<%BANNER%>

Assessing Large Scale Application of Photovoltaic Renewable Energy Systems to University Campuses in Florida

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041660/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing Large Scale Application of Photovoltaic Renewable Energy Systems to University Campuses in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (60 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Sanders, Jason
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: calculator, energy, green, photovoltaics, renewable, rinker, sanders, solar, sustainability, turkey, university
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: As the nation moves towards sustainability, many universities are interested in leading the charge. Universities in Florida have a unique opportunity to make use of photovoltaic technology on campuses to educate, generate power, and make an environmentally friendly step simultaneously. This study evaluates the feasibility of incorporating solar power systems into university campuses in Florida for the purposes of power generation and education. In order to accomplish this, the University of Florida campus in Gainesville was used as a case study. The areas on campus with potential for photovoltaic installation were identified, and their areas totaled into five separate categories or phases. These phases were Open Areas, Building Roofs, Parking Lots, Parking Garages, and Water Coverage. Each of these phases was analyzed in tandem with Gainesville-specific solar radiation data and technical performance data for specific solar panels. A wide variety of options were presented for each phase, represented different technologies, costs, and amounts of power generation. A maximum power generation case was presented for the University of Florida, which yielded about two-thirds of the consumption needs for the university in Gainesville. While this is not likely to be financially or practically feasible in its entirety, it represents the potential that universities have to generate a significant portion of their consumption needs from on-site photovoltaic technologies. After the results of the case study, guidelines were presented on how to apply this data to other university institutions in the state of Florida. In addition, a web-based calculator tool was developed that is based on the research and results from this study. It allows any Florida university to easily input square footage and choose from various menus to see how much PV energy could be effective generated on a campus.
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 Jason Sanders.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041660:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041660/00001

Material Information

Title: Assessing Large Scale Application of Photovoltaic Renewable Energy Systems to University Campuses in Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (60 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Sanders, Jason
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: calculator, energy, green, photovoltaics, renewable, rinker, sanders, solar, sustainability, turkey, university
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: As the nation moves towards sustainability, many universities are interested in leading the charge. Universities in Florida have a unique opportunity to make use of photovoltaic technology on campuses to educate, generate power, and make an environmentally friendly step simultaneously. This study evaluates the feasibility of incorporating solar power systems into university campuses in Florida for the purposes of power generation and education. In order to accomplish this, the University of Florida campus in Gainesville was used as a case study. The areas on campus with potential for photovoltaic installation were identified, and their areas totaled into five separate categories or phases. These phases were Open Areas, Building Roofs, Parking Lots, Parking Garages, and Water Coverage. Each of these phases was analyzed in tandem with Gainesville-specific solar radiation data and technical performance data for specific solar panels. A wide variety of options were presented for each phase, represented different technologies, costs, and amounts of power generation. A maximum power generation case was presented for the University of Florida, which yielded about two-thirds of the consumption needs for the university in Gainesville. While this is not likely to be financially or practically feasible in its entirety, it represents the potential that universities have to generate a significant portion of their consumption needs from on-site photovoltaic technologies. After the results of the case study, guidelines were presented on how to apply this data to other university institutions in the state of Florida. In addition, a web-based calculator tool was developed that is based on the research and results from this study. It allows any Florida university to easily input square footage and choose from various menus to see how much PV energy could be effective generated on a campus.
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 Jason Sanders.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Kibert, Charles J.
Local: Co-adviser: Ries, Robert J.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041660:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ASSESSING LARGE SCAL E APPLICATION OF PHO TOVOLTAIC RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS TO UN IVERSITY CAMPUSES IN FLORIDA By JASON ANDREW SANDERS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILL MENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010

PAGE 2

2 2010 Jason Andrew Sanders

PAGE 3

3 To my parents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my family for their unending encouragement thr oughout my educational career and life. I would also like to thank the friends that make up my family here in Gainesville and make this an incredible place to be. I would like to thank Dr. Charles Kibert and Dr. Robert Ries for their guidance in my growing passion for sustainability and for their assistance in all my endeavors. I would like to thank Sean Snowden for working with me on all of my graduate school adventures and helping to keep me sane. I would like to thank Kevin Priest for all his wonderful h elp with Life Cycle Costing. I would like to thank my roommates dog, Elsa, for supplying all necessary fluffiness. I would finally like to thank God, my Father, who has given me the opportunities to make all of this possible.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. 4 page LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... 8 LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 13 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 13 Research Objectives .......................................................................................................... 13 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 14 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 16 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 16 Technology Review ............................................................................................................ 16 Mono Crystalline .......................................................................................................... 16 Poly Crystalline ............................................................................................................ 17 Thin Film ........................................................................................................................ 17 Concentrated Photovoltaics (CPV) ........................................................................... 18 Organic Photovoltaics (OPV) ..................................................................................... 18 Mounting Systems .............................................................................................................. 18 Roof Mounted Systems ............................................................................................... 19 Ground Mounted Systems .......................................................................................... 19 Tracking Systems ........................................................................................................ 19 Active tracking ....................................................................................................... 20 Single axis tracking .............................................................................................. 20 Dual axis tracking ................................................................................................. 20 Passive tracking .................................................................................................... 21 University of Florida Energy Use ...................................................................................... 21 Existing University Photovoltaic Installations .................................................................. 21 Arizona State University ............................................................................................. 21 Colorado State University ........................................................................................... 22 New Mexico State University ..................................................................................... 22 University of Florida ..................................................................................................... 23 University of Vermont .................................................................................................. 23 Washington University ................................................................................................ 24

PAGE 6

6 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 25 Consumption and Cost Data ............................................................................................. 25 Energy Consumption Reduction ....................................................................................... 25 Campus Useable Area ....................................................................................................... 26 Energy Simulations ............................................................................................................. 27 Life Cycle Costs .................................................................................................................. 27 Web Based Solar Energy Calculator ............................................................................... 27 4 CASE STUDY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 29 Phase 1: Open Areas ......................................................................................................... 29 Phase 1Sce nario A: Rail Mounted Crystalline (Base Case) .............................. 30 Phase 1Scenario B : Passive Tracking Crystalline ............................................... 31 Phase 1Scenario C : Singl e Axis Tracking Crystalline ......................................... 31 Phase 1Scenario D : Dual Axis Tracking Crystalline ............................................ 31 Phase 1Scenario E : Enclosed/Mounted Thin Film .............................................. 32 Phase 1Scenario F : Concentrating Photovoltaics (CPV) .................................... 32 Phase 2: Building Roofs ..................................................................................................... 33 Phase 2Scenario A : Solyndra (Base Case) .......................................................... 33 Phase 2Scenario B: Flat Thin Film ......................................................................... 34 Phase 2Scena rio C: SunPower Roof Tile System ............................................... 34 Phase 3: Parking Lots ........................................................................................................ 35 Phase 3Scenario A : Crystalline Engineered Structure (Base Case) ................ 35 Phase 3Scenario B : Thin Film Engineered Structure .......................................... 36 Phase 3Scenario C : Envision Solar Grove ........................................................... 36 Phase 4: Parking Garages ................................................................................................ 37 Phase 4Scenario A : Crystalline Engineered Structure (Base Case) ................ 37 Phase 4Scenario B : Thin Film Engineered Structure .......................................... 38 Phase 4Scenario C: Envision Solar Grove ........................................................... 38 Phase 5: Water Coverage ................................................................................................. 39 Phase 5Scenario A : Floating Crystalline ............................................................... 39 Phase 5Scenario B : Mounted Crystalline .............................................................. 40 Phase 6: Educational/Artistic ............................................................................................ 40 Phase 6Scenario A : SKYShades Covered Walkway .......................................... 41 Phase 6Scena rio B : SKYShades PowerBrella ..................................................... 41 Phase 6Scenario C : Solar/Photovoltaic Sculpture ............................................... 42 Maximum Power Generation............................................................................................. 42 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ..................... 45 Case Study Conclusions .................................................................................................... 45 Application to University Campuses in Florida ............................................................... 45 Steps for Application to Other Universities .............................................................. 45 Florida University Solar Energy Calculator .............................................................. 46 Recommendations for Further Study ............................................................................... 47

