Sustainable Building Design

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Sustainable Building Design a Renewable Energy Case Study
Physical Description:
1 online resource (60 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Froehlich,Michael Paul
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.A.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Architecture
Committee Chair:
Nawari, Nawari Omer
Committee Members:
Kibert, Charles J
Smith, Thomas

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
building -- case -- coal -- design -- energy -- photovoltaics -- power -- renewable -- study -- sustainable
Architecture -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Architecture thesis, M.S.A.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
This study investigates the role of sustainable building design in the domestic energy infrastructure. In this work, the energy mix and environmental consequences of current domestic electrical production are explored. Photovoltaics (PV) play a small but important role in the nation?s energy supply, therefore, a case study is investigated to determine the various relationships between sustainable building design and PV. Results indicated that a small PV system can contribute significantly towards reducing the electrical consumption of a building as well as decrease local toxic emissions. The study also addresses challenges as well as opportunities to impel further research, development and integration of renewable energy in sustainable building design.
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 Michael Paul Froehlich.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.A.S.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local:
Adviser: Nawari, Nawari Omer.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID:
UFE0043209:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 SUSTAINABLE BUILDING DESIGN: A RENEWABLE ENERGY CASE STUDY By MICHAEL FROEHLICH A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER O F SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Michael Froehlich

PAGE 3

3 To A.C.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Nawari for being a brilliant mentor and advisor. I would also like to thank Dr. Kibert and Professor Smith for their sage adv ice and helpful without the love and support of A.C.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 2 BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 11 The Imperative ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 Perspective ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15 A Study in Contrast ................................ ................................ ................................ 16 A Sustainable Path ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 Environmental Costs of PV ................................ ................................ ..................... 19 Obstacles to Implementation ................................ ................................ .................. 21 Micro conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 23 Scientific Progress ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 23 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 33 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 33 Scope ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 36 The Case ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 37 The Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 39 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 48 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 54 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 60

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Select list of compounds released as a result of burning coal. ........................... 2 6 2 2 Controlled emissions from the combustion of one ton of coal. ........................... 27 2 3 Heat rate for various types of coal. ................................ ................................ ..... 28 2 4 Energy c onsumption by sector for 2010 ................................ ............................. 29

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 U.S. domestic electricity supply by primary energy source for 2007. .................. 25 2 2 PV output at 100% growth each year ................................ ................................ 30 2 3 Physics of a PV cell ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 2 4 E lectronic model of a PV cell ................................ ................................ .............. 32 3 1 Digital model of a Solyndra PV module ................................ .............................. 42 3 2 Detailed drawing of a Solyndra PV module ................................ ........................ 43 3 3 M.E. Rinker Hall PV rooftop plan ................................ ................................ ........ 44 3 4 One line electrical diagram of PV system ................................ ........................... 45 3 5 Detailed line drawing of PV system ................................ ................................ .... 46 3 6 Digital model of PV system ................................ ................................ ................. 47 4 1 Monthly AC power output of a 41.93 kW PV system ................................ .......... 50 4 2 Yearly AC output including system degradation ................................ ................. 51 4 3 Cumulative AC output ................................ ................................ ......................... 52 4 4 Simple payback analysis ................................ ................................ .................... 53

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D egree of Master of Science SUSTAINABLE BUILDING DESIGN: A RENEWABLE ENERGY CASE STUDY By Michael Froehlich August 2011 Chair: Nawari Nawari Major: Architecture This study investigates the role of sustainable building design in the domestic energy infr astructure. In this work, the energy mix and environmental consequences of current domestic electrical production are explored. Photovoltaics (PV) play a small but d etermine the various relationships between sustainable building design and PV. Results indicated that a small PV system can contribute significantly towards reducing the electrical consumption of a building as well as decrease local toxic emissions. The study also addresses challenges as well as opportunities to impel further research, development and integration of renewable energy in sustainable building design.

PAGE 9

9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ng issue, not only because of its environmental impacts, but also because of the probability of source of energy drain. They consume approximately one third of t energy mix and almost two thirds of domestic electricity supply (Kibert, 2008; EIA, 2009a). Therefore, optimizing energy use is a preeminent goal in sustainable building design. Sassi (2006) provides three broad sustainable design str ategies for optimizing the energy profile of a building: Minimizing energy requirements, Maximizing energy efficiency, and Utilizing renewable energy sources. Minimizing energy requirements or conserving energy using sustainable design principles includes natural physical and environmental properties to moderate: heat, cold, light, shade, insulation and ventilation. For example, heat transfer through windows accounts for approximately et al ., 2006). Integrating advanced window technologies such as highly insulating systems and dynamic windows (windows that can change from clear to tinted in response to external conditions) can redu ce heating and cooling loads by as much as 50% (Arasteh et al ., shaded rooftop can reach 160F in the heat of summer. This heat is conducted through the roof membrane and substantially increase

PAGE 10

10 comprehensive rooftop garden, the temperature of the roof can be held to an average of 77F to 78F (Peck and van der Linde, 2010). This natural form of insulation can significantly decrease both coo ling loads in the summer and heating loads in the winter. Maximizing energy efficiency includes methods to reduce the load of a building by employing highly efficient mechanical and electrical systems that must consume energy to operate. This is achieve d by incorporating highly efficient lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation and auxiliary systems and appliances. For example, utilizing tankless water heaters can provide from 25% to 45% energy savings over conventional storage tank water heaters (Burch et al ., 2008). Likewise, changing from incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent lighting can save up to 75% of lighting energy use (Gevorkian, 2008). opportunities yet pose s multiple challenges. The primary renewable energy technologies that can be integrated into the building envelope are wind, solar, fuel cells, and biomass. Each of these technologies has advantages and disadvantages. For example, generating electricity from the wind can be quite cost effective. However, if it is not sighted properly, wind power can be noisy and is sometimes dangerous to birds and other wildlife. Biomass is cheap, but it often produces a significant amount of carbon dioxide as well as other harmful pollutants such as particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. Hydrogen fuel cells show promise for generating clean renewable energy, but it is currently prohibitively expensive. Solar power has many advantages and a few disadvantages and will be addressed at length in the following chapters.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND The Imperative review how electrical power is generated in the U.S. As shown in Figure 2 1, the l argest primary energy contribution to electricity supply is from coal. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), power derived from coal accounts for approximately 49% of current domestic electricity production (EIA, 2010). Together, the projected to burn 2 trillion 112 billion pounds of coal in 2010 (EIA, 2009a). A staggering array of toxic emissions result from the combustion of coal. Table 2 1 show s a small but representative list of toxic compounds released into the environment as a result of burning it. Table 2 2 shows the approximate quantity of emissions of several compounds released as a result of the combustion of one ton of coal incorporatin g pollution control mechanisms. Although these tables are indicative of the dangers of using coal to produce electricity: there are many types of coal (each containing a unique chemical composition) and several methods to fire it, so this information can only be used as a rough estimate. For example, anthracite coal is mainly used for residential and commercial space heating while anthracite refuse (i.e. coal mine waste) has been used for steam electric power generation since the early 1980s (EIA, 2009b). In addition, there appears to be a lack of understanding regarding the extent and effectiveness of pollution control technologies at coal fired power plants. Commonly combustion pollution control measures are

