<%BANNER%>

Assessing the Feasibility of Net Zero Energy (NZE) Facilities for Turnpike Service Plazas

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041263/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing the Feasibility of Net Zero Energy (NZE) Facilities for Turnpike Service Plazas
Physical Description: 1 online resource (90 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Snowden, Sean
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: assessment, energy, fdot, florida, photovoltaics, pv, renewable, solar, turnpike
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Very little research has been done regarding net zero energy service plazas. Photovoltaic application has been analyzed and applied to noise walls, but never before has the concept of a net zero service plaza been considered. The University of Florida was contracted by the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Turnpike Enterprise to develop options for generating clean renewable energy to support the Turkey Lake Service Plaza in Ocoee, FL. The intention of this study was to identify whether or not a Turnpike service plaza could be a net zero energy facility. Two power generation cases were generated to demonstrate a net zero energy case and a maximum power case. It was found that a Turnpike service plaza, specifically the Turkey Lake service plaza, could generate almost two and a half times its annual consumption.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sean Snowden.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041263:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041263/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing the Feasibility of Net Zero Energy (NZE) Facilities for Turnpike Service Plazas
Physical Description: 1 online resource (90 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Snowden, Sean
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: assessment, energy, fdot, florida, photovoltaics, pv, renewable, solar, turnpike
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Very little research has been done regarding net zero energy service plazas. Photovoltaic application has been analyzed and applied to noise walls, but never before has the concept of a net zero service plaza been considered. The University of Florida was contracted by the Florida Department of Transportation and the Florida Turnpike Enterprise to develop options for generating clean renewable energy to support the Turkey Lake Service Plaza in Ocoee, FL. The intention of this study was to identify whether or not a Turnpike service plaza could be a net zero energy facility. Two power generation cases were generated to demonstrate a net zero energy case and a maximum power case. It was found that a Turnpike service plaza, specifically the Turkey Lake service plaza, could generate almost two and a half times its annual consumption.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sean Snowden.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041263:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 11

11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS a-Si amorphous silicon triple junction AC alternating current BIPV building integrated photovoltaics c-Si crystalline silicon CCTV closed circuit television CdTe cadmium telluride CIGS copper indium gallium selenide CPV concentrated photovoltaics DC direct current FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FTE Florida Turnpike Enterprise Gha global hectare GWh gigawatt hour kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hour kWp kilowatt peak lbs pounds MW megawatt MWp megawatt peak OPV organic photovoltaics PV photovoltaics PVNB photovoltaic noise barriers UF University of Florida

PAGE 13

Introduction

PAGE 15

Problem Statement

PAGE 16

Research Objectives Significance of the Study

PAGE 17

Limitations of the Study Summary

PAGE 19

Introduction The History of Photovoltaics

PAGE 20

Photovoltaic Technologies

PAGE 21

Mono-Crystalline Poly-Crystalline Thin Film

PAGE 22

Concentrated Photovoltaics Organic Photovoltaics Photovoltaic Mounting Systems Roof Mounted Systems

PAGE 23

Ground Mounted Systems Tracking Systems

PAGE 24

Active trackers Single-axis trackers Dual-axis trackers

PAGE 25

Passive trackers

PAGE 26

Designing a Photovoltaic System Electrical Consumption Shading Analysis

PAGE 27

Available Area Spacing

PAGE 28

Grid Interconnect Stand-alone PV system

PAGE 29

Grid-connected PV system

PAGE 30

Orientation/Degree of Tilt Solar Noise Barriers

PAGE 35

Summary

PAGE 38

Approach PV System Design Criteria

PAGE 40

Energy Simulations

PAGE 41

Solar Energy Potential for a Service Plaza

PAGE 42

Phase PV Systems Other

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The PV system design and layout for the Turkey Lake Service Plaza encompassed seven areas within the Plaza a nd the additional noise walls both one mile north and south of the Plaza. These ei ght areas corresponded to the major Phases within the scope of the project that had promising potential for solar installation. Each Phase required a different approach to syst em design and layout pertaining to the system type and support structure. The proposed installations are presented in the following eight sections, Phase 1 through Phase 8 (see Table 4-1). Each Phase has a written description, an estimate of the maximum solar panel area that could be installed, and a color coded aerial map locating the area or areas within that Phase. The description is followed by a summary of selected design alternatives. Each alte rnative, herein called a Scenario, has a synopsis of the assumptions in terms of PV type and mounting system, an estimate of the installed power range, annua l energy generation given t he type of technology, and the installed cost range. Additional Scenarios and details are provided in Appendix A. The following design alternatives are sc hematic and would require more detailed analysis in order to determine the electric al interconnect, the PV mounting system, the orientation, and the specific performance of the panel type. Each Scenario was intended as a guide for the Turkey Lake Service Plaza, but could be slightly modified for the large scale adoption for other Florida Turnpike Plazas and FDOT facilities.