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX: A CASE STUDY SYSTEM DESIGN DATA ..................................................... 49 LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 59 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................................................... 60

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Maximum Power Generation ........................................................................................ 43 4 2 Summa ry of Each Scenario by Phase ........................................................................ 44 A 1 Panel Area by Phase ..................................................................................................... 49 A 2 Phase 1 Scenario Data ................................................................................................. 51 A 3 Phase 2 Scenario Data ................................................................................................. 52 A 4 Phase 3 Scenario Data ................................................................................................. 53 A 5 Phase 4 Scenario Data ................................................................................................. 54 A 6 Phase 5 Scenario Data ................................................................................................. 55 A 7 UF Net Zero Calculations .............................................................................................. 55 A 8 PV DesignPro Calculations .......................................................................................... 56 A 9 PV DesignPro Assumptions ......................................................................................... 56 A 10 PV Conversion Efficiencies ........................................................................................... 56 A 11 UF Energy Consumption ............................................................................................... 57 A 12 Cost Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 58 A 13 Florida Ci ty Energy Simulation Data ........................................................................... 58

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Scenario A: Rail Mounted Crystalline (Base Case) .................................................. 30 4 2 Scenario F: Concentration Photovoltaics (CPV) ....................................................... 32 4 3 Scenario A: Solynda (Base Case) ............................................................................... 33 4 4 Sc enario C: SunPower Roof Tile System ................................................................... 34 4 5 Scenario A: Crystalline Engineered Structure (Base Case) .................................... 35 4 6 Scenario C: Envision Solar Grove ............................................................................... 36 4 7 Scenario A: Crystalline Engineered Structure (Base Case) .................................... 37 4 8 Scenario C: Envision Solar Grove ............................................................................... 38 4 9 Scenario A: Floating Crystalline ................................................................................... 39 4 10 Scenario A: SKYShades Covered Walkway .............................................................. 40 4 11 Scenar io B: SKYShades PowerBrella ......................................................................... 41 4 12 Scenario C: Solar/Photovoltaic Sculpture .................................................................. 42

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S a Si amorphous silicon triple junction AC alternating current BIPV building integrated photovoltaics cSi crystalline silicon CdTe cadmium telluride CIGS copper indium gallium selenide CPV concentrated photovoltaics DC direct current FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FTE Florida Turnpike Enterprise Gh a global hectare GWh gigawatt hour kW kilowatt kWh kilowatt hour kWp kilowatt peak lbs pounds MW megawatt MWp megawatt peak NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory BOPV organic photovoltaics PPD Physical Plant Department PV photovoltaics REC Renewable En ergy Credit UF University of Florida

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction ASSESSING LARG E SCALE APPLICATION OF PHOTOVOLTAIC RENE WABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS TO UN IVERSITY CAMPUSES IN FLORIDA By Jason Andrew Sanders May 2010 Chair: Charles Kibert Cochair: Robert Ries Major: Building Construction As the nation moves towards sustainability, many univ ersities are interested in leading the charge. Universities in Florida have a unique opportunity to make use of photovoltaic technology on campuses to educate, generate power, and make an environmentally friendly step simultaneously. This study evaluates t he feasibility of incorporating solar power systems into university campuses in Florida for the purposes of power generation and education. In order to accomplish this, the University of Florida campus in Gainesville was used as a case study. The areas on campus with potential for photovoltaic installation were identified, and their areas totaled into five separate categories or phases. These phases were Open Areas, Building Roofs, Parking Lots, Parking Garages, and Water Coverage. Each of these phases was analyzed in tandem with Gainesville specific solar radiation data and technical performance data for specific solar panels. A wide variety of options were presented for each phase, represented different technologies, costs, and amounts of power generation. A maximum power generation case was presented for the University of Florida, which yielded about twothirds of the consumption needs for the university in Gainesville. While this is not likely

PAGE 12

12 to be financially or practically feasible in its entirety, it represents the potential that universities have to generate a significant portion of their consumption needs from onsite photovoltaic technologies. After the results of the case study, guidelines were presented on how to apply this data to other universit y institutions in the state of Florida. In addition, a webbased calculator tool was developed that is based on the research and results from this study. It allows any Florida university to easily input square footage and choose from various menus to see h ow much PV energy could be effective generated on a campus.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Problem Statement As the general populace becomes more aware of the need for sustainability, the need for clean and renewable energies is at the forefront of the discussion. Coal and natural gas are both finite natural resources, and the energy generation process also generates byproducts that are harmful to the atmosphere. There are multiple clean and/or renewable energy solutions, including: solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear. All of these demonstrate strengths and weaknesses, and are applicable in different settings and scenarios. Throughout the United States, universities are in a perpetually competitive state, be it through sports, academia, prestige, or some other qualit y. Recently American universities have been some of the first parties to wholly adopt sustainable principles and practices. The University of Florida in Gainesville is an example of a university striving to be the most sustainable campus in the nation. The main way that universities are achieving merits for sustainable energy is by purchasing Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). Universities like the University of Florida could benefit from on site renewable energy systems, and in the case of Florida campuses, solar power in particular. Research Objectives There are three main objectives of this research. The first is to identify current available photovoltaic technologies, and assess their relevance to power systems for Florida campuses. The second objective is to use the University of Florida as a case study by assessing feasibility of integrating solar electric panels into UF campus to meet UF energy needs in Gainesville. This campus is in the middle of the state and

PAGE 14

14 represents a large amount of landmass, buil dings, and energy demand. This case study will help with the third objective, which is to determine the feasibility of cost effective photovoltaic integration for university campuses in Florida based on the results of the UF case study. Significance of the Study This study represents an opportunity for Florida campuses to generate a significant portion of their power needs on campus. This will allow for a cost effective means of renewable energy. University buildings are a perfect place for photovoltaics as the entire campus is owned by one entity, and ownership will not change over the life of solar panels. This will allow universities the opportunity for solar panels to pay for themselves over their lifetime through energy savings. This scenario is ideal f or universities interested in educating students and faculty about renewable energies at the same time as producing useable energy. This would also provide opportunities for further solar research on campus at local photovoltaic installation sites. This would boost the local knowledgebase and resources in locations where research is conducted constantly. Limitations of the Study While this study is meant to be applicable to all Florida university campuses, only the University of Florida is being used as a case study. This means that further research and analysis would be required to directly apply this research to other universities. This is relevant to specific solar radiation data, available area, energy costs, etc. Another limitation of this study is the changing nature of photovoltaic technology. Much of the technology and efficiencies used for this study may be obsolete in a few years as improvements are made to current technologies and new technologies are introduced.

PAGE 15

15 The cost of energy and the mixes of energy providers may change quite a bit over time and between different areas. One final limitation lies in the variability of university campuses and the limitations of the areas within them. For example, shading is a large issue and must be considered when designing a PV system. Trees cause shading in open areas and HVAC units can produce shading effects on rooftops. Anyone who uses this study and the accompanying tool should be cautious to ensure that shading is not affecting a proposed system.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This chapter discusses all current and relevant information on photovoltaic technology and integration. It includes a technology review, mounting options, and system design information. In addition it addresses the Univers ity of Floridas current energy consumption data and power provider specifics. Finally it analyzes current photovoltaic installations on university campuses in the United States. Technology Review Solar photovoltaics work by using PV solar cells to conver t sunlight directly into electricity. While the most primitive PV system may power a calculator, much larger PV arrays can provide enough energy to power a city. The smallest unit of a photovoltaic system is called a PV cell, and a group of these is a modu le. Several modules are put together to comprise a panel, and a group of panels put together makes up an array. Photovoltaic systems can be tied into a utility grid, operate on independently, or even be building integrated (BiPV). These PV cells are solid state and do not have any moving parts to require maintenance (ISEA, 2006). The following five technologies represent the gamut of PV options, and are all being evaluated for this study. MonoCrystalline Mono Crystalline Si (c Si) solar panels are the most widespread type of panel and generally represent an energy conversion efficiency of 1520%. Most of this type of panel are rated for over 200 Watts with some larger panels boasting 315 Watts. A typical panel is usually in the size range of 12 18 ft2 as si ze varies greatly by panel