PAGE 12

12 prim arily directed at reducing the emissions of four criteria air pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and particulate matter. It appears that many people consider these pollution control measures as highly effective and their implementation le gitimizes the use of coal as a relatively benign method of electricity generation (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 2011). However, as Tables 2 1 and 2 2 show, these four criteria pollutants are by no means the only toxic chemicals released as a result of burning coal. Also, in practice, the effectiveness of any one pollution control measure at reducing one criteria pollutant is highly variable and can be inconsistent. Furthermore, even with current pollution control measures in place: bill ions of pounds of toxic chemicals are released into the air each year as a result of burning coal in the U.S. The most common systems for reducing particulate matter in stack emissions include fabric filters, mechanical collectors, particulate scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators. Flue gas desulfurization systems consist of wet scrubbers and dry scrubbers which incorporate spray dryer adsorbers and dry sorbent injection methods. Nitrogen dioxide control primarily consists of selective catalytic red uction and selective noncatalytic reduction, and mercury emissions are partially controlled via all of these methods. In practice, the effectiveness of each of these pollution control measures is variable and inconsistent. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the efficiency of removing nitrogen oxides from coal combustion ranges from 10% to 95%, s ulfur dioxides from 25% to 98%, and particulate matter from 80% to 99% (EPA, 1998) However, even if the claim that one type of pollution co

PAGE 13

13 emissions is true, there is still a problem. Releasing 1% of something toxic into the air is still toxic and can add up very quickly. To wit, in 2007, even with current pollution control measures in place: 17 billion 860 million pounds of sulfur dioxides, 6 billion 580 million pounds of nitrogen oxides, 94 thousand pounds of mercury and thousands of pounds of dozens of other toxic chemicals were emitted into the air as a result of burning coal for domestic electricity generation (EIA, 2010; EPA, 1998). In addition to the toxic emissions that result from burning it: the extraction, processing, storage, transportation and disposal of coal generate significant environmental effects as well. Mining coal destroys exceptionally large areas of land, and in many instances entire mountaintops are laid to waste ( Loeb, 2007 ). A common industry practice is to dispose of mining waste and debris into nearby streams, riv ers and other surface waters (May, 2009). Coal ash is often stored in ponds and piles in landfills near coal power plants. After a rainfall, water can run off the ash piles and flush heavy metals and other toxic chemicals into nearby soils and bodies of water. In 2008, more than one billion gallons of fly ash sludge breached an embankment at a coal power plant in Kingston, Tennessee and flooded the surrounding community (Mansfield, 2009) Methane and carbon monoxide are often released during the mining process, and each year dozens of human fatalities result from explosions, suffocation, and other unsafe mining practices ( Alford, 2009) Mining, processing, storage, disposal and transportation of coal generate additional emissions due to the heavy machin ery involved in these processes. Outside of its environmental effects, the conversion from coal to electricity is quite inefficient. On average, a modern well designed power plant consumes over one

PAGE 14

14 pound of coal to produce one kilowatt hour (kWh) of ele ctricity. Depending on which type of coal is burned and which method is used to fire it, the range of electrical output is highly variable. For example, in 2009 the average heat rate for coal within the electric power sector was 9,955 British thermal uni ts per pound or Btu/lb (EIA, 2009a). Table 2 3 shows the heat rate for various types of coal ranges from 4,500 to 14,000 Btu/lb. Furthermore, the efficiency of the power plant that produces electricity is highly variable. According to EPA (1985), the av erage steam electric power plant consumes 10,500 Btu/kWh. Low efficiency power plants consume 14,000 Btu/kWh and high efficiency plants consume 8,000 Btu/kWh. Therefore, Equations 2 1 through 2 3 show that it takes anywhere from one half pound to over t hree pounds of coal to produce one kWh of electricity. (2 1) (2 2) (2 3) These results do not include transmission line losses, or the power lost between the generating station and t he end user. Line losses occur due to the combination of long transmission distances and the resistance of the wires as well as other environmental and material factors. In 2008, the percentage of electricity lost in transmission was 6.9% (EIA, 2010). I ndeed, Gevorkian (2008) estimates that it takes up to five pounds of coal to produce one kWh of electricity.

PAGE 15

15 Perspective To put these numbers into perspective: a modern, highly efficient refrigerator with top loading freezer (15 cubic feet total box sp ace) consumes approximately one kWh of electricity per day. Assuming average electrical conversion rates, this is equivalent to burning one pound of coal per day. Likewise, a modern, highly efficient desktop computer consumes approximately 150 watts per hour. Turn it on for 8 hours, and it is the equivalent of burning 1.2 pounds of coal. Energy use per capita in the U.S. is between 310 and 360 million Btu per person per year (EIA, 2009a). Table 2 4 shows that electric power accounts for approximately 4 1.08% of domestic energy use. Since coal accounts for 48.51% of electricity production, it follows that per capita coal consumption is approximately 18.3 pounds of coal per day (Eq. 2 4). (2 4) Likewise, since the U.S. consumed 2 trillion 92 billion pounds of coal in 2007 for electricity production and according to the 2010 U.S. census there are 308,745,538 people in the U.S., it follows that per capita coal consumption equals approximately 18.6 pounds of coal per day (Eq. 2 5). (2 5) Gevorkian (2008) corroborates these calculations by reporting that it takes 20 pounds of coal to generate sufficient energy requirements per person per day. Thus, if each

PAGE 16

16 person in the U.S. was responsible for generating their own electricity: they would have to import a truckload of coal 11.5 feet long, by 11.5 feet wide, by 11.5 feet high into their local power station every month, and would burn over 3.3 tons of coal every year. A Study in Contrast In stark contrast t o the sheer magnitude of the coal power industry and its attendant environmental effects, power derived from photovoltaics (PV) accounts for less than one eighth of 1% of current domestic electrical production (EIA, 2009a). In 2009, there were 1,653 megaw atts (MW) of grid tied PV installations in the U.S. (Solar Energy Industries Association, 2010). For each kilowatt of capacity, the output of a PV system ranges from approximately 500 kWh per year in northern locations such as Iceland to around 2000 kWh p er year in sunny locations such as California (Oliver and Jackson, 2000). Considering the mean output of a PV system to be 1250 kWh per kW of installed capacity, it follows that approximately 2.06 terrawatt hours of electricity was produced by grid tied P V systems in 2009. Growth in the PV industry is sometimes reported in the news media to much fanfare. For example, from 1995 to 2005, the market for energy from PV grew at an average annual rate of 33% (Sutula et al ., 2006). In 2009, year over year grow th in annual grid tied capacity additions was 38% (Solar Energy Industries Association, 2010). However, while figures of rapid growth in the PV industry may sound exciting, it is important to emphasize the relative magnitude of electrical production from PV is dwarfed by that of the fossil fuel industry. Figure 2 2 shows that even if installed capacity of PV grew by 100% each year, it would take almost 10 years to produce the same amount of electricity as coal does today.

