significant amount of hot water from November to April to power the air heaters. The air heaters are currently fed by a low-pressure (~10 psi) natural gas boiler rated at 2,100 ft3/hr.
44
3.4 Bryant Community Center

The Bryant Community Center (BCC) meets the design factor criteria with average to below average marks. It has limited available roof area, relatively low solar access due to shading, and low electricity consumption. On the other hand, it has easy interconnection access, and relatively high electricity rates.

A breakdown of the BCCs electrical consumption and cost is shown below in Table 5.
Table 5: Electrical Consumption of Bryant Community Center.
The average electric rate for the BCC over the period 12/15/05-1/08/08 was 10 /kWh. The BCC does not pay a demand charge under Tariff D3. The economic analysis assumes that tariff (D3) rates will increase over time at the general rate of inflation, assumed to be 2.5%.

Solmetric measurements were taken on the roof of the BCC to estimate the impact of shading on the facilitys access to the solar resource. There is a large tree directly south of the proposed location for a PV system on the roof of the BCC (in the BCCs back yard in fact), as well as other trees further southeast and southwest of the facility. These trees have a significant shading effect on the BCCs access to the solar resource during the winter months when the sun sits lower in the sky (has a lower sun angle). Thus, a significant reduction in solar access is expected from November through March as shown in the bar chart in Figure 22.
45
Figure 22: Solmetric Picture and corresponding shading analysis for the BCC with tree.
Figure 23 shows the results of a Solmetric analysis with the tree directly south of the BCC removed or trimmed. The results show that removing or trimming the tree directly south of the BCC would increase annual solar access to 94% from 88%, and significantly increase access to the solar resource from October through February. These factors were used in the economic analysis to derate the electrical output from a PV system installed on the roof of the BCC.
46
Figure 23: Solmetric Picture and corresponding shading analysis for the BCC without tree.

The BCC has approximately 230 square feet of ideally oriented, unobstructed roof area available for a PV system. The approximate location of this area is shown as the green rectangle in Figure 24.
47
Figure 24: Available roof area for a PV system at the BCC.
Figure 25 shows a close-up view of the most likely location for a PV system on the roof of the BCC looking northeast.
48
Figure 25: Close-up view of available roof area for a PV system at the BCC.
3.4.4 Technology
Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules were considered for possible installation at the BCC. Based on power rating and dimensions, the use of Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules would result in a total installed capacity of approximately 1.3 kWdc at a total weight of approximately 425 lbs. The roof of the BCC is expected to be able to support this weight. The economic analysis assumes that the modules would lie flat on the roof at a tilt angle of 18.5 degrees.

The BCCs main service panel is located directly below the proposed location for a PV system on the roof of the one-story building. The main service panel has three (3) available spares rated at 225 Amps, 120/240 Volts, three-phase. There is approximately 35 square feet of available wall space next to the main service panel for inverter and disconnect mounting, and access is available 24/7.
49

The proposed roof area for a PV system is oriented N-S but would have <95% solar access even if the tree in the back yard were trimmed or removed. The shingled roof of the BCC is in excellent condition and not under warranty. There is no history of leakage. BCC also offers a unique opportunity to educate the community about PV systems by tying in an educational component to a PV system project.
3.4.7 Solar Thermal

The BCC uses very little domestic (~125 F) hot water on a daily basis. The BCC uses natural gas to heat its water.
50
3.5 William Street Parking Garage

The William Street Parking Garage meets the design factor criteria with average to below average marks. It has a significant amount of available roof area, relatively easy interconnection access, good solar access, and high electricity consumption. Unfortunately, the William Street Parking Garage has low electricity rates. The demand savings that might be realized by installing a PV system on the roof of the William Street Parking Garage requires further study.

A breakdown of the William Street Parking Garages electrical consumption and cost is shown below in Table 6.
Table 6: Electrical Consumption of the William Street Parking Garage.
The average electric rate for the William Street Parking Garage including demand charges over the period 11/29/05-12/8/07 was 7.8 /kWh. The average electric rate shown in the last column of Table 2 excludes demand charges. Demand charges represent approximately 38.5% of the William Street Parking Garages total electrical costs. The economic analysis takes the most conservative approach by excluding demand savings from the calculation since data was unavailable to estimate the amount of peak demand reduction that could be expected by installing a PV system at the William Street Parking Garage. The economic analysis also assumes that tariff (D6) rates will increase over time at the general rate of inflation, assumed to be 2.5%.

Solmetric measurements were taken on the roof of the William Street Parking Garage to estimate the impact of shading on the facilitys access to the solar resource. Solar carports are subject to shading from light posts and stairwells in select locations. The upper roof of the William Street Parking Garage provides ample opportunity to minimize any shading from these structures. Figure 26 shows that the combined impact of shading from light posts and stairwells in select locations results in an annual average solar access of 95% (worse case). This factor was used in the economic analysis to derate electrical output from a PV system installed on the roof of the William Street Parking Garage.
51
Figure 26: Solmetric Analysis for the William Street Parking Garage.
52
Figure 27 shows the potential for shading from the Southwest corner stairwell.
Figure 27: Example of Shading from Southwest Corner Stairwell at 1:55 PM on April 30, 2008 looking West.

The William Street Parking Garage has approximately 12,400 square feet of largely unobstructed roof area available for a carport system. The approximate location of this area is shown by the green rectangles in Figure 28. Figure 29 shows what such a system might look like.
53
Figure 28: Available roof area for a PV system at the William Street Parking Garage.
Figure 29: Carport system installed at Cal Expo, Sacramento, CA. v
54
3.5.4 Technology
Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules at the William Street Parking Garage. Based on power rating and dimensions, the use of Uni-Solar US-64 Framed Solar Modules would result in a total installed capacity of approximately 58 kWdc (assuming a 20% reduction in the available roof area to allow space for support structures) at a total module weight of approximately 18,300 lbs. The ability of the roof of the William Street Parking Garage to support this weight (plus additional snow loading and support structures) is subject to further study. The economic analysis assumes that the modules would be installed at a tilt angle of 0 degrees on steel supports as shown in Figure 29. If the City of Ann Arbor were to proceed with a carport system at the William Street Parking Garage, a more detailed calculation would need to be performed based on the module series selected and the spacing between rows of modules to determine the actual layout and installed capacity of the system.

The William Street Parking Garages main service panels and primary metering are located on the ground floor in the Southwest corner of the building in two equipment rooms 8 stories below the roof. The two equipment rooms only have a total of approximately 40 square feet of wall space available for inverter and disconnect mounting, and therefore these may need to be mounted on the outside of the building which may be a security issue. The main service panel in Equipment Room #1 has numerous available spares rated at 225 Amps, 120/208 Volts, three-phase. The main service panel in Equipment Room #2 appears to have five (5) available spares rated at 400 Amps, 120/208 Volts, three-phase, and 14 spares rated at 225 Amps, 120/208 Volts, three-phase. Access is available 24/7.

The roof of the William Street Parking Garage is oriented N-S and has excellent solar access. Roof construction is concrete and steel.
3.5.7 Solar Thermal

The William Street Parking Garage has no domestic hot water use.
55
4. Economic Analysis
The economics of solar PV and solar thermal applications at each of the five sites visited in the City of Ann Arbor are discussed in the following two sections of the report.
4.1 Solar PV
CH2M HILL used the Solar Advisor Model (SAM) to perform a preliminary screening analysis of the economics of solar PV applications at each of the five sites visited in the City of Ann Arbor. SAM provides a consistent framework for analyzing and comparing power system costs and performance across the range of solar technologies and markets. SAM can model PV and concentrating solar power technologies for electric applications for several markets. The software integrates an hourly simulation model with performance, cost, and finance models to calculate energy output, energy costs, and cash flows. The software can also account for the effect of incentives on cash flows. SAM includes both built-in cost and performance models, and a spreadsheet interface for exchanging data with external models developed in Microsoft Excel. Most of SAMs inputs can be used as parametric variables for sensitivity studies to investigate impacts of variations in physical, cost, and financial parameters on model results. The single-point efficiency models used in SAM are simple representations of system components based on a size value in rated watts or kilowatts and an efficiency value. The PV single-point efficiency model also includes a simple representation of module temperature effects. The commercial models represent particular commercially available inverters and PV modules using a set of parameters based on field measurements. SAM uses publicly-available solar resource data based on actual solar measurements and modeled values incorporating cloud cover and satellite imagery (in this case, for Detroit, MI). SAM uses the generalized capacity of the solar electric system and does not take into account design considerations such as the layout of series and parallel strings. Further refinement of the solar electric system would involve engineering design to size wiring and fuses, and to determine the actual strings of modules required to create the proper input voltages and currents to the inverter. A detailed design would take into account local, state, and federal building and electrical codes and ensure that proper safety protocols are followed for interconnecting with the electric utility grid.
56
The assumptions used in the economic analysis common to all five sites were:
Losses other than shading include soiling (1%), reflection (3.2%), non-Standard Test Conditions operation (5.5%), wire resistance (0.75%), inverter (3.7%, transformer (0.75%), system degradation (1%), and system availability (1%). These assumptions are reasonable and consistent with industry standards. The Base Case installed capital cost estimate of $7,200/kW was provided by the City of Ann Arbor Energy Office. Additional inputs specific to each site included electricity rates, number of modules based on product type and dimensions, array tilt, and shading losses (based on the Solmetric analysis). Table 7 summarizes these inputs for each of the five sites visited in Ann Arbor.
Table 7: Site-specific Inputs to Economic Analyses.
57
Table 8 summarizes the SAM results for each of the five sites visited in Ann Arbor based on these inputs and assumptions.
Table 8: SAM Results.
Table 8 shows that based on the inputs and assumptions discussed previously in this section, none of the five sites would have a payback period of less than 30 years. The best sites for a PV system out of the five visited are Fire Station #3 and Fire Station #1 based on the lowest negative Net Present Value of Savings per Installed kW (column 6 in Table 8). The lack of federal, state, and/or utility incentives available to the City of Ann Arbor for the installation of PV systems is a major barrier. For example, at $7,200/kW, 80% of the total installed cost would need to be incentivized to reduce the simple payback period at Fire Station #3 to 15/17.5 years (US-64/PVL-68). The creation of federal, state, and/or utility incentives available to the City of Ann Arbor would greatly accelerate the adoption of solar power systems to meet the Citys Energy Challenge Goals. While balance of system costs can be expected to be higher for the William Street Parking Garage compared to other sites due to the additional cost of support structures, the William Street Parking Garage may benefit from economies of scale, reducing total installed cost to a level comparable to the other sites on a per kW basis. Potential demand savings at the William Street Parking Garage requires further investigation.
4.2 Solar Thermal

To be economic (compared to the use of natural gas for hot water heating), solar thermal water heating applications generally need to have consistent daily demand for a large volume of domestic hot water. Since Fire Station #1 already has a solar thermal system installed on the roof, only Fire Station #3 of the remaining four (4) sites has a consistent
58
daily need for hot water. The Bryant Community Center, William Street Parking Garage, and the Water Treatment Plant use very little domestic (~125 F) hot water on a daily basis.
4.2.1 Fire Station #3

Fire Station #3 consumes domestic hot water on a daily basis. The base load is two manshowers/day and other needs in the kitchen, etc. The Tiger Team also learned that Fire Station #3 consumes a significant amount of hot water for their washing machine. Approximately 20 times per month they wash their fire clothes and this drains the existing 50 gallon tank. They are frustrated with the setup; it takes 1.5 hrs to recharge the tank and nobody can take a shower during the recharge. The Solar Rating & Certification Corporation (SRCC) web site (www.solar-rating.org) provides access to performance booklets that estimate how solar water heaters could perform over a whole year under specified conditions. The nearest location to Ann Arbor for which a performance booklet is available is Lansing, MI. For example, assuming a 3.7 m2 Heliodyne collector (Heliodyne is a typical hi-performance glazed collector that is similar to the AET collector installed on the roof of Fire Station #1) with a freeze tolerance of -60 F and a 65 gallon/day hot water demand (national average for residential homes), the SRCC calculation results in a simple payback of >30 years based on an installed cost of $1,165 per m2 (the cost of the solar thermal installation at Fire Station #1) and $12 per MBtu for natural gas levelized over the life of a solar thermal installation (3.7 m2 * $1,165 per m2)/($12 per MBtu * 9.5 MBtu savings in natural gas usage assuming a conventional water heater of ~60% efficiency). Alternatively, Fire Station #3 could install a natural gas-tankless hot water heater so that they never run out of hot water. Because the efficiency of a natural gas-tankless hot water heater is much better than a conventional water heater (80% vs. 60%), the economics of a solar thermal application are not as favorable. A 9.5 MBtu savings in natural gas usage assuming a conventional water heater of ~60% efficiency implies that solar thermal is delivering 0.6 * 9.5 MBtu or 5.7 MBtu in energy savings. If the gas water heater is now 80% efficient, solar thermal would only be saving 5.7/0.8 or 7.1 MBtu of gas instead of 9.5 MBtu, significantly increasing the simple payback period of a solar thermal system.
4.2.2 Water Treatment Plant

The WTP uses a significant amount of very hot water from November to April to power the air heaters but very little domestic hot water on a daily basis. The Tiger Team learned that the air heaters are currently fed by a low-pressure (~10 psi) natural gas boiler, rated at 2,100 ft3/hour. The potential for a solar thermal system to supply air heating for the WTP is summarized as follows: - The existing boiler consumes 2,100 ft3/hr of natural gas * 1,000 Btu/ft3 = 2.1 MBtu/hr of natural gas - The boiler is old (assumed to be ~50% efficient), thus 0.5 * 2.1 MBtu/hr = 1.1 MBtu/hr is supplied to meet hot water demand - Given supply pressure of 10 psi, the steam produced by the boiler is ~240 F
59
- 240 F can be achieved with evacuated tube-type solar collectors - Assuming ~35% efficiency for a solar collector (typical for tube-type solar collectors operating at 100 C above ambient) and 800 Watts/m2 solar insolation, ~1,150 m2 of solar collectors would be required to supply 1.1 MBtu/hr to meet hot water demand - The average daily solar insolation (non-tracking tilted to 42 degrees latitude) for Michigan from November to April is ~3.3 kWh/m2/day - Annual energy delivered from a solar thermal system thus configured would be ~ 3.3 kWh/m2/day * 1, 150 m2 * 0.35 * 365/2 days (6 months) = 242,000 kWh (826 MBtu) - Assuming the boiler is 50% efficient, the 826 MBtu delivered from a solar thermal system would save ~1,652 MBtu of gas during the 6-month period from November to April - Assuming that the boiler runs full during this 6-month period (based on a conversation with the Facilities Manager), the gas energy consumed would be 2.1 MBtu/hr * 4,380 hrs = 9,200 MBtu - Thus, the annual solar fraction would be 1,652 MBtu/9,200 MBtu or 18% The collectors however, would be idle nearly the rest of the year. If natural gas costs $12/MBtu (levelized over the life of the system) and system capital costs equal $600 per m2 installed, the simple payback period would be >30 years ($600 per m2 * 1,150 m2)/(1,652 MBtu per yr * $12 per MBtu). This calculation does not consider annual operation and maintenance cost of the collector system which would likely be an additional 3% or more of the installed capital cost. The Facilities Manager also said that the WTP was actively making changes to reduce their thermal load (e.g., by eliminating process hot water) which would further reduce the potential economics of a solar thermal application at the WTP.
4.2.3 Summary Results of Solar Thermal Analyses

The results of the solar thermal analysis for Fire Station #3 and the WTP are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9: Solar Thermal Results.
Site
System Size (m2)
Installed Cost ($/m2)
Solar Fraction (%)
Payback Period (years) >30 >30
Annual Savings in Natural Gas Usage (MBtu) 9.5 1,652
FS#3 WTP
3.7 1,150
1,165 600
42 18
60
5. Training
A secondary objective of the site visits was to train a representative from Recycle Ann Arbor (Jason Bing) to conduct future scoping visits to other potential sites in the City independently of the Tiger Team from Sandia National Labs and CH2M HILL. The Tiger Team met in Ann Arbor on May 29, 2008 to train Jason in the use of the Solar Advisor Model, or SAM, and the use of SRCC data to perform solar thermal evaluations. On each of the site visits, Jason was trained in evaluating the solar potential of each facility based on several criteria including: available roof area, roof age, shading factors, electrical interconnection access, conduit routing, facility consumption, electrical meter location, potential inverter and disconnect mounting locations, structural roof issues, potential solar thermal applications, and other criteria necessary for a successful solar installation. Jason was also trained in the use of the Solmetric SunEye to estimate the amount of shading from buildings, trees and other obstructions, and their impact on a facilitys access to the solar resource. The results of the solar feasibility study training is already making changes in the City of Ann Arbor. Washtenaw County and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority plan to have solar feasibility studies conducted, in addition to studies at other City facilities. Meanwhile, the trainee, Jason Bing, is working to include solar feasibility studies in the 100 energy audits that his organization, Recycle Ann Arbor, will be conducting this winter with funding from the Michigan Public Service Commission. The Home Energy Performance Certificate that Recycle Ann Arbor is developing through these audits is expected to include a solar feasibility component, which may ultimately lead to a required solar feasibility study for every Ann Arbor home that goes up for sale. Recycle Ann Arbor is also working with the Rebuild Washtenaw partnership and may soon be performing solar feasibility analyses for commercial buildings county-wide. Additional field studies have yet to be conducted however or validated.
61
6. Summary Results of Site Assessments

Fire Station #1 and Fire Station #3 are the most attractive sites for the economic application of solar PV of the five sites visited in the City of Ann Arbor. Based on the inputs and assumptions used in this study, none of the five sites would have a payback period of less than 30 years without significant federal, state, and/or utility incentives available to the City of Ann Arbor. The lack of federal, state, and/or utility incentives is a major barrier to the installation of such systems. Figure 30 shows how the five sites rank conceptually.
Electric Rate
Incentives
FS #3 FS #1 WTP BCC William
System Size Installed Cost in $/kW O&M Cost Module Efficiency

Figure 30: Conceptual Ranking of Ann Arbor Sites for Potential Solar PV Applications.
In general, larger system size should result in economies of scale in terms of installed capital cost and ongoing operation and maintenance costs (i.e., lower). Higher module efficiency will result in increased energy production. Higher electric rates will improve Return on
62
Investment, and available incentives will reduce installed capital costs and improve operating savings. In this study, all of the sites were assumed to have an installed cost of $7,200/kW. While balance of system costs can be expected to be higher for the William Street Parking Garage compared to other sites due to the additional cost of support structures, the William Street Parking Garage may benefit from economies of scale, reducing total installed cost to a level comparable to the other sites on a per kW basis. Economic applications of solar thermal technology at the five sites visited in Ann Arbor are limited and less attractive than other available options.
63
7. Template/Framework for Future Site Assessments

This section of the report provides a template, or framework, for the future evaluation and reporting on the solar potential of other facilities in the City of Ann Arbor, and consists of the following three (3) steps: 1. Site Screening/Site Visit 2. Analysis 3. Reporting
7.1 Site Screening/Site Visit

The first step involves site screening based on several criteria, which may include available roof area, roof orientation, electricity and gas consumption, and electricity and gas rates. It makes sense to apply PV on facilities with high electrical costs and high peak demand loads. PV systems produce electricity during times of peak electrical consumption, and therefore have higher value than the average cost of electricity per kWh. The reduction in demand costs may be significant, and would have more attractive economics if applied to a building with high demand during peak hours. For maximum annual energy production, the PV system should have a solar azimuth of 180 degrees, or due South, and a tilt angle equal to the latitude of the facility (42 degrees for Ann Arbor). Practical considerations however may not allow this, such as roof orientation, roof tilt, and wind and snow loading. In Ann Arbor, a PV system oriented east or west at a tilt angle of 42 degrees would produce approximately 20% less energy than a system oriented due south. Systems with tilt angles lower than latitude can be expected to produce less energy on an annual basis using the same technology. For example, a system with a tilt angle of 10 degrees oriented due South using Uni-Solar US-64 modules, can be expected to produce 4% less energy on an annual basis than a system oriented due South with a tilt angle of 42 degrees. To be economic (compared to the use of natural gas for hot water heating), solar thermal water heating applications generally need to have a consistent daily demand for a large volume of domestic hot water. The purpose of a site visit is to further evaluate the solar potential of a particular facility based on several additional criteria including: roof age, roof obstructions, shading factors, electrical interconnection access, conduit routing, electrical meter location, potential inverter and disconnect mounting locations, structural roof issues, potential solar thermal applications, and other criteria necessary for a successful solar installation. This is facilitated using the form in Attachment 1. Some of this information can be gathered prior to the site visit, for example: historical electricity and gas consumption and roof or building plans.
64
7.2 Analysis
The second step involves economic analysis of the solar potential for a particular facility. This analysis consists of determining the installed capacity of a potential PV system based on module dimensions and weight and a shading analysis. The Solar Advisor Model (SAM) can be used to perform a preliminary screening analysis of the economics of solar PV applications. SAM provides a consistent framework for analyzing and comparing power system costs and performance across a range of solar technologies. Inputs to SAM include an estimate of losses, capital costs, O&M costs, and financial assumptions such as the annual rate of inflation, discount rate, contribution of debt and equity, and incentives, if any. Much of the previous discussion in this section applies to solar thermal applications as well. Additional considerations for solar thermal applications include the daily demand for hot water and the efficiency of the existing boiler. Other factors include boiler pressure, the efficiency of the solar thermal collector system, and the cost of natural gas (assuming electric hot water heaters are not used in Ann Arbor). SRCC data includes the total panel area and energy savings estimates in therms for a comprehensive list of unglazed and glazed collector system models from various manufacturers that can be used in the economic analysis of solar thermal applications. The analysis presented in this report provides a framework for conducting an economic analysis of future sites.
7.3 Reporting
The outline and structure of this report provides a template for reporting on future site assessments in the City of Ann Arbor. Future reports may be expanded or customized depending on individual site characteristics, the level of information available, and/or the needs of the individual customer.
65
8. Contact information
DOE Solar Tiger Team for the City of Ann Arbor
66
9. References
U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Solar America Cities. Available: http://www.solaramericacities.org/Cities.aspx. Last accessed 17 April 2008.
i
U.S. Department of Energy. (2008). Solar America Cities. Available: http://www.solaramericacities.org/. Last accessed 17 April 2008.
ii iii
UO Solar Radiation Monitoring Laboratory. (2007). Sun Path Chart Program. Available: http://solardat.uoregon.edu/SunChartProgram.html. Last accessed 16 April, 2008. Warren Gretz. (2003). Available: http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/ Jpegs/12530.jpg Kyocera Solar (2001). Available: http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/Jpegs/09488.jpg
iv v
67

AnnArbor SolarSiteAssessments

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

AnnArbor SolarSiteAssessments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Report

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Energy 2007 Solar America City

This document was prepared under the direction of:

John Hoffner,P.E. Senior Project Manager

This document was reviewed by:

Greg Kolb Tiger Team Lead

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

sin SAM SRCC S tan DOE WTP

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

Attachment E-1: Site Survey Form (Page 1)

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

Attachment E-2: Site Survey Form (Page 2)

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

Figure 1: Solar America Cities Map - 2008 i

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

2.0 Design Factors

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

2.1 Electrical Consumption

2.2 Shading Analysis

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

2.2.1 Solar Angle Data and Physical Measurements

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

9:00 AM shadow length calculation Ann Arbor, MI

Solar Angle = 12.5 h=15

4.51 * (h) 4.51 X 15 = 68

Shadow length = h * (1/(tan(solar angle) = 15 * (1/(tan (12.5)) = 15 * (1/0.2217) = 15 * 4.51 = 68

Figure 4: Calculating shadow length from Sun Angles.

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

2.2.2 Solmetric Analysis

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

2.3 Available Area

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

2.5 Interconnection Points

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

2.6 Orientation and Other Factors

2.7 Solar Thermal

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

2.8 Energy Challenge Goals

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

3.0 Ann Arbor Facilities - Solar Assessments

3.1 Fire Station #1

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

3.1.1 Electrical Consumption

3.1.2 Shading Analysis

Figure 11: Solmetric Analysis for Fire Station #1.

CITY OF ANN ARBOR, MI

3.1.3 Available Area