PAGE 17

17 manufacturer and power generation. Panels with a respectable efficiency usually generate between 1314 Watts/ft2. These panels usually have an initial investment cost of $3.00 $3.50 per Watt, excluding mounting and wiring. The panels typically weigh around 0.2 lbs/Watt, with a typical panel weighing between 3050 lbs (Hertel et al., 2010). Poly Crystalline Multi crystalline Si (mc Si) panels typically represent an energy conversion efficiency of 12 15%. These panels are also mos t often rated for over 200 Watts, and some panels can be rated for 260270 Watts. These panels are usually 1520 ft2 and high quality panels generate between 1213 Watt/ft2. The initial cost for these panels is on average between $3.00 $4.00 per Watt, ex cluding mounting and wiring. The panels typically weigh around 0.2 lbs/Watt, with a typical panel weighing between 4060 lbs (Hertel et al., 2010). Thin Film There are typically three different types of materials that thin film solar panels are produced fr om. The first of these is copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS), which generally performs with the highest efficiency in lab tests. The typical efficiency of a CIGS panel is 19.9%, which nears the performance of many silicon panels. The other two materials are amorphous silicon triple junction (aSi), which has efficiencies up to 12.3%, and cadmium telluride (CdTe), which has efficiencies up to 16.5%. While the efficiencies of thin film panels are lower, their performance is usually better in high temperatu re climates than the performance of other technologies. These panels usually generate between 40140 Watts, with some large panels reaching 200300 Watts. Panels are typically in the range of 525 ft2, with some as large as 5060 ft2. With these

PAGE 18

18 panels, 7. 5 Watts/ft2 is an acceptable performance. The initial investment cost for these panels ranges from $3.00 $4.00 per Watt on average, excluding mounting and wiring. In recent times, prices for thin film PV have dropped to prices as low as $1.75 $2.00 per Watt (Hertel et al., 2010). Concentrated Photovoltaics (CPV) The panels are most often manufactured from high efficiency III V multi junction materials like Ge GaAs or Ge GaAs GaInP. Single junction mono crystalline materials are used occasional for low t o medium concentration solar cells. CPV systems are usually broken down into three groups based on their concentration. Low concentration CPV has a magnification ratio of less than 10X, medium concentration CPV has a magnification ratio of 10X 100X, and high concentration CPV has a magnification ratio above 100X. CPV panels typical have a conversion efficiency of between 22 35%. The typical panel size is between 1070 ft2, with some panels reaching up to 1900 ft2. High performing CPV panels produce 1020 Watts/ft2. CPV systems typically weigh more than other PV systems, with an average weight of 0.33lbs/Watt (Hertel et al., 2010). Organic Photovoltaics (OPV) The panels yield a low efficiency near 5% and generate bout 0.25 Watts per panel. The panels vary in size, and can be 0.217ft2. The panels usually produce 1.56 Watts/ft2. OPV systems are typically used where a highly flexible panel is required and where high power production is not a requirement (Hertel et al., 2010). Mounting Systems The many possibl e scenarios in which PV systems may be applicable call for many different types of mounting systems. This section of the review will describe the major mounting systems relevant for the purposes of this study. These include roof

PAGE 19

19 mounted systems, ground mounted systems, active tracking, and passive tracking systems. Roof Mounted Systems Roof mounted systems are the most frequently used and most cost effective type of PV installation. This system is based on placing an array of solar panels on the roof of a property. This mounting system is most often attached directly to the structural members of the building so as to be strong enough to be able to withstand wind loading. The support structures in this system are typically aluminum or galvanized stainless ste el. In some case it is possible to mount solar arrays in a roof mounting system without penetrating the roof. These mounting systems are lightweight, usually adding less than 4lb/ft2 to the roof load. It is very rare for an existing structure to require st ructural modifications in order to support this system (Hertel et al., 2010). Ground Mounted Systems These mounting systems are used to attach panels to a grounded support structure. The most common ground mount is a steel support wedge structure anchored in concrete footings. All auxiliary materials are usually aluminum or galvanized steel. A different type of ground mounted array is a pole mount. This system is comprised of an array mounted to the top of a single steel pole. This type of system may be manually adjusted to allow for slight changes in pitch at different times (Hertel et al., 2010). Tracking Systems Tracking systems are used to allow PV panels to track the suns movement throughout the day yielding a more constant solar radiation exposure. Tr acking systems can often increase the power output of a PV system by 30 50%. Tracking systems can

PAGE 20

20 be passive, active, or chronological in nature. Passive and active systems will be reviews for the purposes of this study (Hertel et al., 2010). Active tracki ng Active trackers use a solar direction responsive feedback control that directs the motors and thereby the gear trains of the tracker. The feedback loop of this system is made up of two photosensors that produce an output pulse when there is a flux dif ferent in the sunlight received by a panel. The feedback control will reorient the whole system based no the flux difference thereby tracking the sun. Most tracking systems are created with an intelligent feedback mechanism in order to prevent activatin g the motor for unnecessarily small changes in light intensity (Hertel et al., 2010). Single axis tracking These tracking systems can track on a horizontal or vertical axis. A horizontal axis is used in areas with short days and a high noon sun, such as the tropics. Conversely, vertical axis systems are used in areas with higher latitudes, where the days are long, but the sun does not get very high. These systems are made up of a long tube that the solar panels are attached to, and this tub is aligned in ei ther a northsouth or east west direction. It is supported on bearings mounted on pylons or frames, and will rotate slowly to follow the suns movement (Hertel et al., 2010). Dual axis tracking These tracking systems have both horizontal and vertical axis components, and track the suns movement very specifically. This is the type of tracker used to control astronomical telescopes, and so plenty of data and software is available to accurate track the sun using this type of system (Hertel et al., 2010).

PAGE 21

21 Passive tracking These tracking systems use a compressed gas with a low boiling point to detect imbalances in solar heat, and so causing the system to move to one side or the other. This system is much less precise than an active system, and so should not be used for high precision tracking applications such as CPV. While less precise, these systems are much cheaper than active tracking systems (Hertel et al., 2010). University of Florida Energy Use The University of Florida in Gainesville currently uses rough ly 75 MW of power and consumes 470,000 MWh a year. This is accomplished by a 46 MW cogeneration power plant on campus, and a mixture of coal, purchased power, gas, oil, and nuclear from around the state. Progress Energy is the universitys power provider, and Progress owns the cogeneration plant on campus. The purchased energy is purchased from Florida Power & Light and other smaller power providers (PPD 2010). In 2009, the University of Florida also purchased Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) in the amount o f 17.28 MWh (GRP 2010). UF spends about $38 million on electricity alone, and works to improve efficiency each year to keep that number down (PPD, 2010). Existing University Photovoltaic Installations The following universities are currently utilizing PV p anels on campus to some extent. This use may be educational, power producing, or both, depending on the size of the system and intent of the university. Arizona State University Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona is one of the leaders of sustainabl e universities in the nation. ASU is home to a Department of Sustainability, Advanced Photovoltaics Center, and Solar Power Laboratories. The Solar Power Lab is a part of

PAGE 22

22 the Arizona Institute for Renewable Energy. Different photovoltaic installations have been placed all around the campus, now totaling 10.5 MW of installed generating capacity. This solar network is comprised of individual systems ranging in generating size from 17 kW to 3.4 MW. Only two small installations, 180 kW total, are owned by ASU. The remainder of the systems is owned by a variety of renewable energy based organizations and companies. The university is planning another 5.2 MW to be installed during 2010. This is easily the largest photovoltaic installation on a university campus in the United States (Brixen, 2009). Colorado State University Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado installed a 2 MW photovoltaic array in 2009 on its Foothills Campus about three miles west of the main campus. This large installation covers f ifteen acres of land is comprised of 8,000 Trina Solar panels. The panels feature active tracking to track the suns movement. The system was financed by Xcel Energy and Renewable Ventures in an innovative public private partnership. The university is leasing the land for the installation and will pay a fixedrate for power for 20 years. A year earlier, CSU installed a 1.2 MW solar array on the Pueblo campus. Both of these installations are intended to serve a main function of power generation and a secon dary function of aiding in meeting state goals for renewable energy (Wilmsen, 2009). New Mexico State University New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico is home to the Southwest Region Experiment Station (SWRES), which is a threeacre test an d evaluation facility that was established by the US Department of Energy in 1980. NMSUs Southwest Technology Development Institute (SWTDI) operates the facility