PAGE 17

17 The emergence of PV has been wel l documented (Nelson, 2003; Sutula et al ., 2006; Gevorkian, 2008; Rhodes 2010). The photovoltaic effect was first observed in 1839 by Edmond Becquerel. In 1883, Charles Fritts coated selenium with a thin layer of gold thereby creating one of the first kn own PV cells. In 1905, Albert Einstein wrote an article on the photoelectric effect (which eventually won a Nobel prize), and in 1915 Robert Millikan experimentally verified Einstein's photoelectric equation. In 1954, Bell Labs produced a solar cell made of modified silicon that converted approximately 6% of incident sunlight into useful electricity. In 1958, the first satellite outfitted with solar cells was launched into space. The physics and electrical properties of PV cells are firmly established (Nelson, 2003; Feldman, 2010; Rhodes, 2010). Figure 2 3 provides a visual representation of the photovoltaic process. Essentially, when photons of light hit a specially prepared semiconductor, electrons are released from their bonds. These free electron s are then able to be collected and sent through a load. This process produces a unique electrical current and voltage which depend on, among other things: the physical properties of the cell, the amount and in tensity of incident light, and the particular load attached to it. Considering each of these factors in turn makes it exceedingly difficult to accurately predict the useful electrical output of a solar cell. For example, using cadmium telluride (CdTe) based solar cells versus single crystal silicon (Si) solar cells can affect the electrical output by more than 10%. Also, the output of PV cell decreases under very hot conditions compared to cool conditions. Furthermore, the output of a solar cell

PAGE 18

18 vari es continuously throughout the day as the sun traces its daily path across the sky and is obscured by structures, clouds, pollution and rain. Fortunately, several researchers have developed an electronic model of a PV cell that provides a precise way of under various ambient conditions (Gow, 1999; Liu, 2002; Tan, 2004). Figure 2 4 provides an illustration of an electronic model of a PV cell. junction is equivalent to a light sensitive diode. When the solar cell is not illuminated, the physical characteristics of the PN junction determine the open circuit voltage and the short circuit current can be calculated using the Shockley Read diode equation (Tsai et al ., 20 08; Messenger and Ventre, 2004). Under illumination, the open circuit voltage of the cell increases logarithmically, while the short circuit current varies linearly with increased ambient irradiation. The series resistance represents the resistance insid e each cell and the resistance due to the connection between cells. The parallel resistance corresponds to the leakage current to open circuit voltage, while the short ci rcuit current increases slightly with increased temperatures. A second diode is included in the model to account for reduced current flow due to charge recombination in the semiconductor's depletion region. A Sustainable Path PV systems produce reliable emissions free electricity and contain minuscule operating and maintenance costs over their productive lives. Solar modules have a lifetime of approximately 30 years, but have been known to last 35 to 40 years (Goetzberger and Hoffmann, 2005; Khan et al ., 2008; Gevorkian, 2008). PV systems are both modular and scalable. Individual components of a PV system can be added,

PAGE 19

19 replaced or substituted to meet almost any design challenge. Although economy of scale is an important factor to system economics, an d there are design challenges for each installation: small systems can be implemented just as easily as large and vice versa. Employing PV on a wide scale can have numerous and substantial benefits such as: (1) increased economic development through manuf acturing; (2) increased local employment for installation and servicing; (3) lower levels of air pollution; (4) lower smog levels; (5) reduced acid rain; (6) lower greenhouse gas emissions; (7) lower water consumption and contamination; (8) reduced tree cl earing for fuel; (9) reduced adverse health related impacts associated with pollution; (10) lower cost of peak power; (11) reduced demand for utility electricity; (12) greater grid stability; (13) lower costs due to power outages and disturbances; (14) red uced transmission and distribution losses; (15) improved grid reliability and resilience; (16) reduced fuel imports; (17) reduced fuel transport costs; (18) reduced nuclear safety risks; (19) power in times of emergency; (20) multi functional potential for insulation, water proofing, wind protection, acoustic control, daylighting, shading, thermal collection and dissipation; (21) architectural aesthetic appeal; and (22) improved goodwill. Environmental Costs of PV As with any man made technology, there are environmental costs associated with the manufacture of PV. In order to produce a solar cell: silicon must be mined, purified, oxidized and further processed. Electrical contacts and an antireflective layer must be applied. Individual cells need to be c ombined with others, and the cells need to be combined with other materials to make modules. In general, each of these steps requires the consumption of energy and the use of several different chemicals and

PAGE 20

20 materials. Analogous to the semiconductor indus try, the chemicals used in the manufacture of solar modules are ultimately recycled or disposed of in a highly controlled manner. Several different measures such as life cycle assessment, energy ratio and energy payback time can be analyzed to quantify the environmental costs of producing energy from PV modules. Life cycle assessment is a method for quantifying the energy and solar module is a comparison of the total energy input to the total energy output of a solar module over its useful lifetime. Energy payback time is the amount of time necessary for a particular type of module to pay back the energy required for its manufacture. It is relatively unclear why these metr ics would matter in any type of comparison between PV and fossil fuel generation because it is impossible for the latter to generate more energy than it consumes. Regardless, the measures are out there, and the general consensus is that PV systems generat e far more energy than they consume in their manufacture, production, transportation and packaging. For example, from a life cycle assessment perspective, Keoleian and Lewis (1997) showed that the total material, manufacturing, production, transportation and packaging energy required to produce a standard amorphous silicon PV module with 5% efficiency is approximately 166 kWh or 102 kWh for a frameless module. The amount of energy generated per year for this module ranged from 22 kWh in Detroit, MI to 46 kWh in Phoenix, AZ. Thus, calculated energy payback times ranged from 3.6 to 7.4 years for a standard module and 2.2 to 4.6 years for a frameless module.