PAGE 44

44 Table 4-1. Summary of each scenario by phase SUMMARY OF SCENARIOSScenario$/kWhSystem Cost A: Rail Mounted Crystalline1.97MW3,221,000kWh0.18 $ 9,835,000.00 $ B: Passive Tracking Crystalline1.97MW3,804,000kWh0.15 $ 9,835,000.00 $ C: Single Axis Tracking Crystalline1.97MW3,804,421kWh0.16 $ 10,818,500.00 $ D: Dual Axis Tracking Crystalline1.97MW4,142,664kWh0.16 $ 11,802,000.00 $ E: Enclosed/Mounted Thin Film1.07MW1,744,151kWh0.14 $ 4,260,000.00 $ F: Concentrating PV1.81MW2,960,962kWh0.25 $ 12,656,000.00 $ A: Solyndra0.21MW350,468kWh0.14 $ 856,000.00 $ B: Flat Thin Film0.20MW291,855kWh0.12 $ 585,000.00 $ C: SunPower0.45MW732,052kWh0.14 $ 1,788,000.00 $ A: Crystalline Engineered Structure1.34MW2,199,431kWh0.21 $ 8,058,000.00 $ B: Thin Film Engineered Structure0.73MW1,192,246kWh0.18 $ 3,640,000.00 $ C: Envision Solar Grove1.65MW2,700,567kWh0.21 $ 9,894,000.00 $ A: Crystalline Engineered Structure0.75MW1,225,000kWh0.21 $ 4,488,000.00 $ B: Thin Film Engineered Structure0.41MW663,269kWh0.18 $ 2,025,000.00 $ C: Envision Solar Grove0.92MW1,503,409kWh0.21 $ 5,508,000.00 $ A: Crystalline Engineered Structure0.51MW838,502kWh0.21 $ 3,072,000.00 $ B: Thin Film Engineered Structure0.28MW455,281kWh0.18 $ 1,390,000.00 $ C: Envision Solar Grove0.63MW1,030,113kWh0.21 $ 3,774,000.00 $ A: Dual Vertical Row Crystalline1.43MW2,214,674kWh0.21 $ 7,881,500.00 $ B: Dual Horizontal Row Crystalline0.82MW1,265,749kWh0.21 $ 4,504,500.00 $ C: Two Rows of Vertical Crystalline1.43MW2,214,674kWh0.21 $ 7,881,500.00 $ D: Two Rows of Horizontal Crystalline0.82MW1,265,749kWh0.21 $ 4,504,500.00 $ E: Two Rows of Vertical Crystalline South0.82MW1,341,276kWh0.19 $ 4,504,500.00 $ F: Top Mounted Crystalline0.68MW1,054,018kWh0.21 $ 3,751,000.00 $ G: Flush Thin Film0.95MW1,468,207kWh0.17 $ 4,275,000.00 $ A: Floating Crystalline1.18MW1,927,573kWh0.23 $ 7,650,500.00 $ B: Mounted Crystalline1.18MW1,927,573kWh0.23 $ 7,650,500.00 $ Notes: Summary uses the mean performance numbers for each scenario. $/kWh includes gross first cost based on the cost/Watt installed with a production life of 20 years.PHASE 4 Visitor Parking PHASE 5 Truck Parking PHASE 6 Noise Walls PHASE 7 Retention Ponds MWkWh/yr PHASE 1 Open Areas PHASE 2 Roof Mounted PHASE 3 Employee Parking

PAGE 45

Figure P the gra s Turkey L but not b change s extrane o this Ph a visibility 4-1. A eria P hase 1 all o s sy areas s u L ake prop e b eyond. T h s to the lan d o us grassy a se. This w l view of P h o ws for ap p u rrounding rty. This i n h ese areas d scaping m areas thro u w as chosen Phase 1 h ase 1: Op e p roximately the retenti o n cludes lan d can be us e m ay be nec e u ghout the as Phase 1 45 1 : Open A r e n Areas 142,000 s q o n ponds o d extendin g e d for field e ssary to a c property a r 1 due to e a r eas q uare feet o n the Nort h g up to pav e mounted t y c commod a r e not inclu a se of insta l o f panel ar e h and Sout h e d or impr o y pes of PV a te the syst e ded for the l lation and e a and refe h ends of t h o ved surfa c systems, b e m. The purposes o high levels r s to h e c es, b ut o f of

PAGE 46

Figure P T g d P T p e 4-2. Scen a P hase 1S c T his scenar i round in a egrees fro m o Peak o Ener g o Insta l P hase 1S c T his scenar i assively tr a fficiency th o Peak o Ener g o Insta l a rio A: Rail c enario A : i o utilizes c f ixed positi o m horizont a Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R c enario B : i o utilizes c a ck the sun an the fixe d Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R mounted c Rail Moun t rystalline p o n facing d a l (see Fig u n ge: 1.25 ion Range: ange: $6,2 Passive T r rystalline p in one dir e d Scenario n ge: 1.25 ion Range: ange: $6,2 46 c rystalline ( t ed Crystal l anels that a irectly sou t u re 4-2). 2.54 MW 2,504,000 70,000 $ r acking Cr y anels that a e ction. This A. 2.54 MW 3,150,000 70,000 $ base case ) l ine (Base C a re rail-mo u t hat the o p 5,088,0 0 12,735,00 0 y stalline a re pole-m o represent s 6,401,0 0 12,735,00 0 ) C ase) u nted dire c p timum an g 0 0 kWh/y r 0 o unted off t s higher ge 0 0 kWh/y r 0 c tly to the g le of 27 t he ground neration to