PAGE 23

23 that is designed to test PV systems and educate people about PV systems (NMSU, 2005). University of Florida The University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida is already home to a small solar installation in the form of the Energy Research and Education Park. This park has three homes that are tied to a few ground mounted solar panels. This park was built in 1978 and funded by both federal and state governments. The park has historically been focused more on alternative uses for solar energy such as hot water, agricultural purposes, and wastewater recycling. The park has also explored more efficient means of photovoltaic energy conversion (AP, 1978). The University of Florida is also involved in the Solar Decathlon an international competition to advance sustainable living. The UF team is constructing a home based on the classic Florida cracker ho use design that is to be powered entirely by photovoltaics. After the competition in Madrid in 2010, the home will be brought back to the UF campus in Gainesville as a functional educational showcase (Watson, 2009). University of Vermont The University of Vermont in Burlington, Vermont installed a single photovoltaic installation on the south facing roof of the Cage Central Heating Plant in 2004. This is a small installation comprised of forty eight 120Watt panels that cover 500 square feet of roof space. The panels were placed in this location specifically so that a large number of people would pass by them daily, generating the most interest. The performance of the panels is monitored directly from the Cage Central Heating Plant. The panels are rated at 5 .8 kW and generate an average of 19 kWh each day. The project was funded by the

PAGE 24

24 Department of Energys Million Solar Roofs program and UVMs Physical Plant Department (UVM, 2004). Washington University Washing University in St. Louis, Missouri installed a single PV installation on the roof of the Olin Library in 2006. This very small installation is a 1 kW system comprised of six 170Watt solar panels. The project is intended to education the campus community about renewable energy systems. The project was financed by various local departments and organizations (WUSTL, 2009).

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Consumption and Cost Data The University of Florida in Gainesville is being used as a case study for this thesis, and so consumption data was obtained for the las t two years of operation. This data was obtained from the University of Florida Physical Plant Department. The consumption data was a monthly total in kWh and kW for every month for two years for the entire Gainesville campus as a whole. The 2009 consumpti on was totaled and used as the basis of comparison for the energy generation of each solar energy generation scenario evaluated. See Appendix A for UF consumption data. The University of Florida uses Progress Energy for its Gainesville campus energy needs, and a cost per kWh number was needed to assess the cost feasibility of solar power. The university receives a special price for power from Progress, but on PPDs suggestion, a standard price of $0.10/kWh was used for all UF related energy cost data. Energ y Consumption Reduction In order to make renewable energy systems more able to provide large portions of a universitys consumption, it is essential to focus on driving down the consumption of energy. The University of Florida has a comprehensive system in place focused on driving down energy consumptions in all sectors of energy use on campus. The Physical Plant Department (PPD) on the UF campus has an extensive list of Energy Conservation Measures broken out into three categories: 1) Implemented to Date, 2) In Process, and 3) In Consideration. The measures currently implemented include an on campus cogeneration plant that generates 100% of the campus steam, lighting retrofits, centralized chilled water plants, reclaimed water irrigation, efficient electric motor

PAGE 26

26 replacements, delamping hallways and common areas, chiller replacement program, HVAC systems monitoring, and more. The measures in process include ethanol fuel biodiesel integration, energy plant optimization, metering improvement programs, AHU au dits, a new Energy Department, LEED building requirements, and more. The measures in consideration include HVAC condensation reuse, improved lighting controls, biomass steam generating plant, alternative power generation, and more. The University of Florida was able to save $7.4 million just from the implementation of the cogeneration plant on campus to provide all necessary steam. Campus Useable Area In order to assess how much power could be generated on the University of Florida campus in Gainesville, it was necessary to identify the breakdown of useable area across the campus. Five areas were identified as possibilities for photovoltaic installations. These areas included open areas, building roofs, parking lots, parking garages, and on campus water bodi es. The square footage of each area was totaled individually and broken down into phases 1 5. The open areas would include any area not currently reserved as a conservation area, a sports field, or an agricultural zone. The area of building roofs would inc lude the entire flat area of every flat roof in the Gainesville campus. Any area used by HVAC equipment or other roof obstructions was excluded from this calculation. The parking lot area represents the entire paved area of every sizeable parking lot in th e Gainesville campus. The parking garage area represents the open paved area on the top level of each garage on campus. For water coverage, each sizeable body of water on campus was included by its total area. Different photovoltaic technologies and differ ent costs are unique to each phase and thus each total area must be calculated and analyzed separately.

PAGE 27

27 Energy Simulations Location specific solar radiation data was required for accurate performance estimates for this study. This data was obtained through Maui Softwares PV DesignPro, which uses a National Renewable Energy Laboratory database for national solar radiation data. The software was used to determine the optimum angle for placing solar panels, monthly performance data for specific solar panels, Net Zero Energy requirements, and an optimum solar panel conversion factor for the region. The panel used for testing was the SunPower SPR 315 panel. The optimum angle for performance in Gainesville, FL is 28 degrees from horizontal. This data was the basi s of all photovoltaic performance analysis for the University of Florida case study. Life Cycle Costs The last component of the results is a simple LCC per kWh of each possible scenario for each phase. This LCC includes gross first cost based on the cost per Watt installed with a production life of 20 years. This was computed using an existing LCC spreadsheet designed for a similar research project for the Florida Department of Transportation (Hertel et al., 2010). Web Based Solar Energy Calculator The fina l part of this study is a webbased calculator tool that will allow other universities in the state of Florida to more easily adapt this research into useable data. The same energy modeling that was used to determine the optimum panel angle and solar conversion efficiency for Gainesville was used for every major city in Florida. The web tool is based on an excel spreadsheet that is part of the results and analysis of the case study. This tool includes the ability to choose a location, which will then update relevant solar radiation data. It includes input spaces for area square footage of each

PAGE 28

28 phase and the option to use any of the possible scenarios for each phase. It then allows the user to specify a percentage of the inputted area to use in the estimate. It breaks out the peak watts/SF for each technology selected, and estimates system size, system cost, and system production based on the user inputs. It also calculates an estimated cost per installed watt based on provided cost assumptions that were used in this study. The five phases in the calculator may my clicked on to open up a popup window explaining each of the phases and scenarios as in the results and analysis section of the study.

PAGE 29

29 CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDY RESULTS A ND ANALYSIS The PV system design and layout for the University of Florida encompassed five areas around the Gainesville campus. Each of these areas were assigned a phase in the analysis of the data for each system. Each of these phases required a different approach to system design and lay out pertaining to the system type and potential support structure. The proposed installations are presented in the following six sections, Phase 1 through Phase 6 (see Table 4 2). Each phase has a written description and an estimate of the maximum solar pa nel area that could be in stalled. The description is followed by a summary of selected design alternatives. Each alternative, 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, annual energy generation given the type of technology, and the insta lled cost range. Additional Scenarios and detai ls are provided in Appendix A. The following design alternatives are schematic and would require more detailed analysis in or der to determine the electrical interconnect, the PV mounting system, the orientation, and the specific performance of the panel type. This chaper follows the framework from a similar study (Hertel et al., 2010). Phase 1: Open Areas In this specific case study, only one open area was examined and this area representing Phase 1 allows for 2,075,000 square feet of panel area. This area is Lake Alice field, and is being used only for the purposes of demonstration, as the field is a designated conservation area. No other open areas were considered on the University of Florida campus. This is because of the nature of the Gainesville campus, where

PAGE 30

30 every open space is already designated either agricultural, sports, or conservation. This will likely not be the case on all Florida campuses, so the following information is still relevant to campuses with useable open areas. This space would typically include land extending up to paved or improved surfaces, but not beyond. These areas can be used for fieldmounted types of PV systems, but changes to the landscaping may be necessary to accommodate the system s. Different amounts of open space may yield different appropriate system installations. This is considered Phase 1 due to the high visibility of open area photovolt aic installations, serving purposes as both power generation and educational. Figure 41 Scenario A: Rai l Mounted C rystallin e (Base C ase) Phase 1Scenario A: Rail Mounted Crystalline (Base Case) This scenario utilizes crystalline panels that are rail m ounted directly to the ground in a fixed position facing directly south at the optimum angl e of 28 degrees from horizontal (See Figure 41).