PAGE 21

21 An energy ratio greater than one means the generator produces more energy over its lifetime than i s consumed in its manufacture. Miles et al (2005) reported energy ratios for PV modules in the literature can range anywhere from 7 to 20. Several other studies have shown that mean energy payback times for PV modules can range anywhere from 1.9 years t o 7.3 years (Goetzberger and Hoffmann, 2005). By comparison, the current U.S. electricity industry has an energy ratio of approximately 0.32 not including mining, transportation and plant construction effects (Keoleian and Lewis, 1997; Spath, 1999). As n oted previously, it is impossible for conventional fossil fuel generators to have an energy payback time because they consume more energy than they produce. Obstacles to Implementation One traditional barrier to widespread adoption of PV has been cost. A t virtually any nominal cost basis it would appear to be cheaper to produce electricity from coal, oil, or natural gas than it would be to produce it from the sun. However, it is likely that traditional cost comparisons have not accounted for adverse heal th and environmental costs nor the generous historical subsidies that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed over the years. The National Research Council (2010) attempted to monetize the health and environmental damages caused by the emissions from over 400 coal power plants that were in existence in 2005. They found that the combined monetary damages associated with the emissions of four criteria air pollutants (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and two types of particulate matter) from 406 coal fired fac ilities were approximately $62 billion, or $156 million on average per plant. This worked out to be 4.4 cents per kWh if all of the power plants were weighted equally or 3.2 cents per kWh

PAGE 22

22 if plants were weighted by the amount of electricity they generated These estimates can be considered fairly conservative since they only take into account the damages attributable to the four criteria air pollutants; they fail to take into account progressive effects such as bioaccumulation, and are based on subjective judgments of the value of damages. Indeed, Levy et al (2009) estimated that the health and environmental damages associated with coal fired power plants can range anywhere from 2 cents per kWh to $1.57 per kWh depending on how the factors are weighted. Furthermore, the fossil fuel industry (coal, petroleum and natural gas) has received numerous and substantial financial incentives, tax benefits, subsidies and direct federal spending from the U.S. government over the years. From 1978 through 2005, the federal government spent $32.8 billion on nuclear research (fission and fusion), $20.4 billion for fossil fuel research, $13.0 billion for renewable energy research, and $12.0 billion on energy efficiency measures (Sissine, 2006). It is important to note that hydroelectric power, or power from damming rivers, streams and other large bodies of water was the largest component of government research dollars spent in the renewable energy sector during this time period. Tax breaks and subsidies for the fossil fuel industry have been numerous and substantial. The Environmental Law Institute estimated that from 2002 to 2008, tax incentives and other government subsidies for the fossil fuel industry were $72 billion. The tax expenditures which directly benefite d the coal power industry were as follows. Credit for production of nonconventional fuels ($14.1 billion), Characterizing coal royalty payments as capital gains ($986 million), Exclusion of benefit payments to disabled miners ($438 million), Exclusion of a lternative fuels from fuel excise tax ($343 million), Other fuel excess of percentage over cost depletion ($323 million), Credit for clean coal investment ($186 million),

PAGE 23

23 Special rules for mining reclamation reserves ($159 million), 84 month amortization p eriod for coal pollution control ($102 million), Expensing advanced mine safety equipment ($32 million). Furthermore, in 2008 the coal industry was granted a one time $6.498 billion appropriation for failed payments to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund and received another $6.498 billion of tax free, zero coupon bonds for its remaining liability to miners who have contracted Black Lung Disease (Adeyeye et al ., 2009). In contrast, Sutula et al (2006) reported that the government spent $2.7 billion on PV research from 1978 through 2005. Also, tax subsidies to the renewable energy industry were approximately $29 billion from 2002 to 2008. However, it must be noted that over $14 billion of the renewable energy subsidies during that time period were attr ibuted to corn based ethanol and an indeterminate yet significant portion of the remaining subsidies went to hydropower. Micro Conclusions There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this data: (one) coal power is as cheap as it is today because hu ndreds of billons of dollars of subsidies as well as its attendant adverse health and environmental effects were not accounted for in the cost calculations; and (two) if the federal government had invested more money in solar power in previous years, it wo uld not be as expensive in nominal dollars as it is today. Scientific Progress Even with the relatively small research base attributed to it, advances in the science and technology of PV materials and processes have been tremendous. Today, sunlight to use ful electricity conversion efficiencies for space based applications have reached over 40% (Green et al ., 2006). Furthermore, as science and technology progress, the cost to produce efficient PV modules has become cheaper. By the third

PAGE 24

24 quarter of 2009, First Solar was able to manufacture its PV modules for an average of $0.85 per watt (First Solar, 2009). Trina Solar can now produce their modules for under $1 per watt and are projecting to be below $0.70 by 2012 (Pritchard, 2009). Several areas of rese arch show promise to further increase efficiency as well as decrease costs. A few cutting edge programs include quantum dots (Pattantyus Abraham et al ., 2010), high efficiency organic PV (Mei et al ., 2009), nano structures (Kazaoui et al ., 2005; Landi et al ., 2005) and multiple junction PV (Jin et al ., 2007). With all of the progress towards increasing the efficiency and reducing the cost of PV modules, it may appear that the path to convenient, cheap, environmentally friendly power is close at hand. Howe ver, additional items such as system design, engineering, installation, labor and other balance of system costs can represent more than half of the capital cost of a PV project. PV system design can be complex. A solid understanding of electrical princip als must be applied. Knowledge of the function and interrelationships among system components is essential. PV systems must be designed to withstand extreme environmental conditions as well as the test of time. Structural, wind loading and shading issue s must be addressed. Complexity is compounded by the requirements and application of various building and electrical codes. Finally, electrical safety needs to be emphasized throughout the entire system.

PAGE 25

25 Figure 2 1. U.S. domestic electricity supply b y primary energy source for 2007. Source: Energy Information Administration, 2010, April. Annual Energy Outlook 2010 With Projections to 2035. Washington, DC: National Energy Information Center, EI 30, DOE/EIA 0383, p. 124.

PAGE 26

26 Table 2 1. Select list of com pounds released as a result of burning coal. Inorganic Chemicals Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Polycyclic Organic Matter Volatile Organic Compounds Arsenic Acenaphthene 1,2 Diphenylhydrazine Benzene Barium Acenaphthylene 1 Chloronaphthalene Bromofo rm Beryllium Anthracene 1 Naphthylamine Carbon Disulfide Cadmium Benzo(a)anthracene 2 Chloronaphthalene Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorine (CI ) Benzo(a)pyrene 2 Naphthylamine Chlorobenzene Chromium Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3,3 Dichlorobenzidine Chloroform Cob alt Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4 Aminobiphenyl 1,4 Dichlorobenzene Copper Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4 Bromophenly phenyl ether Cis 1,3 Dichloropropene Fluorine (F ) Chrysene 4 Chlorophenyl phenyl ether Trans 1,3 Dichloropropene Lead Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Benzidin e Ethyl Benzene Manganese Flouranthene Butylbenzylphthalate Ethyl Chloride Molybdenum Indeno( 1,2,3 cd)pyrene Dibenz(a,j)acridine Ethyl Dichloride Mercury Fluorene Dibenzofuran Ethylene Dichloride Nickel Naphthalene Diphenylamine Formaldehyde Phospho rus Phenanthrene n Nitrosodiphenylamine Methyl Bromide Selenium Pyrene Methyl Chloride Vanadium 2 Methylnaphthalene Methyl Chloroform 3 Methylcholanthrene Styrene 7,12 Dimthyl benzo(a)anthracene Toluene Vinyl Acetate Source: U.S. Department of Energy and Radian Corporation, 1994. A study of toxic emissions from a coal fired power plant utilizing an ESP while demonstrating the ICCT CT 121 FGD project. Austin TX: Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center and Radian Corporation, DOE/PC/93253 T1, pp. 5 2 to 5 9.

PAGE 27

27 Table 2 2. Controlled emissions from the combustion of one ton of coal. Compound Quantity Compound Quantity Benzo(a)anthracene Bis(2 ethylhexyl)phthalate 33.11 mg Chrysene Chromium (VI) 35.83 mg Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene Mercury 37.65 mg Anthracene Ethyl benzene 42.64 mg Acenaphthylene Cobalt 45.36 mg 2,4 Dinitrotoluene Carbon disulfide 58.97 mg Pyrene Methyl bromide 72.58 mg Acenaphthene Methyl hydrazine 77.11 mg Fluoranthene Formaldehyde 108.86 mg Fluorene Toluene 108.86 mg Ethylene dibromide Chromium 117.94 mg Bip henyl Nickel 127.01 mg Phenanthrene 1.22 mg Acrolein 131.54 mg Cumene 2.40 mg Methylene chloride 131.54 mg 2 Chloroacetophenone 3.18 mg Propionaldehyde 172.37 mg Vinyl acetate 3.45 mg Methyl ethyl ketone 176.90 mg Naphthalene 5.90 mg Arseni c 185.98 mg Acetophenone 6.80 mg Lead 190.51 mg Phenol 7.26 mg Manganese 222.26 mg Antimony 8.16 mg Methyl chloride 240.41 mg Methyl methacrylate 9.07 mg Acetaldehyde 258.55 mg 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 9.07 mg Isophorone 263.09 mg Beryllium 9.53 mg Benz yl chloride 317.52 mg Chlorobenzene 9.98 mg Benzene 589.68 mg Styrene 11.34 mg Selenium 589.68 mg Methyl tert butyl ether 15.88 mg Cyanide 1.13 g Xylenes 16.78 mg Magnesium 4.99 g Bromoform 17.69 mg Methane 18.14 g Ethylene dichloride 18.14 mg React ive volatile organic com. 27.22 g Ethyl chloride 19.05 mg Nitrous oxide 36.29 g Tetrachloroethylene 19.50 mg Hydrogen Fluoride 68.04 g Dimethyl sulfate 21.77 mg Carbon monoxide 226.80 g Cadmium 23.13 mg Hydrogen chloride 0.54 kg Chloroform 26.76 mg Nitrogen oxide 7.09 kg Hexane 30.39 mg Sulfur oxide 17.24 kg Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, September. Supplement E to compilation of air pollutant emission factors. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality, Planning and Sta ndards, pp. 33 41.

PAGE 28

28 Table 2 3. Heat rate for various types of coal. Type Low (Btu/lb) High (Btu/lb) Average (Btu/lb) Anthracite 11,000 14,000 12,500 Bituminous 10,500 15,000 12,000 Subbituminous 8,500 9,000 8,750 Lignite 4,500 8,500 6,500 Waste coal N A NA 7,500 Source: Energy Information Administration, 2009b. Electric Power Monthly: November 2009 With Data for August 2009, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, DOE/EIA 0226, Glossary, pp. 153 160.

PAGE 29

29 Table 2 4. Energy consumption by sector for 2010 Type of energy consumption Total consumption (%) Residential heat and non electrical power 6.65 Commercial heat and non electrical power 3.92 Industrial heat and non electrical power 20.52 Trans portation 27.83 Electric power 41.08 Total 100.00 Source: Energy Information Administration, 2009a, March. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 With Projections to 2030. Washington, DC: National Energy Information Center, EI 30, DOE/EIA 0383, Table A2, p. 111

PAGE 30

30 Figure 2 2. PV output at 100% growth each year Note: Electrical production from coal is projected to be 2,038 terrawatt hours in 2010 (EIA, 2009a).

PAGE 31

31 Figure 2 3. Physics of a PV cell

PAGE 32

32 Figure 2 4. Electronic mode l of a PV cell

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY case study design of a rooftop PV system for the M.E. Rinker building on the University of Florida campus was investigated. An anal ysis of the electrical system including consideration of direct current (DC), alternating current (AC) output, grounding and lightning protection was conducted. This study also addressed the influences of physical and environmental factors such as tempera ture, shading, roof loading and wind effects. The potential electrical output of the system was determined along with a simple payback financial feasibility study. Limitations There are several methods for determining optimal PV system configuration. In order to decide which system type and configuration to use, the following questions must be answered. Which PV technology should be implemented? Which mounting technique should be used? Which system subcomponents should be employed? How much does it cost? For example, there are dozens of PV module manufacturers and well over 200 different models to choose from. As noted, practical sunlight to electricity conversion efficiencies ranges from 4% to over 40%. Different methods used to keep the solar pa nels in place include stationary ground mount, ground mount with single axis rotation (with or without computerized mechanical tracking), ground mount with dual axis rotation, pole mount, stationary roof mount, roof mount with single axis rotation, roof mo unt with dual axis rotation, and building integrated (where the PV module is

PAGE 34

34 physically integrated into building envelope). Furthermore, there are hundreds of different inverters, and the alternatives for the myriad other subcomponents are many. Each PV technology, mounting method, and system subcomponent has unique advantages and disadvantages. Some strategies for determining optimal system configuration are to minimize cost, maximize electrical output, maximize system efficiency and optimize any physi cal, material or environmental limitations. The first two heuristics, minimizing cost and maximizing electrical output are often diametrically opposed. As a general rule, the highest efficiency modules that produce the greatest amount of electricity in t he least amount of space cost the most. Dual axis tracking, where the modules are continuously tilted towards the sun throughout the day and year is very expensive. However, dual axis tracking can increase the electrical output by up to 50% in the summer or 20% in the winter depending on the location (Messenger and Ventre, 2004). Conversely, most technology provides efficiencies in the range of 5% to 8%. In turn, they are able to manufacture their panels for a very low cost. However, in order to get the same amount of electricity as the higher efficiency modules, low efficiency modules require a significant amount of additional space. Many times, the ultimate decision bo ils down to limitations in physical, environmental or material resources. The building may have structural issues and the roof might not be able to support an additional large load. The roof may have a very high slope. The orientation of the building ma y be inadequate. There may be lots of shading. It might be very wet, windy, hot or cold. Supplies of any particular technology,

PAGE 35

35 component or subcomponent may be limited in that particular region. Nearly every situation is unique, and each situation req uires a rigorous analysis. The cost of a grid tied PV system consists of the following components: PV modules, inverter, balance of system components (conduit, wires, junction boxes, combiner boxes, and mounting and support frames), design, planning and in stallation, inspection, building permit and review fees, and special equipment such as ammeter, voltmeter, torque wrenches, etc Pricing information for many of these components is often variable, inconsistent and in many cases proprietary. Based upon a cursory internet search conducted in April, 2011, the lowest retail price for a multicrystalline silicon solar module was $1.76 per watt; $1.84 per watt for a monocrystalline silicon module and $1.27 per watt for a thin film module. As noted previously the cost of the module can represent up to 50% of the total installed system cost. Solyndra would not provide pricing information at the time of this writing, however, a local solar integrator provided a quote of $3.10 per watt for Solyndra modules and approximately $5.25 per watt for a total installed system (the price of a complete turnkey system including inverters, installation and other balance of system components). A complete financial analysis is beyond the scope of this project. Various finan cial incentives are available that may reduce the cost of an installed system and thereby cause the financial payback to be more attractive. The price of electricity is highly variable. In many parts of the country electricity rates vary throughout the d ay,

PAGE 36

36 and peak rates are often highest during the middle of the day when the sun is shining the brightest. A PV system can substantially reduce the electrical demand of a building, and thereby significantly reduce any utility demand charges. The University of Florida essentially pays a flat rate of 9.5 cents per kWh which is a very low figure compared to many parts of the nation. Inflation is a major factor to consider. Will the University be paying the same rate 30 years from now? Intangibles should be accounted for. Various calculations such as depreciation, amortization and other itemized deductions add to the complexity yet ultimately must be considered in order to reflect the true financial cost or benefit of installing a PV system. The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy can be consulted for more information on reducing the cost of an installed system. For the current study, total system costs were assumed to be $3.10 per watt for modules, $33,000 for the inverter, $20,000 for balan ce of system costs and $0 for design, planning and installation. This resulted in a realistic installed cost of $4.36 per watt and a total installed cost of $182,982. Scope The strategy used to decide which system configuration to implement for the curre nt design began with three constraints: (1) design a rooftop PV system (2) for Rinker Hall (3) using PV technology from Solyndra. A rooftop system was chosen because ground space is at a premium on the University of Florida campus, and placing a PV syste m on the roof would provide the necessary security requirements related to public safety and tampering.

PAGE 37

37 Rinker Hall was chosen because it is one of the newer buildings on campus and is classified as a high performance, LEED certified Gold building. It a lso has adequate roof space and ample sun exposure. Solyndra solar modules where chosen because they can be installed without physical penetration of the roof membrane. Most rooftop flat plate solar panel installations require the design of extensive ra cking systems which need to be physically attached to the building. Much of the time this requires piercing the roof membrane with bolts, screws and other fasteners. This may reduce the structural and waterproof integrity of the roof and thereby void its warranty. Solyndra panels are installed horizontally to the roof and are self ballasting. As long as proper installation procedures are followed and minimum setback constraints are satisfied, Solyndra panels are certified to be safe at wind speeds up to 130 mph without the need for physical attachment to the roof. This last criteria is an important consideration in hurricane prone Florida. Finally, Solyndra solar panels are very easy to install. It was estimated that for a project of this size, a crew of three could install the panels in two to three days. Figures 3 1 and 3 2 show a digital model of a Solyndra PV module. Once these constraints were satisfied, the strategy was to design as large an array as practicable and to and optimize the resulting The Case M.E. Rinker Hall was constructed in 2002 and is located in Gainesville, Florida which has a latitude of 29.65N and a longitude of 82.34W. Comprising three stories of classrooms, laboratories and office space, the building is 40 feet tall from ground floor to 155 feet above sea level. The roof is roughly 14,000 square feet but contains a number

PAGE 38

38 of permanent obstacles such as a roof hatch, HVAC units, skylights and exhaust fans. The roof has a maximum slope of one quarter inch per foot near the skylights and is surrounded by a parapet that is 20 inches high. Several large trees surround mainly the front and on the sides of the b South axis and has ample sun exposure. After an analysis of fire code minimum setback requirements, wind clearance, walkways and obstacle shading, it was determined that approximately 4,750 squa re feet was available for rooftop PV. Figure 3 3 presents a roof plan of Rinker Hall showing the various obstacles and available space for the solar array. Fifty year extreme annual maximum dry bulb temperature for Gainesville is 104.4F (40.2C), while 5 0 year extreme annual minimum dry bulb temperature is 8.8F ( 12.9C). Average extreme annual wind speed is 18.5 miles per hour, but Florida is susceptible to hurricanes, so proper consideration calls for minimum design for 130 mph winds. Florida is also highly prone to lightning, so special care should be taken with regard to lightning induced surges. A private utility group provides electrical service to the University. As previously mentioned, the University is charged a flat rate of 9.5 cents per k Wh for its electrical consumption. Metered monthly power use data for the last six years was provided by the University Physical Plant Department. From 2005 through 2010, average monthly power use for Rinker Hall was 38,330 kWh, and average annual electr ical use was 459,954 kWh. In 2010, the monthly high consumption was 44,900 kWh and was reached in September, while the low was 27,929 kWh, which was reached in April.

PAGE 39

39 Power is supplied from the grid through a 500,000 volt ampere, 277/480 volt, wye trans former. The main connection to the building is through an 800 ampere 277/480 volt, three phase, four wire switchboard which contains two spare 125 ampere slots for future expansion. The Design Figure 3 4 shows the one line electrical diagram for the P V system. Figure 3 5 shows a detailed line drawing of the installed PV system and Figure 3 6 shows a digital rendering of the installed PV system. As shown in Figure 3 4, the components of the PV system are as follows: PV modules, junction boxes, comb iner box, disconnect switch, inverter, conductors, conduit, and main switchboard. The naming convention for conductors is to designate the size in American Wire Gage (AWG) or thousands of circular mills (KCM) and to provide an acronym for the insulation m aterial such as USE 2 or THWN 2. USE 2 is underground service entrance wire rated for wet conditions and high heat (90C). THWN 2 is nylon reinforced thermoplastic insulation rated for high heat and wet conditions. For a more complete description of wir e sizes, insulation ratings and proper wiring practices, the National Electrical Code must be consulted (National Fire Protection Association, 2007). The design array consists of 210 Solyndra PV modules (model number SL 001 200). Each module is rated for 200 watts peak DC output under standard test conditions. Each module has a short circuit current of 2.78 amps and an open circuit

PAGE 40

40 voltage of 99.7 volts. Each string is composed of five modules connected in series and each string block is composed of thr ee strings connected in parallel. The 18 standard pass through junction boxes are rated rainproof, outdoor steel as defined by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association. The SMA America combiner box (model number SCCB 28 420) contains 28 slots w hich support 15 amp DC rated circuit breakers per slot. The combiner box is located on the south east corner of the roof, is enclosed in rainproof outdoor steel and carries a 420 volt fault current rating. The Square D fused DC disconnect switch (model number H364RB) Is located directly adjacent to the combiner box; it contains a 200 amp DC rated fuse, is enclosed in rainproof outdoor steel and is rated to withstand 600 volts of fault current. The three phase PV Powered inverter (model number PVP35KW) i s rated at 480 volts, and maintains a continuous AC output capacity of 35kW. The inverter is located in the electrical room adjacent to the main switchboard and is encased in outdoor steel. The conductors and conduit as outlined in Figure 3 4 (labeled A t hrough I) are as follows. (A) Two #12 AWG, USE 2 PV source circuit conductors in free air are routed from each string block to the first junction box; and one #10 AWG bare copper equipment grounding conductor is routed along the same path; (B) Three #10 A WG, THWN the first junction box to the second; (C) Five #10 AWG, THWN 2 PV source circuit bo x; (D) Three 300,000 circular mills (KCM), THWN 2 PV output circuit conductors are

