DESIGN PROJECT, EGEE 437, FALL 2013

Solar Design for the South Brunswick High School, Monmouth Jct. NJ
Joe Marcus Ken Palamara
I. Executive Summary This design project is an overview of the technical, nancial, and socioeconomic analysis of a proposed photovoltaic system for the South Brunswick High School. Located in New Jearsey, the school represents an oppurtunity to educate students and faculty about renewable energy while generating clean electricity, ultimately saving money to be spent on suering programs. The system was designed to be mounted on the roof of the school and given an estimated 100,000 sq. ft. of rooftop space can generate 2,197,818 kWh annually. SBHS in New Jersey was chosen because NJ is a state that oers many renewable energy incentives. This school was also a propective project because the location contains no shading from tall structures of trees, allowing more direct beam irradiation to be available. Two identical systems generating 1,600 kWdc were nancially evaluated for a Power Purchace Agreement (PPA) and a non-PPA. The System Advisor Model (SAM) software was used to simulate these scenarios and calculate estimates of net present value and payback period lengths. A net-metering system proved to strike a balance between relatively fast payback, high annual davings, and high net present value (NPV) II. Introduction but educate and motivate students about solar power in an exciting way. Solar 4 R Schools[1] is an example of such a program that brings teachers, students, and community members together to learn about science and renewable energy technology. Developed by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, Solar 4 R Schools provides hands on activity guides, science kits, and demonstration solar electric systems at zero cost by working with funding partners who support and commit to renewable energy. Since its start in 2002, the program has installed more than 100 solar-electric demonstration systems on schools and community centers while impacting over 40,000[1] students. With great partners like the American Solar Energy Society, Northwest Clean Air Agency, and Tacoma Power, education can provide an even brighter future for tomorrows engineers and citizens alike.

A. Technology Review Photovoltaics (PV) is a method of generating electrical power by converting solar radiation into direct current electricity using materials (e.g. Silicon) that have inherent optoelectronic properties. Photovoltaic power generation utilizes panels composed multiple cells containing a photovoltaic material. Materials presently used for photovoltaics include monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, and copper indium gallium selenide/sulde. Photovoltaic solar panel is the most commonly used solar technology to generate power for systems of scales including utility, commercial, and residential.[2] Most of PV modules manufactured (85-90 percent) are constructed from wafer-based crystalline-Silicon. Modules currently use silicon as either single- sc-Si (single crystal) or mc-Si (multi-crystal).[2] Current commercial single scSi modules have higher conversion eciency of about 14 to 20 percent and are expected increase to 23 percent by 2020 and 25 percent beyond then.[2] Multi-crystalline silicon modules have a more disordered atomic structure, leading to lower eciencies. But they are less expensive and more resistant to degradation due to irradiation. The degradation rate is about 2 percent per year for multiple crystalline technologies. Crystalline silicon PV modules are expected to remain a dominant PV technology until at least 2020 due to their proven and reliable technology, long lifetimes, and abundant primary resources.[2] The main challenge for c-Si modules is to improve the eciency, effectiveness of resource consumption, and in turn feasibility through materials reduction, improved cell concepts, and manufacturing processes.

HE motivation behind this project was inspired by the idea of a more energy independent society. Public schools dump millions of tax payer dollars each year into providing wasted electricity for large buildings year round. With the knowledge gained from taking EGEE 437 we will perform a solar and nancial analysis of the South Brunswick High School located in Monmouth Junction, NJ. This analysis will demonstrate whether it is truly scally responsible to install PV arrays on the roof of the school. We will investigate whether it a normal commercial system or a PPA commercial system would provide higher solar savings and a faster payback period. Through the successful use of SAM software by the end of this report we will be able to tell if adding a solar utility to the school will lead to higher savings and a lower operation cost for the board of education. III. Literature Review Powering schools with renewable technology has proven to not only accomplish the energy needs of the classroom,
J. A. Marcus is with the College of Energy and Mineral Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. K. J. Palamara is with the Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.