PAGE 31

31 Peak Power Range: 18.32 37.23 MW Energy Generation Range: 30,501,000 61,969,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $ 91,611,000 $186,128,000 Phase 1Scenario B : Passive Tracking Crystalline This scenario utilizes crystalline panels that are pole mounted off the ground to passively track the sun in one direction. This represents higher generation efficiency than the fi xed Scenario A. Peak Power Range: 18.32 37.23 MW Energy Generation Range: 36,022,000 73,186,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $91,611,000 $186,128,000 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. Peak Power Range: 18.32 37.23 MW Energy Generation Range: 36,022,000 73,186,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Ran ge: $100,772,000 $204,740,000 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 directions. This represents higher generation efficiency tha n the fixed Scenario A and the SingleAxis Scenarios B & C. Peak Power Range: 18.32 37.23 MW Energy Generation Range: 39,224,000 79,693,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $109,934,000 $223,353,000

PAGE 32

32 Phase 1Scenario E : Enclosed/Mounted Thin Film This sce nario would be exactly like Scenario 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. Peak Power Range: 10.25 24.90 MW Energ y Generation Range: 17,064,000 41,451,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $41,002,000 $99,600,000 Figure 42. Scenario F: Concentration Photovoltaics (CPV) Phase 1Scenario F : Concentrating Photovoltaics (CPV) The final scenario utilizes CPV throughout the open areas. This CPV system would be polemounted. CPV would be the 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 (See Figure 42) Peak Power Range: 20.29 40.48 MW Energy Generation Range: 33,783,000 67,393,000 kWh/yr

PAGE 33

33 Installed Cost Range: $142,055,000 $283,383,000 Phase 2: Building Roofs The Building Roofs specified in Phase 2 allow for approximately 3,419,000 square feet o f roof area and include the total useable area of every flat roof on the University of Florida campus Th is space excludes roof parapets and mechanical equipment areas on the roof as well as their shaded equivalents This space can be used for flat and ang led panels with limited mounting options to prevent voiding of current roof warranties. Figure 43. Scenario A: Solynda (Base Case) Phase 2Scenario A : Solyndra (Base Case) This base case utilizes Solyndras proprietary self ballasting tub ular panel sys tem. This system could be custom made for any University of Florida 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 repl acing (See Figure 43) Peak Power Range: 24.24 32.31 MW

PAGE 34

34 Energy Generation Range: 40,351,000 53,783,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $96,957,000 $129,231,000 Phase 2Scenario B: Flat Thin Film This scenario proposes a thin film of solar panels adher ed flat to the roof surface. This should not void the roof warranty, but would most likely have to be removed when the roof is replaced. This case may have the lowest peak power of the three scenarios. Peak Power Range: 16.89 41.03 MW Energy Generation Range: 25,694,000 62,415,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $50,667,000 $123,077,000 Figure 44. Scenario C: SunPower Roof Tile System Phase 2Scenario C: SunPower Roof Tile System This scenario is based on SunPowers own roof tile system and would al so not void the roof warranty. SunPower panels are positioned in a southfacing direction at a slight angle in rows along the roof surface. This represents the highest peak power of the three scenarios (See Figure 44). Peak Power Range: 54.87 61.33 MW E nergy Generation Range: 88,038,000 98,405,000 kWh/yr

PAGE 35

35 Installed Cost Range: $219,487,000 $245,333,000 Phase 3: Parking Lots The Parking Lots specified in Phase 3 allow for approximately 2,480,000 square feet of panel area and refers to the total paved area of every parking lot on the University of Florida campus. Landscaping and current lighting systems may need to be redesigned to maximize energy generation potential while min imizing intrusions and shading. All proposed systems allow for ventilation and varying degrees of natu ral light within the structure. This represents all campus parking lots, but does not include parking garages, which represent Phase 4. Figure 45. Scenario A: Crystalline Engineered Structure (Base C ase) Phase 3Scenario A : Crys talline Engineered Structure (Base Case) The base case scenario is comprised of an engineered structure designed to support a truss mounted crystalline panel system in the south facing direction. The

PAGE 36

36 supports would span between the islands of the parking l ots and would not have a solid roof in order to allow for ventilation and natural light (See Figure 45). Peak Power Range: 21.90 44.50 MW Energy Generation Range: 36,460,000 74,076,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $131,412,000 $266,990,000 Phase 3Scenario B : Thin Film Engineered Structure This scenario would involve an engineered structure similar to the above but designed to support a flat array of thin film PV panels. This would reduce energy generation as well as ventilation and natural light. Peak Power Range: 12.25 29.77 MW Energy Generation Range: 20,397,000 49,550,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $61,266,000 $148,824,000 Figure 46. Scenario C: Envision Solar Grove Phase 3Scenario C : Envision Solar Grove This scenario is based on Envisions Solar Grove covered parking systems. Envision designs variations of its Solar Tree system to accommodate any type of

PAGE 37

37 parking layout or facility. This scenario would leave large gaps between rows of vaulted solar trees throughout each parking l ot (See Figure 4 6) Peak Power: 42.17 MW Energy Generation: 70,195,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost: $253,001,000 Phase 4: Parking Garages The Parking Garages specified in Phase 4 allows for approximately 695,000 square feet of panel area and refers to the tota l paved area of the top level of all the parking garages on the University of Florida campus As described in Phase 3, l andscaping and current lighting systems may need to be redesigned to maximize energy generation potential while minimizing intrusions and shading. All proposed systems allow for ventilation and varying degrees of natural light within the structure. Figure 47. Scenario A: Crystalline Engineered Structure (Base Case) Phase 4Scenario A : Crystalline Engineered Structure (Base Case) The base case scenario is comprised of an engineered structure designed to support a truss mounted crystalline panel system in the south facing direction. The

PAGE 38

38 supports would span between the islands of the parking lots and would not have a solid roof in order to allow for ventilation and natural light (See Figure 47). Peak Power Range: 6.13 12.46 MW Energy Generation Range: 10,212,000 20,747,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $36,805,000 $74,778,000 Phase 4Scenario B : Thin Film Engineered Structure This scenario would involve an engineered structure similar to the above but designed to support a flat array of thin film PV panels. This would reduce energy generation as well as ventilation and natural light. Peak Power Range: 3.43 8.34 MW Energy Generation Range: 5,712,000 13,877,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $17,160,000 $41,682,000 Figure 48. Scenario C: Envision Solar Grove Phase 4Scenario C: Envision Solar Grove This scenario is based on Envisions Solar Grove covered parking systems. Envision designs variations of its Solar Tree system to accommodate any type of

PAGE 39

39 parking layout or facility. This scenario would leave large gaps between rows of vaulted solar trees throughout each parking lot (See Figure 4 8). Peak Power: 11.81 MW Energy Generat ion: 19,660,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost: $70,860,000 Phase 5: Water Coverage The Water Coverage specified in Phase 5 allows for approximately 1,114,000 square feet of panel area and every sizeable body of water on the University of Florida campus This is no t likely to be utilized due to cost, maintenance, and pond inhabitants, but is still a possibility for a large amount of power generation. Both of the following proposed scenarios include the use of crystalline panels to cover the entire bodies of water. B oth scenarios also allow for the rise and fall of pond water levels due to heavy rain or drought conditions Figure 49. Scenario A : Floating C rystalline Phase 5Scenario A : Floating Crystalline This scenario is a series of crystalline panels atop floating rafts supported by cables and pilings to acc ount for changing water levels (See Figure 49). Peak Power Range: 9.84 19.99 MW

PAGE 40

40 Energy Generation Range: 16,379,000 33,278,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $63,955,000 $129,939,000 Phase 5Scenario B : Mounted Crystalline This scenario is a seri e s of crystalline panels permanently mounted in a fixed position around the retention ponds. Peak Power Range: 9.84 19.99 MW Energy Generation Range: 16,379,000 33,278,000 kWh/yr Installed Cost Range: $63,955,000 $129,939,000 Phase 6: Educational/Artistic The Educatio nal/Artistic installation specified in Phase 6 refers to highly visible educational and/or artistic systems that could be implemented throughout the University of Florida campus Scenarios A, B, and C could be utilized simultaneously in multiple locations around the campus to demonstrate photovoltaic possibilities. Scenario C may be used to satisfy Floridas requirement for art on state property. Power output, however, is low. Figure 410. S cenario A: SKYShades Covered W alkway

PAGE 41

41 Phase 6 Scenario A : SKYShades Covered Walkway This scenario utilizes thinfilm panels integrated int o a SKYShades covered walkway. This solar canopy could be installed above any sidewalk or walkway on campus to generat e interest and produce a small amount of power (See Figure 410). Figure 411. Scenario B: SKYShades PowerBrella Phase 6Scenario B : SKYShades PowerBrella This scenario utilizes thinfilm panels integra ted into a SKYShades umbrella. These PowerBrellas could be placed anywhere there is an existing picnic table on campus This provides a fun way to immediately see the usefulness of solar power by allowing for the charging of portable devices by chargeports in the PowerBrella (See Figure 411).