PAGE 41

41 300 KCM, THWN disco nnect switch to the inverter; (F) Four #6 AWG, THWN 2 inverter output conductors existing lightning rod system for lightning protection is routed from the roof to ground; (H) the lightning ground rod to the equipment grounding bus; and (I) One #10 AWG, bare copper equipment grounding bus is routed from each string block to the auxiliary ground bus.

PAGE 42

42 Figure 3 1. Digital model of a Solyndra PV module

PAGE 43

43 Figure 3 2. Detailed drawing of a Solyndra PV module

PAGE 44

44 Figure 3 3. M.E. Rinker Hall PV rooftop plan

PAGE 45

45 Figure 3 4. One line electrical diagram of PV system

PAGE 46

46 Figure 3 5. Detailed line dra wing of PV system Note: Architectural model of Rinker Hall provided by Brittany Giel.

PAGE 47

47 Figure 3 6. Digital model of PV system Note: Architectural model of Rinker Hall provided by Brittany Giel.

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS For the current study: system costs were assumed to be $3.10 per watt for the PV modules, $33,000 for the inverter, $20,000 for the balance of system costs and $0 for design, planning and installation (since it was assumed that students could do the work for free). Also, since inverters usu ally last approximately 15 years, an additional $33,000 was added to the total cost of the system in year 15. This resulted in an installed cost of $4.36 per watt and a total lifetime system cost of $215,982. The electrical output estimate was simulated u sing Solar Advisor Model developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Midwest Research Institute, the University of Wisconsin and Sandia National Laboratories. The estimate assumes 0% shading, 0 tilt and the array oriented at 0 azimuth. I n addition, electrical output was derated by 6% for potential pre inverter inefficiencies and 3% for possible post inverter inefficiencies. As shown in Figures 4 1 and 4 2, with a nameplate capacity of 41.93 kW DC, the PV facility would generate approxim ately 56,558 kWh AC of emission free electricity in its first year. Therefore, at an initial rate of 9.5 cents per kWh, the facility would generate revenue (or the equivalent amount of savings) in excess of $5,300 during its first year of operation. Sinc e Rinker Hall consumes approximately 459,954 kWh per consumption. Assuming a 30 year lifespan with 0.7% system degradation (compounded annually) and 99% availability, the facility would generate a total of 1,535,280 kWh of clean, emissions free electricity over its lifetime (Figure 4 3).

PAGE 49

49 With an implied electricity price inflation rate of 2.5%, and including the cost for replacing the inverter at year 15, the system w ould pay for itself in 30.6 years and provide an additional $42,000 worth of revenue or savings if it operated for 35 years (Figure 4 4).

PAGE 50

50 Figure 4 1. Monthly AC power output of a 41.93 kW PV system

PAGE 51

51 Figure 4 2. Year ly AC output including system degradation

PAGE 52

52 Figure 4 3. Cumulative AC output

PAGE 53

53 Figure 4 4. Simple payback analysis

PAGE 54

54 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS This small solar system can contribute in a significant way towards reducing the amoun t of pollution in our atmosphere. As noted, the PV facility would generate more than 1.5 million kWh of clean, emissions free electricity over its lifetime. A modern coal fired power plant would have to burn over 1.6 million pounds of coal to produce an equivalent amount of electricity. Burning 1.6 million pounds of coal over the course of 30 years would slowly emit thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. T reat it well, and it provides seemingly limitless resources. Exploit it, and the consequences become self evident. Coal power is eminently destructive and simply unsustainable. Solar power may not be a panacea but is the one of the closest extant approx imations of truly sustainable power. The seemingly insurmountable problem with solar power is that it is nominally expensive, but when juxtaposed against the historical subsidies and adverse health and environmental effects of traditional coal fired powe r, the comparison becomes less euphemism equivalent to phrases such as pure and natural toxicity or clear and sparkly Black Lung Disease. Instead, we could spend the next trillion dollars putting solar panels on every available rooftop: proven technol ogy that currently seems expensive, but is categorically worth the price.

PAGE 55

55 It is estimated that the sun could provide 100% of domestic electricity consumption if less than one half of 1% of the land were covered with solar panels (Sutula et al d like to design and install as many PV systems as possible in order to implement and accelerate this process.

PAGE 56

56 LIST OF REFERENCES Adeyeye, A., Barrett, J., Diamond, J., Goldman, L., Pendergrass J., Schramm D., 2009. Estimating U.S. Government subsidies to energy sources: 2002 2008. Environmental Law Institute, Washington DC. Alford, R., 2009, January 8. US mine deaths fall to 51, the lowest on record. Associated Press Financial Wire, Frankfort, KY. Allweiss, E., 2009, March 24. Coal mining companies put o n notice by EPA. Targeted News Service, Washington DC. American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 2011. Website: April 19, 2011, < http://www.cleancoalusa.org >. Arasteh, D., Selkowitz, S., Apte, J., LaFrance, M., 2006. Zero Energy Windows. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Website: January, 29, 2011, < http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zp5m6x8 >. Burch, J., Thornton, J., Hoeschele, M., Springer, D., Rudd, A., 2008. Preliminary modeling, testing, and analysis of a gas tankless water heater. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. Website: February 3, 2011, < http://www.osti.gov/bridge >. De Soto, W., 2004. Improvement and validation of a model for photovoltaic array performance. M.S. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin Madison. De Soto W., Klein S.A., Beckman, W., 2006. Improvement and validation of a model for photovoltaic array performance. Solar Energy 80, 78 88. [EIA] Energy Information Administration, 2009a, March. Annual Energy Outlook 2009 With Projections to 2030. Washington, DC: National Energy Information Center, EI 30, DOE/EIA 0383. [EIA] Energy Information Administra tion, 2009b. Electric Power Monthly: November 2009 With Data for August 2009, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, DOE/EIA 0226. [EIA] Energy Information Administration, 2010, April. Annual Energ y Outlook 2010 With Projections to 2035. Washington, DC: National Energy Information Center, EI 30, DOE/EIA 0383. [EPA] Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors. Appendix A: miscellaneous data and conversion fac tors. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

PAGE 57

57 [EPA] Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Emission factor documentation for AP 42 section 1.1 bituminous and subbituminous coal combustion. Research Triangle Park, NC: Offic e of Air Quality Planning and Standards Office of Air And Radiation. [EPA] Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, September. Supplement E to compilation of air pollutant emission factors. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality, Planning and Stan dards. Feldman, B.J., 2010. An introduction to solar cells. The Physics Teacher, 48, 306 308. First Solar, Inc., 2009. 10 Q, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Website: October 30, 2010, < http://www.sec. gov >. Resource., McGraw Hill, New York. Goetzberger, A., Hoffmann, V.U., 2005. Photovoltaic solar energy generation. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. Gow, J.A., Mannin g, C.D., 1999. Development of a photovoltaic array model for use in power electronics simulation studies. Electric Power Applications 146, 193 200. Green, M., Emery, K., King, D., Igari, S., Warta, W., 2009. Solar cell efficiency tables (Version 33). Prog ress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 17, 85 94. Jin, Y. K., Lee, K., Coates, N. E., Moses, D., Nguyen, T., Dante, M., Heeger, A.J., 2007. Efficient tandem polymer solar cells fabricated by all solution processing. Science 317, 222 225. Kazaoui S., Minami, N., Nalini, B., Kim, Y., Hara, K., 2005. Near infrared photoconductive and photovoltaic devices using single wall carbon nanotubes in conductive polymer films. Journal of Applied Physics 98, 84314. Keoleian, G. A. and Lewis, G. M., 1997. App lication of life cycle energy analysis to photovoltaic module design. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 5, 287 300. Khan, Rashid M., Green, M.A., Merfeld, D.W., Pearsall, T.P., Geyer, M., Dauskardt, R.H., 2008. Innovations in solar pow er: covering 0.16% of the land on earth with 10% efficient solar conversion systems would provide 20 terawatts of power, nearly twice the world's consumption rate of fossil energy and the equivalent of 20,000 one gigawatt nuclear fission plants. Advanced Materials and Processes, 166, 11. Kibert, C. J., 2008. Sustainable construction: green building design and delivery. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J.

PAGE 58

58 Landi, B.J., Raffaelle, R.P., Castro, S.L., Bailey, S.G., 2005. Single wall carbon nanotube polymer sola r cells. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research Applications 13, 165 172. Levy, J.I., L.K. Baxter, Schwartz, J., 2009. Uncertainty and variability in health related damages from coal fired power plants in the United States. Risk Analysis 29, 1000 1014. Liu, S ., Dougal, R., 2002. Dynamic multiphysics model for solar array. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 17, 285 294. Loeb, P., 2007. Moving mountains: How one woman and her community won justice from big coal. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. M ansfield, D., 2009, July 21. Report blasts TVA on coal ash storage after spill. Associated Press Financial Wire, Knoxville, TN. May, J., 2009. Not at all: environmental sustainability in the Supreme Court. 10 Sustainable Development Law & Policy 20 2009 20 10, pp. 20 82. Mei, J., Ogawa, K., Kim, Y.G., Heston, N.C., Arenas, D.J., Nasrollahi, Z., McCarley, T. D., Tanner, D.B., Reynolds, J.R., and Schanze K.S., 2009. Low band gap Platinum Acetylide polymers as active materials for organic solar cells. America n Chemical Society Applied Material Interfaces 1,1, 150 161. Miles, R.W., Hynes, K.M., Forbes, I., 2005. Photovoltaic solar cells: an overview of state of the art cell development and environmental issues. Progress in Crystal Growth and Characterization of Materials 51, 1 42. National Fire Protection Association, 2007. National Electrical Code 2008 Edition. NFPA 70 2008, Quincy, MA. National Research Council, 2010. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National Acade mies Press, Washington, DC. Nelson, J., 2003. The Physics of Solar Cells. Imperial College Press, London. Oliver, M. and Jackson, T., 2000. The evolution of economic and environmental cost for crystalline silicon photovoltaics. Energy Policy 28, 1011 1021. Pattantyus Abraham, A. G., Kramer, I. J., Barkhouse, A. R., Wang, X., Konstantatos, G., Debnath, R., Levina, L. Raabe, I., Nazeeruddin, M. K. Gratzel, M., Sargent E. H., 2010. Depleted Heterojunction Colloidal Quantum Dot Solar Cells. American Chemi cal Society Nano 4, 3374 3380. Peck, S., van der Linde, D., 2010. Systems integration: green roofs for healthy cities explores the potential of collaboration between rooftop vegetation and photovoltaic arrays. Ecostructure, September, 23 24.

PAGE 59

5 9 Pritchard, A.E., 2009, August 24. China powers ahead as it seizes the green energy crown from Europe. The Daily Telegraph, London. CITY, 4. Rhodes, C.J., 2010. Solar energy: principles and possibilities. Science Progress 93, 37 112. Sassi, P., 2006. Strategies for sustainable architecture. Taylor & Francis, London. Sissine, F., 2006, March 27. Energy efficiency: budget, oil conservation, and electricity conservation issues. CRS Issue Brief for Congress. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, Order Code IB10 020. Solar Energy Industries Association, 2010, April 15. US solar industry year in review 2009. Solar Energy Industries Association, Washington DC. Website: June 23, 2010, < www.seia.org >. Spath, P.L., Mann, M.K, Kerr, D.R., 1999. Life cycle assessment of coal fired power production. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO: NREL/TP 570 25119. Sutula, R. A., Cameron, C., Hanley, C., Hulstrom, R. Hurwitch, J., Mancini, T., Mehos, M., Merrigan, T., Mooney, D., Nel son, J., Tillerson, J., Wilkens, F., 2006, January. Solar energy technologies multi year program plan 2007 2011 for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Washington, DC: Solar Energy Technologies Program Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Ta n, Y.T., Kirschen, D.S., Jenkins, N., 2004. A model of PV generation suitable for stability analysis. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion 19, 748 755. Tsai, H.L, Tu, C.S., and Su, Y.J., 2008. Development of Generalized Photovoltaic Model Using MATLAB/SI MULINK. San Francisco, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science, October 22 24, 2008. [USDOE] U.S. Department of Energy and Radian Corporation, 1994. A study of toxic emissions from a coal fired power plant utilizing an ESP while demonstrating the ICCT CT 121 FGD project. Austin TX: Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center and Radian Corporation, DOE/PC/93253 T1 Yu Bai, Yu, Cao, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, M., Li, R., Wang, P. Zakeerudding, S.M., Gratzel, M., 2008. High performance dy e sensitized solar cells based on solvent free electrolytes produced from eutectic melts. Nature Mater 7, 626 630.

PAGE 60

60 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH degree in philosophy, Mike studied Tao ist philosophy and Seven Star Praying Mantis kung fu. His most recent employment was with the University of Florida Phillips Center for the Performing Arts where he contributed his efforts as a stagehand. He graduated from the University of Florida in th e summer of 2011 with an M.S. degree in Architectural Studies.