PAGE 47

47 Phase 1Scenario C : Single-Axis Tracking Crystalline This scenario utilizes crystalline panels that are pole-mounted off the ground to actively track the sun in one direction. This represents higher generation efficiency than the fixed Scenario A. o Peak Power Range: 1.25 2.54 MW o Energy Generation Range: 3,150,032 6,400,704 kWh/yr o Installed Cost Range: $6,897,000 $14,008,500 Phase 1Scenario D : Dual-Axis Tracking Crystalline This scenario utilizes crystalline panels that are pole-mounted off the ground to actively track the sun in two direct ions. This represents higher generation efficiency than the fixed Scenario A and the Single-Axis Scenarios B & C. o Peak Power Range: 1.25 2.54 MW o Energy Generation Range: 3,255,200 6,614,400 kWh/yr o Installed Cost Range: $7,524,000 $15,282,000 Phase 1Scenario E : Enclosed/Mounted Thin Film This scenario would be exactly like Scenar io A except for exchanging crystalline panels with an encased thin film material to allow for rail mounting on the ground. This system has a lower efficiency compared to crystalline. o Peak Power Range: 0.70 1.70 MW o Energy Generation Range: 1,402,000 3,404,000 kWh/yr o Installed Cost Range: $2,804,000 $6,816,000 Phase 1Scenario F : Concentrating Photovoltaics (CPV) The final scenario utilizes CPV th roughout the open areas. This CPV system would be pole-mounted. CPV would be t he heaviest and most complicated system, but could potentially represent a higher efficiency due to solar concentration as outlined in the Technology portion of this report. o Peak Power Range: 1.39 2.67 MW o Energy Generation Range: 2,774,000 5,534,000 kWh/yr o Installed Cost Range: $9,723,000 $19,390,000

PAGE 48

Figure 4 T feet of p Enforce m exclude s shaded structur e Visitor C options t 4 -3. Aerial v T he Buildin g p anel area a m ent, Ope r s roof para equivalent s e s are likel y C enter. Thi t o prevent v v iew of Ph a g Roofs sp e a nd refer t o r ations, Su n pets and m s A ddition y to chang e s space ca v oiding of c Phase 2: a se 2: Buil d e cified in P h o the roof a r n watch/Tra m echanical e al building s e with the n n be used f c urrent roo f 48 Building R d ing Roofs h ase 2 allo w r eas on fo u des, and T e quipment s were not i ew conces f or flat and f warrantie s R oofs w for appr o u r Turkey L a urnpike H e areas on t h i ncluded in sionaire c o angled pa n s o ximately 2 6 a ke buildin g e adquarter s h e roof as w the total r o o ntract for t h n els with li m 6 ,000 squ a g s: Law s This spa c w ell as thei r o of area as h e current m ited mou n a re c e r n ting

PAGE 49

49 Phase 2Scenario A : Solyndra (Base Case) This base case utilizes Solyndras proprietary self-ballasting tubular panel system. This system would be custom made for the Turkey Lake roofs and would lay in rows along the roof surfaces without voiding the roof warranties. This is the base case because it is the most easily removed and reinstated when the roof needs replacing. o Peak Power Range: 0.19 0.25 MW o Energy Generation R ange: 372,000 496,000 kWh/yr o Installed Cost Range: $736,000 $984,000 Phase 2Scenario B : Flat Thin Film This scenario proposes thin film adhered to the roof surface. This should not void the roof warranty, but w ould most likely have to be removed when the roof is replaced. This case may have the lowest peak power of t he three scenarios. o Peak Power Range: 0.13 0.32 MW o Energy Generation R ange: 260,000 630,000 kWh/yr o Installed Cost Range: $384,000 $936,000

PAGE 50

Figure P T v d h 4-4. Scen a P hase 2S c T his scenar i oid the roo f irection at a ighest pea k o Peak o Ener g o Insta l a rio C: Su n c enario C : i o is based f warranty. a slight an g k power of Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R n Power roo f SunPower on SunPo w SunPower g le in rows a the three s c n ge: 0.42 ion Range: ange: $1,6 6 50 f tile syste m Roof Tile S w ers own r panels ar e a long the r o c enarios ( s 0.47 MW 844,000 6 8,000 $ m S ystem r oof tile sy s e positione d o of surfac e s ee Figure 4 942,000 k W 1,864,000 s tem and w o d in a south e This repr e 4 -4). W h/y r o uld also n o -facing e sents the o t

PAGE 51

Figure T square f parking lighting s while m i varying parking 4-5. A eria T he Emplo y f eet of pan e lot north o f s ystems m a i nimizing in degrees of area for s o P l view of P h y ee Parking e l area and f the Turnpi a y need to trusions a n natural lig h o lar power g P hase 3: E h ase 3: E m specified i refers to t h ke Headqu be redesig n d shading. h t within th e g eneration. 51 E mployee P m ployee Pa r n Phase 3 h e total pa v arters buil d ned to ma x A ll propo s e structure. P arking r king allows for a v ed area of d ing. Land s x imize ene r s ed system This repr e a pproximat e the large e s caping an d r gy generat s allow for e sents the l e ly 97,000 e mployee d current ion potenti a ventilation l argest sin g a l and g le