PAGE 42

42 Figure 412. Scenario C: Solar/Photovoltaic S culpture Phase 6Scenario C : Solar/Photovoltaic Sculpture The final scenario utilizes any number or combination of photovoltaic technologies. Artists that would normally produce sculptures for the university could desi gn an installation of this type. This sculpture could incorporate night lighting that is powered by on board batteries charged during the day. This is a way to meet requirements for art on state property, night lighting, and generating interest in renewabl e energy (See Figure 4 12). Maximum Power Generation The first power generation scenario considered was the Net Zero Energy case, which would need to provide over 450,000 MWh over a given year. This was not achievable with the space available for PV instal lation, and so the maxium power

PAGE 43

43 generation case is presented here. This case is a 175.5 MW peak power system that produces 306,200 MWh over a given year, about twothirds of UFs yearly consumption. Table 4 1. Maximum Power Generation 1. Open Areas 2075000 D. Dual-Axis Tracking Crystalline (Max) 17.94 37.23 223,000,000 $ 79,700,000 2. Building Roofs 3418800 C. SunPower Roof Tiles (Max) 17.94 61.33 245,000,000 $ 98,400,000 3. Parking Lots 2480400 A. Crystalline Engineered Structure (Max) 17.94 44.50 267,000,000 $ 74,100,000 4. Parking Garages 694700 A. Crystalline Engineered Structure (Max) 17.94 12.46 74,800,000 $ 20,700,000 5. Water Coverage 1114300 A. Floating Crystalline (Max) 17.94 19.99 130,000,000 $ 33,300,000 175.51 939,800,000 $ 306,200,000 5.35 $ Angled panels are oriented 28 degrees from horizontal Base panel conversion 1664.7 (kWh/yr/kW) System Cost System Size (MW) Peak Watts/SF Input Parameters Estimated Totals Estimated Average $/Watt Phase Square Footage Scenario* Annual Production (kWh) System Estimates While this case d isplays maximum power generation, there are nearly an infinite number of options for other scenarios depending upon the PV technologies selected and the percentage of their implementation. The options presented here represent the highest performing systems across the board. Other scenarios may be considered more desirable or appropriate for a given situation.

PAGE 44

44 Table 4 2. Summary of Each Scenario by Phase Scenario$/kWh System Cost A: Rail Mounted Crystalline28.74 MW 47,842,000 kWh 0.18 $ 91,610,000.00 $ B: Passive Tracking Crystalline28.74 MW 56,501,000 kWh 0.15 $ 91,610,000.00 $ C: Single-Axis Tracking Crystalline28.74 MW 56,501,182 kWh 0.16 $ 100,771,000.00 $ D: Dual-Axis Tracking Crystalline28.74 MW 61,524,572 kWh 0.16 $ 109,932,000.00 $ E: Enclosed/Mounted Thin Film15.56 MW 25,907,726 kWh 0.14 $ 41,004,000.00 $ F: Concentrating PV26.42 MW 43,973,051 kWh 0.25 $ 142,058,000.00 $ A: Solyndra28.10 MW 46,783,064 kWh 0.14 $ 112,412,000.00 $ B: Flat Thin Film25.64 MW 39,009,431 kWh 0.12 $ 76,923,000.00 $ C: SunPower58.75 MW 97,794,466 kWh 0.14 $ 234,984,000.00 $ A: Crystalline Engineered Structure34.35 MW 57,189,104 kWh 0.21 $ 206,124,000.00 $ B: Thin Film Engineered Structure18.60 MW 30,968,414 kWh 0.18 $ 93,015,000.00 $ C: Envision Solar Grove42.17 MW 70,195,405 kWh 0.21 $ 253,002,000.00 $ A: Crystalline Engineered Structure9.62 MW 16,017,743 kWh 0.21 $ 57,732,000.00 $ B: Thin Film Engineered Structure5.21 MW 8,673,087 kWh 0.18 $ 26,050,000.00 $ C: Envision Solar Grove11.81 MW 19,660,107 kWh 0.21 $ 70,860,000.00 $ A: Floating Crystalline15.43 MW 25,691,315 kWh 0.23 $ 100,314,500.00 $ B: Mounted Crystalline15.43 MW 25,691,315 kWh 0.23 $ 100,314,500.00 $ 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 Parking Garages Phase 5 Water Coverage MW kWh/yr Phase 1 Open Areas Phase 2 Building Roofs Phase 3 Parking Lots

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECO MMENDATIONS FOR FURT HER STUDY Case Study Conclusions The University of Florida case study demonstrates that a significant amount of power may be generated by installing PV across a campus. While there is nowhere near enough power generation to satisfy the University of Floridas huge consumption, solar power could still poten tially provide half of UFs power needs. Combined with the on campus 46 MW cogeneration plant, UF could potentially generate all of its power needs on campus. While not Net Zero Energy, this would be a significant achievement as the cogeneration plant is s till a high efficiency power plant. The installation of this large number of PV arrays represents a huge initial cost investment, and would likely not be instituted on a large scale without third party investments or funding. Often power providers, renewab le energy organizations, and government programs can be utilized to cover the initial cost of a PV installation. Application to University Campuses in Florida The data in this study focused on the University of Florida in Gainesville, but the data is inten ded to be applicable to other university campuses in the state of Florida. The best way to do this is to follow the basic steps in the methodology of this report. These steps have been integrated into an online tool that can be used by any Florida universi ty. Steps for Application to Other Universities The following six steps form the framework for how to apply this research to other universities in the state of Florida. 1. Identify current university energy consumption.

PAGE 46

46 2. Identify ways of reducing current con sumption. 3. Indentify, quantify, and break out useable areas on campus. 4. Prioritize areas as phases based on area type, energy generation potential, and cost. 5. Run energy simulations to determine specific solar radiation data and PV performance data. 6. Analyze data for each scenario and phase to determine optimum PV system. Florida University Solar Energy Calculator In an attempt to simplify the process of applying this research to other universities, a webbased calculator has been developed that allows a user t o input several parameters to determine the specific output opportunities that might exist on a campus. There are four input fields within this tool and they include: location, area in square feet, scenario, and percentage of area used. The user may choose a location from a drop down menu that will then change the optimum panel angle and PV conversion efficiency based on energy simulations for that city. All major cities from the state of Florida are included and this data will affect the output results for the system selected. There are five phases in the tool based on the five phases of the UF case study. The user may input any square footage number into each of the five phases. For example, a large roof may be 10,000 square feet, and so a user could enter 10,000 to find the potential output for that single roof, or enter the total roof square footage available for a university. As this data is completely dependent on the user, it is important that the user is aware of shading limitations that may be present for PV installations when considering useable square footages. The next user input is the scenario dropdown menus for each phase. These menus present all of the technologies considered in this research and calculate

PAGE 47

47 the peak power per Watt, total peak power, cost, and estimated output based on all the user inputted parameters. The last user input column is the percentage of area used, and this allows the user to specify a percentage of the inputted area to calculate in the system estimates. This tool all ows a user to simply input whatever square footages a campus may have and see the potential cost and power output for any variety of photovoltaic system installations. In order to provide further benefit, each of the five phases is clickable and will open a popup window outlining each scenario in each phase as is done in Chapter 4 of this study. This tool can be accessed from http://www.cce.ufl.edu/FUSEC/FUSEC.htm Recommendations for Further Study Th is study focused on the University of Florida as a case study for assessing the feasibility of solar power on Florida campuses. An obvious extension of this research would be applying this data to other specific universities, making changes to location spe cific variables as necessary. This research framework could be utilized and modified for similar studies in other states as well. Further research could also look further into procuring funding for university photovoltaic installations, in order to make so lar power a more feasible alternative. Each of the university installations discussed in the literature review was made possible by third party funding. In most cases the PV installations are not owned by the university, but by financiers such as utility c ompanies or renewable energy organizations. This allows the university the opportunity for clean, renewable power that can be used for both power and research while leaving the major initial cost to third party owners. At the University of Florida in Gainesville, a referendum was passed by a student vote that provided for additional student fees to be collected in

PAGE 48

48 order to pay for renewable energy or energy conservation measures. This is another potential way of funding that could be further explored in tan gent with this research.