DESIGN PROJECT, EGEE 437, FALL 2013

IV. Technological Constraints There are multiple factors that must be cnsidered in the technical analysis of a solar energy system. Because different projects may have dierent space constraints, shading, and climate regimes, rarely are any two systems the same. The technical contraints are what determine if a solar energy project is even possible and should be carefully evaluated to maximize solar utility for the client. A. Resource Availability The environment that the proposed solar energy conversion system is beign designed for has both drawbacks and advantages in terms of resource availability. The design will only utilize roof space of the high school as a platform for the photo volataic panels, an estimated 100,000 sq. ft. Because the system will not be utilizing land around the school, there will be a limit as to how much power will be produced and therefore will not provide 100% of the power for the school. However, this location has advantages in terms of operation and installation. This system does not have any talll trees or tall builidngs surrounding the school that would potentiall shade the rooftop during the day. This maximizes the direct beam irradiance absorbed by the collector and simplies the system modelling process. Also, this school in in a remote enough location that will allow easy access to delivery trucks and lifting machinery that would be neccessary when installing the collectors. B. Annual vs. Seasonal Eciency By simulating the Global Horizantal Irradiance throughtout the year, a time series can be generated and illustrate the time periods of high and low level of GHI. SAM shows that the highest GHI occurs between June and July (approximately 1.05 kW/m2 ) when the declination ofthe Earth is minimized for the given climate regime.

declination angle which reduces the perpendicular beam irradiance. The decrease in resource avability reaches its lowest levels in the middle of December (approximately 0.15 kW/m2 ). From then, the declination angle begins to decrease again and the direct beam irradance intensies through the spring into summer. Although this data is simulated for Newark, NJ, it can be assumed that the climate regime is the same because it is within a few hours of South Brunswick where the high school is located. C. Tracking vs. Fixed Axis The addition of solar tracking onto an array has many benets in climate regimes that typically experience low direct beam irradiance through the year. Instead of remainign stationary throughout the day, a system of motors and controlers can be programmed to change the tilt of the panel ( ) as well as the azimuth angle ( ) in order to mazimize the direct beam irradiance. However, some issues arrise with the implementation of this technology. First, this adds complication to the shading analysis where instead of determining the eects of shading for dierent months over a given day, this shading changes every hour. This would not be an issue with this proposed system because as stated earlier, there are no structures taller than the roof that would contribute shading to the panels. With the integration of tracking however, array design must take into consideration the shading generated from the panels themselves. With this in mind, tracking would be benecial for a few select circumstances. If a large amount of land is available, tracking may be an option but only benecial if the output from a tracking system is larger than the output of a xed axis array (more panels) given the same land area. Also, a tracking system may be suitable for a system with low demand. This includes possibly a single or few panel system that is designed to power a few devices. With tracking, not only does the system modelling increase inintricasy, but the hardware itself introduces problems. The main objectives of the SBHS system is to be low mainatainance, low cost, and ecienct. Even if a tracking system proves to increase in output, it would be high maintainance and high cost, which is not desireable for a high school. D. Signicance relative to Competitive Energy Supply South Brunswick High School currently buys electricity from Public Service Electricity and Gas Company for $0.16/kWh. This company is a regulated electric and gas utility that was recognized by the Solar Electric Power Association as the nations second most solar-connected utility. Through the Solar 4 All Program, PSE&G is pursuing a two-track approach to developing 125 MW of grid connected solar. The rst track involves developing large-scale centralized projects including solar farms on brownelds, landll, and rooftops. The second objective is building the worlds rst and largest pole attached solar project. In addition, PSE&G Solar Source develops, constructs, owns, and operates large-scale solar facilities outside of PSE&Gs eectric service territory[?]. It currently has ve

Fig. 1. Solar resource variability in Newark, NJ.[3]

From that point, the resourc decreases with increased

SOLAR DESIGN FOR THE SOUTH BRUNSWICK HIGH SCHOOL, MONMOUTH JCT. NJ

solar projects totalling 54.4 MW with another 15 MW under construction. New Jersey is one of the top states in renewable energy development because of utilities like PSE&G which would benet the implementationa project such as the one proposed. E. Modelling Limitations When simulating multiple scenarios in SAM, a few obstacles were encountered. One in particular innvolved selecting a suitable inverter for the array. Because the array size was based on the rooftop space available, it was dicult nding an inverter that t perfectly for the projected output. The error that signaled indicated that the inverter was either oversized or undersized but did not give detail into troubleshooting the issue. After much trial and error, the array size was adjusted to t to a 360V inverter. In additon, it was dicult selecting a module type to optmize the output as well as the cost eciency. It is understood that the purpose of the simulation is to provide multiple options to generate a very detailed scenario, but it may be benecial to users if SAM had an option to display recomendations or at least criteria that would lead to an educated choice of module type. V. Socioeconomic Constraints After recieving the green light on a solar energy system from a positive technical evaluation, there is another important question to ask; Does this work socially and economicaly for the client? The socioeconomic constraints that were considered include: Client Demand Load Estimates Financial Model State Incentives Federal Incentives Fuel/Electricity Rate Structure These limiting factors play a large part in customizing any energy system for a client and determine if any saings are possibly from utilizing the sun. A. Client Demand and Load Estimates To maximize cost eciency for the client, an energy audit must be either performed or obtained to determine the load or electricity demand of the client. For this proposal, an energy audit performed in 2009 was obtained. This evaluation was for the period between June of 2007 and May of 2008 and indicates that the maximum peak power demand was 2,267 kW and a 12 month total of 8.5 GWh where at 0.16/kW hcosttheschool1.37 million. The following gure illustrates the electricity usage over the evaluation period. As you can see, the consumption is highest in the summer months such as June and July and lowest in the winter months. Because the building has gas heating and hot water, the majority of the load would be in lighting, computers, and air conditioning.

Fig. 2. Elecricity consumption over analysis period June 2007 to May 2008.[3]

B. Financial Model The nancial modelling was accomplished through SAM. With input including debt fraction, loan term, federal and state income tax rate, ination rate, etc., a feasibility evaluation can be performed. There are many options avaiable through SAM that could help maximize the net present value (NPV) as well as minimize the payback period which are both highly weighted factors for the client. For the SBHS system, it was assumed that there was going to be no down payment resulting in a 100% debt fraction. This was an assumption made as a base case because it is unknown how much money the school would actually have to make a down payment. The loan term selected was 15 years to match the length that the Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs) could help fund the project. The federal income tax was established at 28%/year while the state income tax rate is 7%/year. The federal and state taxes are income taxes that apply to the taxable income and are both default setting in SAM. The annual insurance rate in 0.5% of the installed cost and the assumption was made that there would be no salvage value of the system. The insurance cost is used as an operating expense when evaluating the photovoltaic system thus reducing the federal and state taxable income when calculting taxes in the modeling software. Two important gures in this project are the real discount rate and the nominal dscount rate. For this specic project, the real discount rate is 5.2%/year where as the nimonal discount rate is 7.83%/year. These both eect the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) creating a Nominal LCOE and a Real LCOE. Additional nancial information will be discussed in Part IV. C. State and Federal Incentives By incorporating renewable technology into a facility such as the South Brunswick High School, both the state and federal government provide incentives to reduce the cost of the system and thus promote green energy. Using the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Eciency (DSIRE), insentives applicable to SBHS were gathered and calculated. For a project such as the one proposed, the federal goverment oers to pay 30% of the system as an Investment Tax Credit (ITC). The is a type of Corporate Tax Credit that covers a wide variety of renewable

DESIGN PROJECT, EGEE 437, FALL 2013

resources and is applicable to Commercial, Industrial, Utility, and Agricultural sectors. As a Capacity Based Incentive (CBI), the state of New Jersey oers $0.18/W to a maximum of $90,000. One important program that should be highlighted commercial, industrial, residential, and general public/ consumers apply to a 100% sales tax exemption for solar technologies including passive solar space heat, solar water heat, solar space heat, solar thermal electric, solar thermal process heat, photovoltaics, and solar pool heating. Finally, for 15 years, New Jersey oers $0.339/kWh as a Production Based Incentive (PBI). Not included in the evaluation of this project, New Jersey has a Solar Loan Program which can be viewed in the following gure.

Fig. 3. Solar Loan Program for photovoltaics in New Jersey.[3]

locale.[3] The overall area of the high school chosen is approximately 437, 000f t2 given that it is three stories and only targeting the roof sections above the third oor neglecting the roof above the gyms and cafeterias there is an estimated 100, 000f t2 of roof space available for solar panels. This converts to roughly 9, 200m2 . To help provide the maximum amount of energy for the available area we chose to use the SunPower SPR-225NE-BLK-D module in the SAM software. It has an eciency of 18.07% and a maximum power of 224.775 Wdc. The dimensions of each module is 1.848 m long x 0.673 m wide giving a total area per module of 1.24m2 . To maximize the solar utility and avoid shading on the system we are able to use 7,106 modules covering a rooftop area of 8839.86m2 . As for the inverter we chose to go with the SMA America: SC800CP-US 360V as it yielded a higher net present value and a greater energy savings per year for the system. The inverter has a CEC weighted eciency of 98.363%, maximum AC power of 823,000Wac, and a maximum DC power of 838,567 Wdc. To make sure the system maximizes output we had to use 2 inverters in the system. While designing the system it was key to maximize the tilt and azimuth angles for the modules. By analyzing Fig. 4 below we were able to determine a tilt angle = 37 and an azimuth angle = 0 .

D. Fuel/ Electricity Rate Structure As mentioned, the electricity provider for the South Brunswick High School is the Public Service Electricity and Gas Company and the school follows a Large Lighting and Power (LPL) plan. Where electric service is supplied for traction power to a rail rapid-transit system, for the purpose of determination of Monthly Peak Demands, the hours 8 A.M. to 10 A.M. and 4 P.M. to 7 P.M. shall be included in the O-Peak time period, and Public Service shall base the customers Monthly Peak Demand for each time period upon the greatest average number of kilowatts delivered by Public Service during any single coincident hour-ended sixty-minute interval during each time period, in lieu of fteen minute intervals. The guidelines to selfgenerating customers apply to those with a combined maximum net kilowatt output rating equal to or greater than 50% of their Annual Peak Demand. The customer is also a self-generation customer if its premise was served on the former special provision for Standby Service of this rate schedule on July 31, 2003 or if it has been granted all necessary air permits by August 1, 2004 for a new or expanded self-generation facility. As previously indicated, the average cost per kWh that the school purchased in the period between June 2007 and May 2008 is $0.16. This is the electricity rate that all other applicable nancial calculations are based on. VI. Design Criteria The goal when designing a solar energy conversion systems is to maximize the solar utility for a client in a given

Fig. 4. Optimal angles across the United States[3]

A. Shading As seen in Fig. 5 above there is not shading due to surrounding trees or other buildings. Also by only targeting the roof above the third oor we can neglect self shading by high levels on the building on the lower altitude roof

SOLAR DESIGN FOR THE SOUTH BRUNSWICK HIGH SCHOOL, MONMOUTH JCT. NJ

VII. Results/Recommendations
TABLE I Monthly electricity demand by client [4]

Fig. 5. View of the high school roof courtesy of Google Earth

sections. Finally by having approximate 350m2 that is not covered by the system we can design the system to avoid the rooftop AC units therefore eliminating all potential shading from the system. B. System Costs Because we do not have to purchase land for the system there are no expenses on land and land preparation for the location. There are also zero contingency costs for this system. As for sales tax, all solar systems are exempt from 100% of the sales tax for the design and construction system.[6] The majority of the costs are from purchasing the modules and inverters along with installation. Please see Fig. 6 for a complete breakdown of the cost per Watt for the system.

Fig. 7. Monthly electricity output by solar energy system

The solar system that has been designed produces a total of 2,197,818 kWh annually. By comparing the output in Fig. 7 to the actual demand in Table I it is clear that the system can not fulll the clients total electricity demand. However, it can account for approximately 25% of the load demand which will aid in the schools budget. As seen in Table II the school spends tens of thousands of dollars each month on electricity so every penny saved can be allocated elsewhere to help improve the overall budget.
TABLE II Monthly expenses on electricity [4]

Fig. 6. System costs per Watt

Having 7,106 modules producing 1597.25 kWdc at a price of $0.63/Wdc yields a module direct cost of $1,006,268.22. With 2 inverters producing 1646 kWac at a price of $0.26/Wac gives a direct cost of from the inverters of $427,960.00. Additional direct costs such as balance of the system and equipment, installation labor, and installer margin and overhead equate for $1,709,058.72 giving a total direct cost for the system equal to $3,143,286.96. As for the indirect costs, permitting and environmental studies equates to a cost of $271,532.70. Engineering adds a cost of $287,505.21 and grid interconnection adds an additional $239,587.67 to the indirect costs. This gives a total indirect cost of $798,625.58 and a total installed cost for the system of $3,941,912.53.

A. Commercial PV Because this is a public school funded through tax revenue we chose to put a zero down payment for the initial investment. This in turn yielded a higher after tax cash ow in year 1 due to the 30% government incentive tax

DESIGN PROJECT, EGEE 437, FALL 2013

credit and shortening the overall payback period for the system. As seen in Fig. 8 the system has a large inow of cash in year one and then drops until it begins to plateau once the loan is paid o after year 15.

ducing the same 2,197,818 kWh annually. We chose to go with a PPA price of $0.10/kWh as the price of electricity is less than the $0.16/kWh when the energy audit was done. One can see in Fig. 9 the PPA price compared to the nominal and real LCOE.

Fig. 9. LCOE Nominal and Real vs PPA Price

Fig. 8. Annual cash ow after tax by year

Table III shows the economic benet of adding a PV system to the roof of the school. As one can see the payback period for this system is roughly only 3 years which is relatively fast compared to normal payback periods of approximately 10-15 years. The system provides an economic benet to the tune of $332,418.72 annual savings. This is a large sum of money that could be spent upgrading the technology in the school and allowing for a larger distance for bus pick-ups and drop-os limiting the number of students forced to walk in varying weather conditions. Also, after everything is said and done the investment into adding PV panels to the roof gives a net present value of $4,805,537.00.
TABLE III Financial Results

Figure 10 shows the annual cash ow of the PPA system for 25 years. Comparing this to Figure 8 it is apparent that after the rst year the cash ow for the PPA system is signicantly less than the net-metered system. Also unlike the net-metered system in Fig. 8 once the loan is paid o in year 15 the cash ow continues to drop. This does not appear to like a good option nancially as the system consistently brings in a lower and lower revenue each year.

Fig. 10. Annual cash ow after tax by year for PPA design.

Because of the PPA price of $0.10/kWh and the system producing 2,197,818 kWh annually the annual saving by having a PPA is $219,781.80. This is a considerable amount less than the previous system design with netmetering. Along with a lower annual savings from the system the net present value is $3,649,667.75 which is more than an entire million dollars less than the net-metered system. C. Recommendations B. Commercial PV PPA Same as the non-PPA system we elected to go with a zero down payment to maximize the government incentive tax credit of 30%. The specications of the modules and arrays are identical to that of the non-PPA system proBy comparing the two potential systems designed identically but with dierent economic outcomes it becomes evident that a solar energy system with a PPA is not the way to go for the client. A net-metering system will provide a fast payback period along with a high annual savings and a substantially greater net present value. Because

SOLAR DESIGN FOR THE SOUTH BRUNSWICK HIGH SCHOOL, MONMOUTH JCT. NJ

TABLE IV Financial results for PPA design

there are numerous budget cuts happening every year due to the citizens voting against an increase in taxes, adding a solar energy system to the public school appears to be a viable option for the near future. References
[1] Solar 4 R Schools, Mission & History, Bonneville Environmental Foundation. Web. 10 Dec 2013 http://www.solar4rschools.org/ [2] Chu, Yinghao, Photovoltaic Solar Panels (PV)., Review and Comparison of Dierent Solar Energy Technologies . 2011. [3] Brownson, Jerey, Solar Energy Conversion Systems, State College: Heliotactic Press, 2012. [4] Johnson, Raymond, Energy Audit - Final Report, Concord Engineering Group, Voorhees NJ, 2009. [5] DSIRE, New Jersey Solar Renewable Energy Certicates (SRECs), 16 Aug. 2012, [6] DSIRE, New Jersey Solar Energy Sales Tax Exemption, 12 Dec. 2012, [7] PSEG, Newsroom: Solar. PSEG. Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated, 17 Dec 2013.