PAGE 52

Figure P T s T h ( s P T d g 4-6. Scen a P hase 3S c T he base c a upport a tr u T he suppor t ave a solid s ee Figure o Peak o Ener g o Insta l P hase 3S c T his scenar i esigned to eneration a o Peak o Ener g a rio A: Cry s c enario A : a se scenari u ss-mount e t s would sp roof in ord 4-6). Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R c enario B : i o would in v support a f a s well as v Power Ra n g y Generat s talline en g Crystalline o is compr i e d crystalli n an betwee n er to allow n ge: 0.86 ion Range: ange: $5,1 4 Thin Film E v olve an e n f lat array o f v entilation a n ge: 0.48 ion Range: 52 g ineered st r Engineer e i sed of an e n e panel sy n the islan d fo r ventilat 1.74 MW 1,710,000 4 2,000 $ E ngineere d n gineered s f thin film P V a nd natural 1.16 MW 956,000 r ucture (ba s e d Structur e e ngineered stem in th e d s of the p a ion and na t 3,474,0 0 10,440,00 0 d Structure s tructure si m V panels. T light. 2,324,000 s e case) e (Base Ca s structure d e south-faci a rking lots a t ural light 0 0 kWh/y r 0 m ilar to the T his would kWh/y r s e) d esigned to ng directio n a nd would n above but reduce en e n n ot e rgy

PAGE 53

53 o Installed Cost Range: $2,395,000 $5,820,000 Phase 3Scenario C : Envision Solar Grove This scenario is based on Envisions Solar Grove covered parking systems. Envision designs variations of its Sola r Tree system to accommodate any type of parking layout or facility. This scenario would leave large gaps between rows of vaulted solar trees throughout each parking lot. o Peak Power: 1.65 MW o Energy Generati on: 3,292,000 kWh/yr o Installed Cost: $9,894,000

PAGE 54

Figure T feet of p side of t lighting s while m i varying 4-7. A eria T he Visitor P p anel area a he Visitor C s ystems m a i nimizing in degrees of l view of P h P arking sp e a nd refers t C enter buil d a y need to trusions a n natural lig h Phase 4: h ase 4: Vis e cified in P h t o the total d ings. A s d be redesig n d shading. h t within th e 54 V isitor P a itor Parkin g h ase 4 allo w paved are a d escribed i n ned to ma x A ll propo s e structure. a rking g w s for app r a of the visi t n Phase 3, x imize ene r s ed system r oximately 5 t or parking landscapin r gy generat s allow for 5 4,000 squ lots on eit h g and curr e ion potenti a ventilation are h er e nt a l and

PAGE 55

Figure P R P R P R 4-8. Scen a P hase 4S c R efer to P3 o Peak o Ener g o Insta l P hase 4S c R efer to P3 o Peak o Ener g o Insta l P hase 4S c R efer to P3 o Peak a rio A: Cry s c enario A : A (see Fig u Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R c enario B : B Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R c enario C : C Power: 0. 9 s talline en g Crystalline u re 4-8) n ge: 0.48 ion Range: ange: $2,8 6 Thin Film E n ge: 0.27 ion Range: ange: $1,3 Envision S 9 3 MW 55 g ineered st r Engineer e 0.98 MW 960,000 6 2,000 $ 5 E ngineere d 0.65 MW 538,000 35,000 $ 3 S olar Grove r ucture (ba s e d Structur e 1,952,000 5 ,814,000 d Structure 1,306,000 3 ,240,000 s e case) e (Base Ca s kWh/yr kWh/y r s e)

PAGE 56

56 o Energy Generati on: 1,850,000 kWh/yr o Installed Cost: $5,508,000

PAGE 57

Figure T feet of p side of t current l potentia ventilati o identica l 22 feet t 4-9. A eria T he Truck P p anel area a he Visitor C l ighting sy s l while min o n and var y l to those i n t o allow for l view of P h P arking spe a nd refers t C enter buil d s tems may n i mizing intr y ing degre e n Phases 3 full truck c l Phase 5 h ase 5: Tr u cified in P h t o the total d ings. A s d n eed to be usions and e s of natur a and 4, but l earance. 57 : Truck Pa u ck Parking h ase 5 allo w paved are a d escribed i n redesigne d shading. A a l light with i will be rai s rking w s for appr o a of the tru c n Phases 3 d to maxim i A ll propos e i n the struc s ed to heig h o ximately 3 c k parking l o and 4, lan d i ze energy e d systems ture. Stru c h ts from 10 3 7,000 squ a o ts on eith e d scaping a n generation allow for c tures will b 12 feet to a re e r n d b e 16-

PAGE 58

Figure P R N P h R N 4-10. Sce P hase 5S c R efer to P3 o Peak o Ener g o Insta l N ote: Struct h ase 5Sc R efer to P3 o Peak o Ener g o Insta l N ote: Struct nario A: cr y c enario A : A (see Fig u Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R ure height w enario B : T B Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R ure height w y stalline en g Crystalline u re 4-10) n ge: 0.33 ion Range: ange: $1,9 6 w ould be r a T hin Film E n ge: 0.18 ion Range: ange: $91 5 w ould be r a 58 g ineered s t Engineer e 0.66 MW 654,000 6 2,000 $ 3 a ised from E ngineered 0.44 MW 366,000 5 ,000 $2, 2 a ised from t ructure (b a e d Structur e 1,326,000 3 ,984,000 10-12 feet Structure 888,000 k W 2 20,000 10-12 feet a se case) e (Base Ca s kWh/y r to 16-22 fe W h/y r to 16-22 fe s e) et high. et high.

PAGE 59

59 Phase 5Scenario C : Envision Solar Grove Refer to P3-C o Peak Power: 0.63 MW o Energy Generati on: 1,258,000 kWh/yr o Installed Cost: $3,774,000 Note: Structure height would be raised from 10-12 feet to 16-22 feet high.

PAGE 60

Figure T 127,00 0 from mil Phase r e cover o n wall. O n wall wo u 4-11. A eri T he Noise W 0 square fe e e marker 2 e presentin g n ly the top 1 n ly the nort u ld shade t h al view of P W alls speci f e t of panel a 62 to mile m g different a 1 2-foot pa n h wall is b e h e panels. Phase 6 P hase 6: N o f ied in Pha s a rea and r e m arker 26 4 a esthetic a n n el and do n e ing consid e 60 6 : Noise W o ise Walls s e 6 allow f e fer to the w 4 Several s n d power g n ot hide th e e red for all W alls f or a range w all on the s cenarios a eneration o e graphics o scenarios a of approxi m north side o a re propos e o ptions. A l l o n the low e a s trees al o m ately 49, 0 o f the high w e d for this l scenarios e r section o o ng the so u 0 00w ay f u th

PAGE 61

Figure P T v a d 4-12. Sce P hase 6S c T his scenar i ertically. T ny time thr o egrees fro m o Peak o Ener g o Insta l nario A: D u c enario A : i o utilizes f o T he panel f a o ughout th e m horizont a Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R u al-vertical Dual-Verti c o urteen (1 4 a ces are ali e day. Th e a l (see Fig u n ge: 0.91 ion Range: ange: $5,0 2 61 row crystal c al Row Cr y 4 ) crystallin e gned in th e e panels ar e u re 4-12). 1.86 MW 1,826,000 2 1,500 $ line photo v y stalline P h e panels p e e same pla n e fixed and 3,712,0 0 10,208,00 0 v oltaics (ba s h otovoltaic s e r wall pan e n e to avoid tilted at th e 0 0 kWh/y r 0 s e case) s (Base Ca s e l mounted self-shadi n e optimum 2 s e) n g at 2 7

PAGE 62

Figure P T h a d 4-13. Sce P hase 6S c T his scenar i orizontally. t any time t egrees fro m o Peak o Ener g o Insta l nario B: D u c enario B : i o utilizes e The pan e t hroughout m horizont a Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R u al-horizon t Dual-Hori z e ight (8) cr y e l faces are the day. T h a l (see Fig u n ge: 0.52 ion Range: ange: $2,8 62 t al row cry s z ontal Row y stalline pa n aligned in t h e panels a u re 4-13). 1.06 MW 1,044,000 71,000 $ 5 s talline pho t Crystalline n els per w a t he same p a re fixed a n 2,120,0 0 5 ,830,000 t ovoltaics Photovolt a a ll panel m o p lane to av o n d tilted at t 0 0 kWh/y r a ics o unted o id self-sh a he optimu m a ding m 27

PAGE 63

Figure P T v a ti 4-14. Sce P hase 6S c T his scenar i ertically. T nd are fre e lted at the o o Peak o Ener g o Insta l nario C: T w c enario C : i o utilizes f o T he panels a e of self-sh a o ptimum 2 7 Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R w o rows of v Two Rows o urteen (1 4 a re groupe d a ding from 7 degrees f n ge: 0.91 ion Range: ange: $5,0 2 63 v ertical cry s of Vertical 4 ) crystallin e d together 10:00am t o f rom horizo 1.86 MW 1,826,000 2 1,500 $ s talline ph o Crystallin e e panels p e into two ro w o 4:00pm. T ntal (see F 3,712,0 0 10,208,00 0 o tovoltaics e Photovolt a e r wall pan e w s of seve n T he panels igure 4-14) 0 0 kWh/y r 0 a ics e l mounted n (7) panel s are fixed a s a nd

PAGE 64

Figure P T h a ti 4-15. Sce P hase 6S c T his scenar i orizontally. nd are fre e lted at the o o Peak o Ener g o Insta l nario D: T w c enario D : i o utilizes e The pan e e of self-sh a o ptimum 2 7 Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R w o rows of h Two Rows e ight (8) cr y e ls are grou a ding from 7 degrees f n ge: 0.52 ion Range: ange: $2,8 64 h orizontal c of Horizo n y stalline pa n ped togeth 10:00am t o f rom horizo 1.06 MW 1,044,000 71,000 $ 5 c rystalline p n tal Crystall n els per w a er into two o 4:00pm. T ntal (see F 2,120,0 0 5 ,830,000 p hotovoltai c ine Photov o a ll panel m o rows of fo u T he panels igure 4-15) 0 0 kWh/y r c s o ltaics o unted u r (4) panel are fixed a s a nd

PAGE 65

Figure P T v a o F 4-16. Sce P hase 6S c T his scenar i ertically. T nd are fre e ptimally ori F igure 4-16 ) o Peak o Ener g o Insta l nario E: T w c enario E : i o utilizes e T hese pane e of self-sh a ented sout ) Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R w o rows of v Two Rows e ight (8) cr y ls are grou p a ding from h and opti m n ge: 0.52 ion Range: ange: $2,8 65 v ertical cry s of Vertical y stalline pa n p ed togeth e 10:00am t o m ally tilted 2 1.06 MW 1,108,726 71,000 $ 5 s talline PV Crystallin e n els per w a e r into two o 4:00pm. T 2 7 degree s 2,251,4 4 5 ,830,000 facing Sou e PV Facin g a ll panel m o rows of fo u T he panels s from horiz 4 0 kWh/y r th g South o unted u r (4) panel s are fixed, ontal (see s

PAGE 66

Figure P T T o o F 4-17. Sce P hase 6S c T his scenar i T hese pane f self-shad i ptimally ori F igure 4-17 ) o Peak o Ener g o Insta l nario F: To c enario F : i o utilizes s ls are grou i ng from 1 0 ented sout ) Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R p mounted Top Moun t ix (6) cryst a ped togeth e 0 :00am to 4 h and opti m n ge: 0.44 ion Range: ange: $2,3 66 crystalline t ed Crystall a lline pane l e r into two 4 :00pm. T h m ally tilted 2 0.88 MW 870,000 92,500 $ 4 ine l s per wall p rows of thr e h e panels a r 2 7 degree s 1,768,000 4 ,862,000 p anel mou n e e (3) pan e r e fixed at o s from horiz kWh/y r n ted vertic a e ls and are o p the wall s ontal (see a lly. free s

PAGE 67

Figure P T ti ( s 4-18. Sce P hase 6S c T he final sc e me throug h s ee Figure o Peak o Ener g o Insta l nario G: Fl u c enario G: e nario utili z h out the da y 4-18). Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R u sh thin fil m Flush Thin z es thin-fil m y The pa n n ge: 0.63 ion Range: ange: $2,8 67 m Film m panels an n els are fix e 1.52 MW 1,252,000 17,000 $ 6 d is free fr o e d and mo u 3,042,0 0 6 ,844,500 o m self-sh a u nted flush 0 0 kWh/y r a ding at an y to the wall y face

PAGE 68

Figure T square f south e n the use allow fo r Other b o 4-19. A eri T he Retenti o f eet of pan e n ds of the T of crystalli n r the rise a n o dies of w a al view of P o n Ponds s e l area and T urkey Lak e n e panels t o n d fall of p o a ter were n o Phase 7: R P hase 7: R e s pecified in refers to t h e site. Bot h o cover the o nd water l e o t consider e 68 R etention e tention P o Phase 7 a l h e two larg e h of the foll o entire bod e vels due t o e d for this P Ponds o nds l lows for a p e retention o wing pro p ies of wate o heavy rai P hase. p proximatel ponds on t p osed scen a r. Both sc e n or droug h y 85,000 t he north a n a rios inclu d e narios als o h t conditio n n d d e o n s.

PAGE 69

Figure P T c P T p 4-20. Sce P hase 7S c T his scenar i ables and p o Peak o Ener g o Insta l P hase 7S c T his scenar i osition aro u o Peak o Ener g o Insta l nario A: Fl o c enario A : i o is a seri e p ilings to a c Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R c enario B : i o is a seri o u nd the ret e Power Ra n g y Generat l led Cost R o ating crys t Floating C r e s of crysta c count for c n ge: 0.75 ion Range: ange: $4,8 Mounted C o us of cryst a e ntion pon d n ge: 0.75 ion Range: ange: $4,8 69 t alline r ystalline lline panel s c hanging w 1.53 MW 1,504,000 81,500 $ 9 C rystalline a lline pane d s. 1.53 MW 1,504,000 81,500 $ 9 s atop floati w ater levels 3,054,0 0 9 ,912,500 ls perman e 3,054,0 0 9 ,912,500 ng rafts su (see Figur e 0 0 kWh/y r e ntly moun t 0 0 kWh/y r pported by e 4-20). t ed in a fix e e d

PAGE 70

Figure T system s and C c o high am 4-21. A eri T he Educati s that could o uld be util ounts of vi s P al view of P on/Marketi be imple m ized simult a s itor intere s hase 8: E d P hase 8: E d ng specifie d m ented thro u a neously i n s t. Power o 70 d ucation/ M d ucation/M a d in Phase u ghout the n multiple l o o utput, ho w M arketing a rketing 8 refers to Turkey La k o cations ar o w ever, is lo w highly visi b k e site. Sc e o und the si t w b le educati o e narios A, B t e to gener o nal B ate

PAGE 71

Figure P T w p O 4-22. Sce P hase 8S c T his scenar i w alkway. T h arking lot f r O perations b nario A: S K c enario A : i o utilizes t h h e propos e r om the H e b uildings ( s K YShades c SKYShad e h in-film pa n e d installati o e adquarter s s ee Figure 4 71 c overed w a e s Covered n els integra o n would s p s building t o 4 -22). a lkway Walkway ted into a S p an the len o the Law E S KYShade s gth of the e E nforcemen s covered e mployee t and

PAGE 72

Figure P T T e 4-23. Sce P hase 8S c T his scenar i T he propos e lectronic d e nario B: S K c enario B : i o utilizes t h e d installati e vices whil e K YShades P SKYShad e h in-film pa n on would a e visiting t h 72 P owerBrell a e s PowerB r n els integra a llow visitor s h e plaza (s e a r ella ted into a S s to charg e e e Figure 4 S KYShade s e cell phon e -23). s umbrella. e s and pow er

PAGE 73

Figure P T t e t h F The firs t used to generat e net zer o represe n Energy C 4-24. Sce P hase 8S c T he final sc e e chnologie s h rough a lo F or the pur p t is an exa m create a N e e enough e o case con s n t the full i m C ase, whi c nario C: S o c enario C : e nario utili z s The pro p cal, region a p ose of this m ple of ho w e t Zero En e e lectricity t o s ists of sel e m plementa t c h estimate s o lar/photov o Solar/Pho t z es any nu m p osed inst a a l, or natio n Powe study, two w a combin a e rgy Plaza, o offset the e cted techn o t ion of all f o s the ener g 73 o ltaic sculp t t ovoltaic S c m ber or co m a llation wo u n al compet i r Generati power ge n a tion of the in other w o Plazas an n o logies fro m o u r Phases g y generati o t ure c ulpture m bination o u ld be desi g i tion (see F on n eration ca s aforement o rds, the P V n ual consu m m Phases 1 The sec o o n if all are a o f photovolt a g ned by art i F igure 4-24 ) s es have b e ioned scen V installati o m ption. T h 1 2, 3 and 4 o nd is the M a s availabl e a ic i sts select e ) e en propo s arios coul d o ns would h is propose d 4 but doe s M aximum e in all Pha e d s ed. d be d s not ses

PAGE 74

74 were to be fully realized using the highest e fficiency technology. This case is included primarily as an example of the potential for generation and may not be the most desirable, or feasible approach. Case 1: Net Zero Energy This case (see Table 4-3) is based on e liminating high cost/low benefit options and focuses on relatively high energy output s utilizing only a portion of the proposed systems. The number used to achieve net zero energy is 3.8 MW, which may vary slightly depending on the weather conditions and efficiencies of the PV panels. The selections used below are the mean values derived from the base case design alternatives for each of the following f our Phases: Open Areas, Building Roofs, Employee Parking, and Visitor Parking. Wh ile visitor parking represents the same unit cost as employee parking, it is more vi sible and accessible to the public, and is weighted more heavily. Table 4-2. Case 1: Net Zero Energy Case 2: Maximum Energy The goal of this case (see Table 4-4) is to demonstrate the maximum solar potential of a service plaza and to use virtually all the available surfaces on the Turkey Lake Service Plaza for installing PV panels The maximum energy production equates 1Open Area SystemA. Rail Mounted Crystalline100%1.979,835,000.00 $ 3,221,000 2Building RoofsA. Solyndra100%0.21856,000.00 $ 350,468 3Employee ParkingA. Crystalline Engineered Structure76%1.026,124,080.00 $ 1,671,568 4Visitor ParkingA. Crystalline Engineered Structure 80%0.603,590,400.00 $ 980,000 5Truck Parking 0%0.00 0.00 $ 0 6Noise Walls 0%0.00 0.00 $ 0 7Retention Ponds 0%0.00 0.00 $ 0 8Education/Marketing Total 3.8020,405,480 $ 6,223,036 Average $/Watt 5.37 $ Production (kWh) Phase System Cost System Size (MW) Scenario Description Percentage of Scenario

PAGE 75

75 to 9.15 MW, which may vary slightly depending on the weather conditions and efficiencies of the PV panels. This is achieved by selecting the best performing technologies while utilizing 100% of the areas allotted in each Phase. The scenarios used below are the maximum values derived from the base case design alternatives for all Phases. Table 4-3. Case 2: Maximum Energy For each of these two cases, there is an infinite number of options depending upon the PV technologies selected and the percent age of their implementation. These options only represent the most economical and not necessarily the most appropriate selections. Infrastructure issues, such as mounting systems and electrical connections, should also be considered to determine the fe asibility of the selected installation The energy consumption profiles presented here for the Turkey Lake Service Plaza clearly demonstrate the potential for creating a Net Zero Service Plaza. 1Open Area SystemD. Dual Axis Tracking Crystalline 100%2.5515,282,000.00 $ 5,364,191 2Building RoofsC. SunPower 100%0.471,864,000.00 $ 763,168 3Employee ParkingA. Crystalline Engineered Structure 100%1.348,058,000.00 $ 2,199,431 4Visitor ParkingA. Crystalline Engineered Structure 100%0.754,488,000.00 $ 1,225,000 5Truck ParkingA. Crystalline Engineered Structure 100%0.663,984,000.00 $ 1,087,433 6Noise WallsA. Dual Vertical Row Crystalline PV 100%1.8610,208,000.00 $ 2,868,413 7Retention PondsA. Floating Crystalline 100%1.539,912,500.00 $ 2,497,493 8Education/Marketing Total 9.1553,796,500 $ 16,005,129 Average $/Watt 5.88 $ Phase System Cost Sys t em Size (MW) Scenario Description Percentage of Scenario Production (kWh)

PAGE 76

Net Zero Energy Service Plaza Recommendations for Further Study

PAGE 77

DESCRIPTION PANEL AREA

PAGE 79

Phase 1: Open AreasP1-A P1-D W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P1-B P1-E W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P1-C P1-F W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage Crystalline W / m2W / s f Thin Film W / m2W / s f Concentrating PVW / m2W / s f Enclosed/Mounted Thin Film Concentrating PVPassive Tracking Crystalline Rail Mounted Crystalline Single-Axis Tracking Crystalline Dual-Axis Tracking Crystalline

PAGE 80

P2-A W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P2-B W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P2-C W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage Solyndra W / m2W / s f Thin Film W / m2W / s f SunPower W / m2W / s f SunPower Solyndra Flat Thin FilmPhase 2: Building Roofs

PAGE 81

Phase 3: Employee ParkingP3-A W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P3-B W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P3-C W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage CrystallineW / m2W / sf Thin FilmW / m2W / sf Envision W / m2W / sf Crystalline Engineered Structure Thin Film Engineered Structure Envision Solar Grove

PAGE 82

Phase 4: Visitor ParkingP4-A W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P4-B W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P4-C W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage Crystalline W / m2W / s f Thin Film W / m2W / s f Envision W / m2W / s f Crystalline Engineered Structure Thin Film Engineered Structure Envision Solar Grove

PAGE 83

Phase 5: Truck ParkingP5-A W kWh / y r % of 2008 usage P5-B W kWh / y r % of 2008 usage P5-C W kWh / y r % of 2008 usage Crystalline W / m2W / sf Thin Film W / m2W / sf Envision W / m2W / sf Crystalline Engineered Structure Thin Film Engineered Structure Envision Solar Grove

PAGE 84

Phase 6: Noise WallsP6-A P6-D103437 W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage 59107 W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P6-B P6-E59107 W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage 59107 W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P6-C P6-F103437 W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage 49256 W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P6-GCrystalline W / m2W / s f 126720 W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage Thin Film W / m2W / s f Two Rows of Vertical Crystalline PV Top Mounted Crystalline PV Flush Thin FilmDual-Vertical Row Crystalline PV Two Rows of Horizontal Crystalline PV Dual-Horizontal Row Crystalline PV Two Rows of Vertical Crystalline PV Facing South

PAGE 85

Phase 7: Retention PondsP7-A W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage P7-B W kWh / yr% of 2008 usage Crystalline W / m2W / sf Floating Crystalline Mounted Crystalline

PAGE 86

Utility Costs January February March April May June July August September October November December 5,891,880kWh163,769kWh6,219,912kWh(2,816.61) $ Turkey Lake Consumption PV Output (100 kW System) PV Output (3.8 MW System)

PAGE 87

Tilt (Degrees) PV Output (100 kW System) % of Optimum Angle kWh/yr/kWNotes Assumptions

PAGE 88

Cases $ /Watt

PAGE 89

89 LIST OF REFERENCES Bellis, M. (n.d.). History: Photovoltaics Timeline Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://inventors.about.com/od/ti melines/a/Photovoltaics.htm Bellis, M. (n.d.). Sun Energy-Photovoltaics and Photovoltaic Systems Retrieved September 23, 2009, from http://inventors.about.com/o d/pstartinventions/a/ Photovoltics.htm Bruce, Allison. (2009). Zero net energy a goal for every home and building in California. Retrieved August 27, 2009, from http://www.venturacou ntystar.com/news/2009 /may/26/zero-net-energy-a-goal-for-every-home-and-in/ EMSD. (n.d.). Know More About Photovoltaic Systems Retrieved September 7, 2009, from http://www.emsd.gov.hk/emsd/e_download/pee/PV_Leaflet_English.pdf Going Solar. (2007). PV Noise Barrier for the Tullamarine-Calder Interchange Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://www.goingsolar.com.au/pdf/casestudies /Tullamarine_Calder _Interchange-PV.pdf Grottke, M., Suker, T., Eyra s, R., Goberna, J., Perpinan, O., Voigt, A., et al.. (2003). PV Soundless World Record Along The Highway A PV Sound Barrier With 500 kWp And Ceramic Based PV Modules. Retrieved July 18, 2009, from http://www.isofoton.com/corpor ate/material/pdf/ponencias/04.pdf Hertel, L., Kibert, C., Mi nchin, E., Ries, R., Sherif, S.A., Walters, Russel., et al.. (2009). A Comprehensive Solar Power System for the Turkey Lake Service Plaza. Currently awaiting publication. ISEA. (2006). Solar Electricity Photovoltaics (PV). Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.firstbtu.com/ISEA_PV_Basics.pdf Putnam, Robert. (2008). U.S. Department of Energy 2007 Solar America City of Ann Arbor, Michigan Solar Energy Site Assessments and Training Retrieved from http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/energy/solar cities/Documents/AnnArbor _SolarSiteAssessments.pdf Remmer, D., & Rocha, J. (2005). Photovolta ic Noise Barrier Canada. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://www.solarenergycanada.org/ sites/default/files/pdfs/Remmer %20and%20Rocha%202005.pdf WWF. (2008). The Living Planet Report 200 8. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://assets.panda.org/download s/living_pla net_report_2008.pdf