PAGE 49

49 APPENDIX A CASE STUDY SYSTEM DE SIGN DATA The data used throughout the RESULTS AND ANALYSIS segment of this study is based on various assumptions and calculations as presented in this appendix. The following is a list of assumptions relevant to Chapter 4 of the study This appendix follows the framework of a similar study (Hertel et al., 2010). 1. Solar radiation data is based on the latest National Solar Radiation Database data for the Gainesville Regional Airport (GNV) in Gainesville, FL 2. Calculations w ere made using Maui Software PV Design Pro. 3. The areas used for all calculations are summarized below and are further detailed within this appendix. These areas were calculated for each phase and are representative of the maximum square footage of solar panel, not the installable surface area. Table A 1. Panel Area by Phase Description Panel Area P hase 1: Open Areas 2,075,000 SF P hase 2: Building Roofs 3,418,800 SF P hase 3: Parking Lots 2,480,400 SF P hase 4: Parking Garages 694,7 00 SF P hase 5: Water Coverage 1,114,300 SF Phase 6: Educational/Artistic N/A 4. The optim um angle for Gainesville, FL was determined to be 28 degrees from horizontal based on the above mentioned radiation data and software. 5. The optimum angle yielded a y early kWh per kW of 1640 based on a crystalline SunPower 315 panel with 19.3% efficiency. 6. Single Axis tracking represents a 18.1% increase in efficiency over a n optimally angled fixed panel.

PAGE 50

50 7. Dual Axis tracking represents a 28.6% i ncrease in efficiency over an optimally angled fixed panel. 8. Flat oriented panels represent a 8.6% decrease in efficiency below an optimally angled fixed panel. 9. SunPower Roof Tile panels are angled at 10 degrees from horizontal and represent a 3.3% decrease in efficiency below an op timally angled fixed panel. 10. Pr oduction % or Percentage of 2009 Production refers to the production of a proposed photovoltaic sy stem as a percentage of the 2009 consumption at the University of Florida. 11. 2009 consumption/ usage is based on the entire Univer sity of Florida Gainesville campus for a total of 458,084,000 kWh consumed for the year. 12. Production summary minimums are based on the lowest performing technologies, while maximums are based on the highest performing technologies, and means are based on th e average of all researched available technologies for every given phase.

PAGE 51

51 Table A 2. Phase 1 Scenario Data Phase 1: Open Areas 2,075,000 P1-A P1-DW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage W kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 18,322,000 30,501,000 7% Minimum 18,322,000 39,223,815 9% Mean 28,739,000 47,842,000 10% Mean 28,739,000 61,524,572 13% Maximum 37,226,000 61,970,000 14% Maximum 37,226,000 79,693,577 17%P1-B P1-EW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage W kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 18,322,000 36,021,000 8% Minimum 10,251,000 17,064,840 4% Mean 28,739,000 56,501,000 12% Mean 15,563,000 25,907,726 6% Maximum 37,226,000 73,187,000 16% Maximum 24,900,000 41,451,030 9%P1-C P1-FW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage W kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 18,322,000 36,021,248 8% Minimum 20,294,000 33,783,422 7% Mean 28,739,000 56,501,182 12% Mean 26,415,000 43,973,051 10% Maximum 37,226,000 73,186,714 16% Maximum 40,483,000 67,392,050 15% Crystalline W / m2 W / sf Minimum 95 8.83 Mean 149 13.85 Maximum 193 17.94 Thin Film W / m2 W / sf Minimum 53 4.94 Mean 81 7.50 Maximum 129 12.00 Concentrating PV W / m2 W / sf Minimum 105 9.78 Mean 137 12.73 Maximum 210 19.51 Enclosed/Mounted Thin Film Concentrating PV SQ FT Passive Tracking Crystalline Rail Mounted Crystalline Single-Axis Tracking Crystalline Dual-Axis Tracking Crystalline

PAGE 52

52 Table A 3. Phase 2 Scenario Data 3,418,800 SQ FT P2-AW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 24,239,000 40,350,663 9% Mean 28,103,000 46,783,064 10% Maximum 32,308,000 53,783,128 12%P2-BW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 16,889,000 25,694,407 6% Mean 25,641,000 39,009,431 9% Maximum 41,026,000 62,415,698 14%P2-CW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 54,872,000 91,345,418 20% Mean 58,746,000 97,794,466 21% Maximum 61,333,000 102,101,045 22% Solyndra W / m2 W / sf Minimum 76 7.09 Mean 88 8.22 Maximum 102 9.45 Thin Film W / m2 W / sf Minimum 53 4.94 Mean 81 7.50 Maximum 129 12.00 SunPower W / m2 W / sf Minimum 173 16.05 Mean 185 17.18 Maximum 193 17.94 SunPower Solyndra Flat Thin Film Phase 2: Building Roofs

PAGE 53

53 Table A 4. Phase 3 Scenario Data Phase 3: Parking Lots 2,480,400 SQ FT P3-AW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 21,902,000 36,460,259 8% Mean 34,354,000 57,189,104 12% Maximum 44,498,000 74,075,821 16%P3-BW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 12,253,000 20,397,569 4% Mean 18,603,000 30,968,414 7% Maximum 29,765,000 49,549,796 11%P3-CW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 42,167,000 70,195,405 15% Mean 42,167,000 70,195,405 15% Maximum 42,167,000 70,195,405 15% Crystalline W / m2 W / sf Minimum 95 8.83 Mean 149 13.85 Maximum 193 17.94 Thin Film W / m2 W / sf Minimum 53 4.94 Mean 81 7.50 Maximum 129 12.00 Envision W / m2 W / sf Minimum 183 17.00 Mean 183 17.00 Maximum 183 17.00 Crystalline Engineered Structure Thin Film Engineered Structure Envision Solar Grove

PAGE 54

54 Table A 5. Phase 4 Scenario Data Phase 4: Parking Garages 694,700 SQ FT P4-AW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 6,134,000 10,211,270 2% Mean 9,622,000 16,017,743 3% Maximum 12,463,000 20,747,156 5%P4-BW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 3,432,000 5,713,250 1% Mean 5,210,000 8,673,087 2% Maximum 8,336,000 13,876,939 3%P4-CW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 11,810,000 19,660,107 4% Mean 11,810,000 19,660,107 4% Maximum 11,810,000 19,660,107 4% Crystalline W / m2 W / sf Minimum 95 8.83 Mean 149 13.85 Maximum 193 17.94 Thin Film W / m2 W / sf Minimum 53 4.94 Mean 81 7.50 Maximum 129 12.00 Envision W / m2 W / sf Minimum 183 17.00 Mean 183 17.00 Maximum 183 17.00 Crystalline Engineered Structure Thin Film Engineered Structure Envision Solar Grove

PAGE 55

55 Table A 6. Phase 5 Scenar io Data Phase 5: Water Coverage 1,114,300 SQ FT P5-AW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 9,839,000 16,378,983 4% Mean 15,433,000 25,691,315 6% Maximum 19,991,000 33,279,018 7%P5-BW kWh / yr % of 2009 usage Minimum 9,839,000 16,378,983 4% Mean 15,433,000 25,691,315 6% Maximum 19,991,000 33,279,018 7% Crystalline W / m2 W / sf Minimum 95 8.83 Mean 149 13.85 Maximum 193 17.94 Floating Crystalline Mounted Crystalline Table A 7. UF Net Zero Calculations UF 2009 Consumption PV Output (100 kW System) PV Output (300 MW System) Utility Costs January 33,651,777 11,523 34,567,615 (36,633.53) $ February 32,800,035 11,682 35,045,991 (89,838.24) $ March 30,149,249 15,321 45,961,590 (632,493.64) $ April 33,711,876 16,881 50,643,201 (677,253.00) $ May 35,343,795 16,529 49,587,789 (569,759.76) $ June 38,630,653 13,881 41,643,258 (120,504.20) $ July 42,691,929 14,061 42,182,871 50,905.80 $ August 47,513,400 13,291 39,873,153 764,024.70 $ September 42,419,390 12,983 38,948,979 347,041.10 $ October 44,064,009 13,145 39,436,218 462,779.10 $ November 43,398,325 12,635 37,906,233 549,209.20 $ December 33,669,439 11,951 35,853,060 (87,344.84) $ 458,043,877 kWh 152,081 kWh 491,649,958 kWh (39,867.31) $

PAGE 56

56 Table A 8. PV DesignPro Calculations Tilt (Degrees) PV Output (100 kW System) % of Optimum Angle kWh/yr/kW Notes 90 97108.06 58.33% 971.08 Vertical 45 160617.20 96.48% 1606.17 30 166430.46 99.97% 1664.30 29 166478.62 100.00% 1664.79 28 166484.10 100.00% 1664.84 Optimum Angle 27 166446.88 99.98% 1664.47 26 166365.88 99.93% 1663.66 25 166244.39 99.86% 1662.44 20 164991.10 99.10% 1649.91 15 162705.64 97.73% 1627.06 10 159458.05 95.78% 1594.58 5 155262.57 93.26% 1552.63 0 150144.36 90.19% 1501.44 Flat 2-Axis 217560.02 130.68% 2175.60 Dual Axis Tracking 1-Axis 199142.78 119.62% 1991.43 Single Axis Tracking Table A 9. PV DesignPro Assumptions Location: Gainesville (GNV) Type: Fixed Tilt Azimuth: 180 Degrees (Due South) Tilt: 28 Degrees (From Horizontal) Cost of Electricity: 0.10 $ PV Panel: SunPower 315 Table A 10. PV Conversion Efficiencies kWh/yr/kW 1664.7 Fixed (Optimum Tilt) kWh/yr/kW 1966.0 1-Axis (18.1% Efficiency Increase) kWh/yr/ kW 2140.8 2-Axis (28.6% Efficiency Increase) kWh/yr/kW 1521.4 Flat (8.6% Efficiency Decrease) kWh/yr/kW 1604.4 SunPower 10 Degree Tilt (3.3% Efficiency Decrease)

PAGE 57

57 Tabl e A 1 1 UF Energy Consumption Monthly Monthly kWh kW 02/01/10 28 30,089,435 60,013 01/04/10 34 36,099,640 64,399 12/01/09 29 33,669,439 65,072 11/02/09 32 43,398,325 75,662 75.66 MW 10/01/09 30 44,064,009 74,510 09/01/09 29 42,419,390 74,773 08/03/09 33 47,513,400 73,139 07/01/09 29 42,691,929 73,313 06/02/09 32 38,630,653 66,038 05/01/09 30 35,343,795 62,512 04/01/09 29 33,711,876 62,011 03/03/09 29 30,149,249 57,502 02/02/09 31 32,800,035 60,914 01/02/09 31 33,651,777 60,181 12/02/08 29 30,821,831 68,604 11/03/08 33 40,307,235 69,212 10/01/08 29 42,194,059 74,867 09/02/08 32 43,455,855 72,986 08/01/08 31 43,368,914 71,206 07/01/08 29 39,197,947 68,893 06/02/08 32 39,454,943 64,512 05/01/08 30 35,700,398 65,088 04/01/08 29 32,226,007 61,402 03/03/08 31 34,836,126 62,775 458,043,877.00 kWh 458,043.88 MWh Peak Power 2009 Average Read Date Days

PAGE 58

58 Table A 12. Cost Assumptions Cases $/W att Base Solar Panel $3.00 Thin Film $1.00 CPV + $1.00 Support System (Ground) + $1.00 Single Axis Tracking + $0.50 Dual Axis Tracking + $1.00 Electrical Integration + $1.00 Parking Lot Structure + $2.00 Parking Garage Structure + $2.00 Water C overage Support + $2.50 Table A 13. Florida City Energy Simulation Data Locations Opt. Angle Conv. Eff. Daytona Beach 28 1776.9 Fort Lauderdale 26 1606.4 Fort Myers 27 1728.0 Gainesville 28 1664.7 Jacksonville 29 1670.4 Key West 25 1854.7 Lakeland 28 1685.8 Miami 25 1723.3 Orlando 27 1637.7 Panama City 30 1751.6 Pensacola 29 1639.5 St. Petersburg 28 1798.2 Sarasota 27 1770.4 Tallahassee 29 1691.1 Tampa 28 1806.3 West Palm Beach 27 1761.5

PAGE 59

59 LIST OF REFERENCES Associated Press. (1978). UF Sets Up Energy Park Ocala Star Banner. BCCA. (2002). Look up Latitude and Longitude USA Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http ://www.bcca.org/misc/qiblih/latlong_us.html#FLORIDA Brixen, Dave. (2009). Campus Solarization Status. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://asu.edu/fm/documents/oua/campus_solarization_2009_06.pdf Green Report Card (GRC). (2010). The College Sustainab ility Report Card: University of Florida Gainesville Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report card 2010/schools/university of floridagainesville/surveys/campus survey Hertel, L., Kibert, C., Minchin, E., Ries, R., Sander s, J., Sherif, S.A., Walters, Russel., et al. (2010). A Comprehensive Solar Power System for the Turkey Lake Service Plaza. ISEA. (2006). Solar Electricity Photovoltaics (PV). Retrieved September 24, 2009, from http://www.firstbtu.com/ISEA_PV_Basics.pdf New Mexico State University (NMSU). (2005). Southwest Technology Development Institute: Photovoltaic. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://www.nmsu.edu/~tdi/Photovoltaics/PV Energy.html PPD. (2010). Physical Plant Department: Energy. Retrieved Februar y 22, 2010, from http://www.ppd.ufl.edu/energy.htm University of Vermont (UVM). (2004). Solar Energy Project: About the Solar Panels Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://www.uvm.edu/~solar/?Page=about.html Washington University (WUSTL). (2009). Wash ington University Solar Panels. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://solarpanels.wustl.edu/default.htm Watson, Kathryn. (2010). UF students solar house to compete internationally Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://news.ufl.edu/2010/02/25/solar decathlon/ Wilmsen, Emily. (2009). Solar power plant to be built on Foothills Campus. Retrieved February 22, 2010, from http://www.today.colostate.edu/story.aspx?id=1908 WWF. (2008). The Living Planet Report 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http:/ /assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report_2008.pdf

PAGE 60

60 Jason Sanders was born in Shreveport, LA in the summer of 1986. He was born the son of a pastor and with an immediate inclination for creativity and music. He began his education career homeschooled, and then privateschooled, and then attended public schools through high school. Jason was one of two National Merit Scholars at C. E. Byrd High School during his graduation year or 2004. This allowed him to attend the University of Florida with greatly reduced costs. After a brief stint in a Digital Arts and Sciences Engineering program, Jason began his path to a bachelors degree in Building Construction due to his eternal love for LEGOs. He graduated with a B.S. in the fall of 2004, and immediately began pursuing a Master of Science in building construction, with a rapidly growing passion for sustainability. He funded his graduate studies by acting as both a Teaching Assistant for a Building Information Modeling course and a Researc h Assistant for research projects with the Florida Departments of Transportation and Education. He will graduate in May 2010 with a new degree, and then attempt to figure out what to do next. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH