SOLAR WATER HEATING IN THE CANADIAN CLIMATE

GRAEME DOYLE

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

B ACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE

FACULTY ADVISOR: PROFESSOR J.S. W ALLACE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING MARCH, 2007

ABSTRACT
This project aimed to complete two goals: document a methodology for designing a large scale Solar Water Heating (SWH) system. and study the economic feasibility these systems in the Canadian climate. The complete design proposal for the installation of a SWH system in an existing TDSB school building was developed. An economic analysis was performed on the designed system in order to gain insight into the economics of SWH systems. The system was analyzed at different values of energy cost inflation rates, debt ratios, and availability of subsidies. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the initial costs. The financial feasibility of the SWH system was found to increase with the availability of a subsidy, increasing energy cost inflation rate, and decreasing debt ratio. A specific case was examined where the addition of the SWH system allowed a summer boiler to be undersized, resulting in savings for the SWH project and a boosted financial feasibility.

II

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor J. S. Wallace for his insight and guidance; Mr. Eric Steen and the TDSB for their time and support; and Kristina and Finn for their love and care.

III

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 1. 2. 3. 4.
4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4.

LIST OF SYMBOLS ________________________________________

IV

LIST OF FIGURES _________________________________________ VII PROJECT OVERVIEW _______________________________________ 1 INTRODUCTION TO SOLAR WATER HEATING SYSTEMS _______________ 3 DESIGN METHODOLOGY_____________________________________ 5
OVERVIEW _____________________________________________________ 5 SITE SELECTION _________________________________________________ 5 PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION ________________________________________ 7 COST ESTIMATION ______________________________________________ 12

5.
5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5.

DESIGN RESULTS ________________________________________ 15

OVERVIEW ____________________________________________________ 15 SITE SELECTION ________________________________________________ 15 SYSTEM DESIGN________________________________________________ 16 COMPONENT DESIGN ____________________________________________ 19 PERFORMANCE RESULTS _________________________________________ 23

6.
6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4.

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ____________________________________ 24

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY _______________________________________ 24 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ____________________________________________ 27 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ___________________________________________ 28 DISCUSSION ___________________________________________________ 28

7. 8. 9.

CONCLUSION ___________________________________________ 31 REFERENCES ___________________________________________ 32 APPENDIX A: PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION DETAILS ________________ 33

10. APPENDIX B: SYSTEM DRAWINGS _____________________________ 38

IV

1. LIST OF SYMBOLS
AT, total storage tank surface area [m] Cs, storage capacity ratio [L/m2] Ca, antifreeze heat capacity [J/kgC] d, pipe diameter [m] FR, collector heat removal factor , solar fraction, friction factor g, acceleration due to gravity [m/s2] Hd/H, the fraction of diffuse radiation to total radiation Ho, monthly average extraterrestrial solar irradiation [W/m2] HH, monthly average solar irradiation on a horizontal surface [W/m2] HT, monthly average solar irradiation on a tilted surface [W/m2] h, average number of hours of bright sunlight [hours/year] hf, friction head loss [m] hs, static head [m] IT, solar irradiation on a tilted surface [W/m2] ITc, critical level of solar irradiation on a tilted surface [W/m2] KT, average clearness index L, longitude [degrees] L, heating load [MJ], length of pipe [m] , solar loop mass flow rate [kg/s]

N, number of days in a particular month [days] P, pumping power [W]

Q, volume flow rate [m3/s] Qu, solar energy gain [MJ] rt,n, the ratio of hourly total to daily total radiation at noon rd,n, the ratio of hourly total to daily diffuse radiation at noon Rb. the ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface Rb,n. the ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface at solar noon Red, Reynolds number for duct flow R. the ratio of radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface Rn, the ratio for the hour centred at noon of radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface for an average day of the month Rs, ratio of the standard storage heat capacity per unit collector area of 350 [kJ/m 2C] Ti, collector fluid inlet temperature [C] Ta, ambient temperature [C] To, collector fluid outlet temperature [C] Tm, minimum useful temperature [C] UL, collector functional heat loss coefficient V, fluid velocity [m/s] Xc, dimensionless critical radiation level , collector slope [degrees] , Solar Declination [degrees] , collector azimuth [degrees] T, change in fluid temperature as it passes through solar array [C] t, total number of seconds in a month [seconds]

VI

, pipe roughness [m] HX, heat exchanger effectiveness , utilizability , pump efficiency , latitude [degrees] , ground reflectivity (), collector functional transmittance absorbptance product , dynamic viscosity [Pa s] s, Sunset Hour Angle n, Solar noon Hour Angle

VII

1. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Collector efficiency vs. T ________________________________________ 4 Figure 2: System input parameters used in the performance estimation model _______ 9 Figure 3: Pre-tax initial cost sensitivity _____________________________________ 13 Figure 4: Initial, Annual, and Period cost estimation __________________________ 14 Figure 5: Simplified schematic diagram for the service hot water system __________ 16 Figure 6: Closed and open collector loop designs ____________________________ 17 Figure 7: System design schematic _______________________________________ 18 Figure 8: Characteristics of selected solar collectors __________________________ 19 Figure 9: Results of comparison analysis, total array size = 70 [m2] ______________ 19 Figure 10: Fraction of the heating load supplied by solar energy _________________ 23 Figure 11: Case 1 standard initial cost, 100% debt ratio ______________________ 27 Figure 12: Case 2 standard initial cost, 50% debt ratio _______________________ 27 Figure 13: Case 3 standard initial cost, 0% debt ratio ________________________ 27 Figure 14: Undersize boiler replacement, $30,000 savings in year 0, 100% debt ratio 27 Figure 15: Best case scenario low initial costs, 0% debt ratio __________________ 28 Figure 16: Worst case scenario high initial costs, 100% debt ratio ______________ 28

2. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Solar energy, though it is the source of all energy on Earth, is not what is considered a conventional energy resource. The technology needed to exploit its undepletable energy has been available for centuries, but does not exist in the mainstream of human energy technologies. As a result, there is much less knowledge and experience in dealing with the technology needed to tap the suns power. The intent of this project is twofold: to document a methodology for designing a large scale solar water heating system. and to study the economic feasibility these systems in the Canadian climate. This project will consider the installation of Solar Water Heating (SWH) systems in existing buildings. It aims to develop a complete design proposal for the installation of a retrofit SWH system for a large building. The project will be conducted on a real building in the Toronto area. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has graciously agreed to supply the author with all necessary data on a school in order to complete the design proposal. The TDSB has requested that the schools name or location not be disclosed in this report for confidentiality reasons. Upon completion of the project, the TDSB will be presented with a copy of this design proposal. Although performed as a case study on a particular building application, the results of the project will be generalized such that they will give an indication of the economics of these systems. This project will serve to document the design process for developing a technically and economically feasible solar water heating system. Chapter 4 gives an introduction to Solar Water Heating technology. The goal of this passage is to familiarize the reader with the two main solar collector technologies,

Glazed Flat Panel collectors and Evacuated Tube collectors. A brief discussion about the operating efficiency of these technologies concludes that discussion. Chapter 5 discusses the design methodology used throughout this project. A rationale used to select the building is described, and a description of the parameters used in the performance estimation model is given. Readers who would like more detail about the performance estimation calculations are referred to Appendix A. The chapter closes with the presentation of the cost estimate and a sensitivity analysis of its assumptions. Chapter 6 describes the final design of the SWH system. A qualitative and quantitative report of the aspects of the overall system design as well as the individual component design proceeds, followed by a presentation of the final performance model results. Chapter 7 analyzes the financial feasibility of the project. An explanation of the evaluation methodology is followed by the results of the economic and sensitivity analyses. Finally the findings and implications these results are discussed. Chapter 8 concludes the report and formalizes its findings.

3. INTRODUCTION TO SOLAR WATER HEATING SYSTEMS

A glazed flat panel collector consists of a shallow rectangular box with a flat black plate behind a glass cover. The plate is attached to a series of parallel tubes through which a heat transfer fluid passes. As the liquid circulates through the system, it absorbs energy from sunlight falling on the collectors and heats up. The heated liquid then enters a heat exchanger or is added directly to the conventional system. The heated water flows to a storage tank that is connected to the conventional service water heating system. Glazed flat panel solar collectors are insulated behind the absorber plate, but nonetheless, they are much less efficient in cold weather than in warm, though they can still generate a net energy gain during the winter. These systems are best suited to applications that require medium to high temperatures (1 p. 8). Evacuated tube collectors absorb solar energy in much the same manner that glazed panels do. An evacuated tube collector contains several individual glass tubes, each containing an absorber plate bonded to a heat pipe and suspended in a vacuum. The heat pipe transfers the heat to a condenser through the top of the tube. The condensers are clamped to heat exchange blocks in a well-insulated manifold. The collector plate absorbs radiation and transfers it to the condenser as heat. The heat transfer fluid passes through the manifold, collects the heat from the condensers and transfers it to a heat exchanger in a hot water tank. Cold weather and high water temperatures have little effect on evacuated tube collectors, since the collectors are so well insulated. However, they absorb less energy than glazed collectors because curved glass sheath offers a lower transmittance factor than glazed collectors. These systems are best suited to applications that require high to very high temperatures (1 p. 11).

In general, collector conversion efficiency, the fraction of impinging solar energy that can be converted into useful energy, is a function of the difference between fluid inlet temperature and the ambient temperature, T. Glazed flat panel collectors start their efficiency curve higher when there is a smaller temperature difference, but loose their efficiency very quickly when T is larger. Evacuated tube collectors start their efficiency curve lower but maintain that efficiency better as T gets larger. This behavior is summarized in Figure 1.

Glazed Panel

Evacuated Panel , Collector Efficiency T, Difference between collector inlet temp and ambient temp

Figure 1: Collector efficiency vs. T

4. DESIGN METHODOLOGY
4.1. OVERVIEW The design process followed in this project proceeded in two distinct phases: the system design phase and the component design phase. In the system design phase, the designer was concerned with what type of system and components will be implemented and how to properly make this decision. A suitable building was selected using the criteria developed below, and emphasis was put on qualitatively evaluating the system design and ensuring that it will work with the building and its occupants. In the component design phase, the designer determines the proper sizing of individual system components with the aid of performance estimation techniques. A mathematical model was used to describe the systems thermal performance and installed cost was estimated based on the sizing of system components.

4.2. SITE SELECTION Unlike most solar water heating retrofit projects, the designer had the luxury of selecting an appropriate site to consider. The TDSB operates 558 schools in the Greater Toronto Area, so a wide variety of building layouts were available to choose from. In order to facilitate the selection of an appropriate building, a set of criteria which can be used to determine a suitable solar water heating candidate were developed. The attributes of buildings which determine whether a SWH project will be feasible or not were identified as follows: heating load profile, type of existing heating system, and the availability of rooftop mounting space with adequate structural support.

The first criterion identified was a large service hot water demand during the summer months. A high summer service hot water load is beneficial to the economics of a solar heating project because it allows for the design of a larger system that can be utilized during the summer when the load is at its lowest. During the summer months the only demands on the service hot water system come from domestic hot water use (kitchens and showers are the largest uses) and from pool heating. Therefore, schools with pools, showers, and kitchens were identified as key candidates. The second criterion identified as essential for a solar heating system was the technical and economic feasibility of integrating the system into the existing heating system. The heating system should also be of a type which can be easily interfaced with a solar water heating system. For example, a heating system consisting of distributed gas-fired or electric unit heaters would require a major renovation to the heating system and would likely cause the project to be economically infeasible. It is desirable to select a building with a heating system which would require very little modification in the installation of a solar heating system. If the existing heating system is reaching the end of its useful lifecycle and is in need of replacement, savings can be generated for the SWH design by allowing the replacement heating system to be downsized. The third criterion was identified as the availability of rooftop mounting space with adequate structural support. Solar heating systems require a large rooftop area with an unobstructed southerly exposure for mounting the solar collectors. The ability of the structural roof elements to accept a heavy load is also a key consideration, requiring the approval of a structural engineer prior to installation. The rooftop mounting area should also be close to the mechanical room where the service hot water equipment is kept in

order to minimize the amount of exposed solar loop piping which would add to the systems heat loss. Adequate space in the mechanical room is required for the installation of the large solar thermal storage tank. Depending on the design this may range from a very large volume of space to no space at all, as in the case where no solar thermal storage tank is designed. In addition to these criteria, it is desired to select a building for which complete, accurate, and long-term data on the energy consumption of only the service hot water system is available. Since the energy consumption data supplied by the TDSB is in the form of monthly natural gas or electricity consumption for the entire school, it is desirable to select a building where the only equipment consuming natural gas is the service hot water system.

4.3. PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION In the component design phase, the total energy delivered by the system over its lifetime is estimated based on the selection of design variables. Estimations fall into two broad categories: detailed simulations and design methods. Detailed simulations utilize computational methods to solve a large set of differential equations which describe the thermal characteristics of the system. This type of estimation is quite detailed and complex, so it is typically used to simulate experimental or one-of-a-kind systems. Design methods, on the other hand, are models that correlate the results from hundreds of detailed simulations to provide an empirical procedure for estimating the systems performance. They were developed to allow designers to estimate a systems

8 performance quickly and easily. This project employed the ,-Chart design method to estimate the systems long-term performance. The ,-Chart method was developed to study the long-term performance of closed-loop solar energy systems by Klein and Beckman in 1979 (1). It combines the strengths and weaknesses of the Utilizability () and -Chart methods to produce a correlation that has proven to be more accurate and versatile than both those methods. Details of the performance estimation calculations can be found in Appendix A. The accuracy of the performance estimation depends on the accuracy of the parameters used to define the system. The model parameters can be broken down into three categories: design variables, system constants, and operation data. Design variables are the main parameters that define the system. They are the variables that are varied in the system analysis in order to find their optimum sizing. System constants represent parameters that are either set at the beginning of the design or are proportional to a design variable and so are not varied in the system analysis. Operation data is required information necessary for calculations on the conditions under which the system will be operating. Figure 2 lists the system parameters used in the performance estimation model, and is followed by a brief description of each parameter.

Category

Input Parameter , latitude [degrees]

Type System Constant System Constant System Constant System Constant Design Variable Design Variable Design Variable
2

Site

L, longitude [degrees] , collector azimuth [degrees]

Orientation

, collector slope [degrees] Solar collector type [Glazed or Evacuated]

Solar Collector Array

Solar collector characteristics (FR(), FRUL, Aperature) N, number of collectors [#] Cs, storage capacity ratio [L/m ]

Design Variable System Constant System Constant System Constant System Constant System Constant System Constant System Constant Operation Data Operation Data Operation Data Operation Data Operation Data

Storage Tank

Storage tank characteristics (U-factor, surface area) HX, heat exchanger effectiveness [%]

Heat Exchanger

Ca, antifreeze heat capacity [J/kgC] Tm, minimum useful temperature [C]

System Energy Balance

, solar loop mass flow rate [kg/s] Total pump power [W] , pump efficiency [%] Lj, average heating load for month j [MJ] HH,j, average daily irradiation on a horizontal surface for month j 2 [W/m ] Ta,j, average daily ambient temperature for month j [C] j, ground reflectivity for month j h, average number of hours of bright sunlight [hours/year]

Operation Data

Figure 2: System input parameters used in the performance estimation model

10

SITE The longitude, , and latitude, L, of the site affect the relation of the sun to the site. The official Toronto values given by Environment Canada were used (2). ORIENTATION The slope, , is the angle that the plane of the collector makes with the ground. This changes the angle of solar irradiation falling in the plane of the collector. Increasing the slope increases the amount of irradiation on the collector during the winter and decreases it during the summer. For maximum solar gain the rule of thumb is to set the slope equal to the latitude 10 [degrees] (3 p. 157). In order to increase winter energy generation when the demand is high at the expense of summer capacity when the demand is low, a slope greater than the latitude was used. A slope of 50 degrees was selected in order to simplify the mounting procedure. Azimuth, L, is the angle between due south and the direction that the collector is facing. The azimuth angle is set to zero for optimum solar energy gain (3 p. 158). SOLAR COLLECTOR ARRAY The solar collector array is the defining component of the SWH system. Its design involves deciding upon the main design variables: collector type, collector product model, and array size. For this study two collector technologies were considered: Glazed Flat Panel and Evacuated Tube. Suitable product models for each type of panel were identified based on cost and performance. The performance estimation model was then used to compare the performance of each of the collector types. This analysis resulted in the

11

selection of the Solarco SC-22 glazed flat panel as the collector product model. The results of this analysis can be found in section 5.3. The other key design variable in the solar collector array is the overall sizing of the array. Using the performance estimation model, the number of panels needed to meet the summer baseload was determined to be 55 panels for a total array area of 109.5 [m2]. STORAGE TANK A thermal storage capacity ratio of 50 [L/m2] of collector area was considered for the performance estimation. An insulated steel tank storage tank measuring 1.50 [m] in diameter by 3.10 [m] in height with a U-factor of 0.3 [W/m2C] was selected. HEAT EXCHANGER An external shell and tube type heat exchanger with an effectiveness of 95% was considered for the performance estimation. The solar antifreeze fluid considered was a 50-50 propylene glycol / water mix with a heat capacity of 5843 [J/kgC]. SYSTEM ENERGY BALANCE The ,-Chart method requires the specification of a minimum temperature, Tm, that must be surpassed for the solar fluid at the collector outlet to add energy to the system. This minimum temperature was set as the expected return temperature of the service hot water loop, which was estimated to be at 40 [C]. The mass flow rate of the solar loop, , was selected as the median of the range of

typical values described by Duffie and Beckman (4 p. 514). The mass flow rate used in the performance estimation model was 1.64 [kg/s].

12

The total system pump power was roughly estimated by calculating the static head and head loss experienced by the system. The total system pumping power was estimated to be 2096 [W], assuming a pump efficiency of 85%. Details on this calculation can be found in Appendix A. OPERATION DATA The time scale of the available radiation, temperature, and load data determines the time scale of the estimation. Monthly average data was used in the performance estimation, and is the most common time scale available. Since climatic conditions vary greatly from year to year, it is beneficial to use data that has been normalized over a number of years. Climatic data was provided by Environment Canada in the form of 30 year monthly average radiation and ambient temperature data (2). Load data was provided by the TDSB in the form of 6 year monthly average normalized natural gas consumption data for the boiler plant (5).

4.4. COST ESTIMATION A comprehensive accounting of all the expected costs for the installation of the system was performed in order to estimate the initial, annual, and periodic costs associated with the project. This is presented in Figure 4. Difficulty obtaining precise figures for worker wages, billable hours, and equipment costs means that the cost estimation relies on assumptions made about these costs. These assumptions present a degree of uncertainty into the cost estimation. In order to estimate that degree of uncertainty, a range of values was used for each cost

13

assumption in order to generate a high and low cost estimate. These results are presented below.
Estimate Cost Difference Percent Selected $86,434 High $107,271 $20,837 24% Low $68,426 -$18,007 -21%

Figure 3: Pre-tax initial cost sensitivity

14

Initial Costs

Unit

Quantity Unit Cost

Amount

Source

Design and Development Permits project Approvals p-h Project management p-h SWH system design p-h Structural design p-h Tenders and contracting p-h Commissioning p-h Construction supervision p-h Sub-total : Equipment Solar collectors # Collector support structure m Solar storage tank L Heat Exchanger kW Piping materials m Auxiliary equipment project Circulating pump(s) W Controls project Antifreeze L Sub-total : Installation Roof mounting installation p-h Solar Collector installation p-h Plumbing installation p-h Electrical installation p-h Sub-total : Miscellaneous Training p-h Sub-total : Initial Costs - Sub-total : Initial Costs - Taxes : Initial Costs - Total Annual Costs O&M O&M labour Electricity Annual Costs - Total Periodic Costs Replace Fittings Replace Antifreeze Unit p-h kWh

1 5 25 18 6 10 10 10

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

318 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

318 City of Toronto Permit Fee Schedule 350 Estimate 1,750 Estimate 1,225 Estimate 420 Estimate 700 Estimate 700 Estimate 700 Estimate 6,163 41,250 14,776 11,688 624 1,200 300 6,021 750 543 77,151 600 1,000 800 600 3,000 Quote from supplier RETscreen user manual RETscreen user manual RETscreen user manual Cost survey Cost survey/Estimate Cost survey Cost survey Quote from supplier

55 109.5 5500 66 48 1 2,096 1 78

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

750 135 2.13 9.50 25 300 2.9 750 7

15 25 20 15

$ $ $ $

40 40 40 40

Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate

30 $ 120 $ 120 $ 86,434 $ 12,101 $ 98,534 Amount 60 561 621

Estimate

Quantity Unit Cost 2 5,613 $ $ $

Source Estimate Estimate

30 $ 0.10 $ - $

Period Unit Cost Amount Source 10 yr $ 300 $ 300 RETscreen user manual 10 yr $ 543 $ 543 Estimate Figure 4: Initial, Annual, and Period cost estimation

15

5. DESIGN RESULTS
5.1. OVERVIEW Of all the system design considerations to take into account, the most important is to select a design that is a suitable match for the building. In the system design phase, suitable designs are identified and compared against each other on a qualitative basis. The best designs are then passed on to the component design phase, where the designs are compared on a quantitative basis.

5.2. SITE SELECTION Using the site selection criteria, a suitable building was chosen for this feasibility study. The facility is a 2 storey structure of masonry construction without a basement. The original building was constructed in 1958 and has received major additions on several occasions. The heated floor area measures 11,532 square metres, but the roof area is 9,226 square metres, indicating that the approximately 80% of the floor area is one storey. It is equipped with a cafeteria kitchen, full-size pool with showers, and is host to various camp activities during the summer break. The service hot water system for the school provides all the energy for space heating, domestic hot water, and pool heating. It consists of 2 large winter boilers and one smaller summer boiler. All of the boilers are reaching the end of their useful life and will need to be replaced within the next 5 years, according to a site assessment performed by the TDSB (6). As stated earlier, if the replacement equipment can be downsized because of the installation of a SWH system, then savings may be assigned to the SWH system. A simplified diagram depicting the system is shown in Figure 5. For

16

these systems, the service hot water system operates on a closed loop. Heat is added to the loop by the boiler plant and is removed by heat exchangers connected to the loads. This system layout is very favourable to the addition of a solar water heating system.

Boiler Plant To School From water main

Radiators and Fan Coils

Natural Gas Pool

DHW Storage Tank

Figure 5: Simplified schematic diagram for the service hot water system

5.3. SYSTEM DESIGN The main design consideration when developing the overall system design is the freeze protection strategy, especially in cold climates. The selection of freeze protection strategy dictates whether the system will be an open or closed loop system. However, in order to explain the different freeze protection strategies, open and closed loop systems must first be defined. n an open collector loop the fluid circulating in the collectors is deposited directly into the solar storage tank, while in a closed collector loop, the loop is sealed and there is a heat exchanger between the collector loop and the solar storage tank. The use of heat

17

exchangers, which cannot perfectly convey all the heat from the hot water loop to the load, reduces the amount of usable energy that can be drawn from the system. Figure 6 depicts the two system designs.

Solar Collector Hot Water Loop Supply

Solar Collector Hot Water Loop Supply

Hot Water Loop Storage Hot Water Loop Return

Solar Collector and Hot Water Loop Storage

Hot Water Loop Return

Collector Loop Pump

Collector Loop Pump

Closed Collector Loop Design

Open Collector Loop Design

Figure 6: Closed and open collector loop designs

One of the main issues faced by solar water heating systems in an extreme climate like Canadas, is the possibility of freezing temperatures. If proper precautions are not taken to ensure that water in the collectors or exposed piping does not freeze, serious damage to the system can result. Two design strategies have been developed to safeguard a system from possible freeze damage. The first design strategy is called a draindown system, where electric or pressure actuated valves drain the fluid in the collectors and exposed piping back into a storage tank while filling the collectors with air. This design incorporates an open collector loop solar storage tank, and so is only suitable in systems with this design. A concern with this freeze protection strategy is the reliability of the of the draindown valve itself. Electrically actuated valves will not protect the system in the event of a power failure, and pressure actuated valves are susceptible to freezing shut in cold weather.

18

The second freeze protection design strategy uses a fluid with a very low freezing point (antifreeze) as the collector fluid. This eliminates all risk of freeze damage in the system, but due to the high cost of antifreeze, a closed collector loop with a heat exchanger must be used. This again puts a constraint on the system design and reduces the efficiency of the system, as described above. The existing service hot water system in the school is a closed loop design which serves the various loads through heat exchangers. This system is very easily modified to incorporate a solar water heater loop in a boiler preheating configuration. This design is beneficial because small temperature increases generated by the SWH loop can reduce the fuel consumed by the boiler substantially. A closed collector loop design was selected in order to facilitate the use of antifreeze as the collector fluid. The expense of reduced performance and extra cost is justified, because in the Canadian climate robust freeze protection is a must. This design was chosen because it offers the most reliable and simple freeze protection. A diagram of the system design is shown in Figure 7.

To School Boiler Plant

Solar Collector DHW Storage Tank HX HX Hot Water Loop Storage Tank

Natural Gas

Radiators and Fan Coils

Pool

From water main

Figure 7: System design schematic

19

5.4. COMPONENT DESIGN SOLAR COLLECTOR ARRAY The solar collector array is the defining component of the SWH system. Its design is the single most influential aspect of the system performance, both thermally and economically. The design of the solar collector array involves deciding upon the main design variables: collector type, collector model, and array size. For this study two collector technologies were considered: Glazed Flat Panel and Evacuated Tube. Suitable product models for each type of panel were identified based on cost and performance. The selected panel models are manufactured by Solarco Manufacturing Inc., a Toronto area company. Local sourcing reduces the expense incurred when transporting the panels from their supplier. The performance estimation model was used to compare the performance of each of the collector types. The results of this analysis are given below.
Collector Type Glazed Evacuated Model SC-22 VCR-16 FR() 0.79 0.47 F RU L 3.25 1.05 Aperature [m /panel] 1.99 0.80
2

Cost [$/panel] $ 750 $ 900

Figure 8: Characteristics of selected solar collectors Collector SC-22 (Glazed) VCR-16 (Evacuated) Number of Panels 35 87 Total System Cost $ 59,235 $ 118,826 Energy Gain [MJ/year] Tm = 40C Tm = 70C Tm = 100C 141,661 84,545 38,906 106,599 81,957 58,426

Figure 9: Results of comparison analysis, total array size = 70 [m2]

The results of this analysis provide an insight into the operation of the two collector technologies. At lower minimum useful temperatures (Tm) the glazed collector is more effective at collecting energy, while at higher temperature the evacuated collector is more effective. This result agrees with the general collector efficiency graph shown in

20

Figure 1. Since the SWH system in this project is serving as a boiler preheater, high temperatures are not required, so the benefits of the evacuated collector are lost. Also, for the same area an evacuated collector array would cost nearly twice as much as a glazed collector array, so the Solarco SC-22 glazed flat panel collector was selected for use in this project. The other key design variable in the solar collector array is the overall sizing of the array. The number of panels and size of the array proportionally affect the amount of energy generated by the system. The methodology for sizing the solar collector array is to provide enough energy to just meet the summer baseload. Sizing the system for the baseload demand is a good strategy to ensure that the system is never underutilized. Also, a system which generates large amounts of unused energy during the summer poses a danger to itself as it needs to vent the excess energy in a suitable fashion. If pressure relief valves malfunction and the system heats up too quickly the pressure in the solar loop can build up and cause a catastrophic failure, damaging the system and endangering building occupants. Using the performance estimation model, the number of panels needed to meet the summer baseload was determined to be 55 panels for a total array area of 109.5 [m2]. THERMAL STORAGE Thermal storage in SWH affects system performance in two ways. Firstly, it allows solar energy to be saved for use at night or during periods of prolonged cloudiness. Secondly, it increases the efficiency of the system by allowing the solar loop to dump its energy even when the load is small. The storage tank was sized mainly considering cost, constraining the selection within the acceptable range of storage capacity ratios

21

described by Duffie and Beckman (4 p. 540). A thermal storage capacity ratio of 50 [L/m2] of collector area was selected, yielding a total storage tank capacity of 5500 [L]. The size of an individual thermal storage tank is limited by the size of the door to the boiler room. Fortunately, the boiler room of the selected school has a double door opening to outside which could facilitate a maximum tank diameter of approximately 1 to 1.5 [m]. A storage tank measuring 1.50 [m] in diameter by 3.10 [m] in height was selected. In terms of the storage tank construction, an insulated steel tank with a Ufactor of 0.3 [W/m2C] was selected. Steel tank construction was favoured over fibreglass design due to the need for pressurization in the service hot water loop. HEAT EXCHANGER The closed collector loop design necessitates the use of a heat exchanger to transfer heat from the solar antifreeze fluid to the service hot water fluid. In order to achieve a high heat exchanger effectiveness, an external shell and tube type heat exchanger has been selected. This requires pumps on both the solar fluid and service fluid sides to circulate the fluids through the heat exchanger, which increases the parasitic losses. The extra expense in equipment and operational costs is justified by the increased ability to extract useful heat from the solar fluid. The external heat exchanger configuration also facilitates easy maintenance and repair. A 50-50 propylene glycol / water mix was selected for the solar antifreeze fluid due to its low toxicity and effectiveness as a heat transfer fluid and antifreeze. The low toxicity of propylene glycol is important in order to avoid the need for a double walled heat exchanger. Double walls are often required as a safety measure in case of leaks, helping ensure that the antifreeze does not mix with the potable water supply (6 p. 416).

22

It is to be expected that the existing domestic hot water heat exchanger is double walled, since the service hot water loop likely contains bacterial inhibitor chemicals. However, due to the age and condition of the existing equipment, it was decided to err on the side of caution and select a non-toxic antifreeze fluid. CONTROL SYSTEM On/off operation of a fixed flow rate collector pump is the most widely used pump and system control configuration (7 p. 101). Power switching controllers employ simple electromechanical relays which are cheap, reliable, and familiar to installers. This simple control scheme is possible because more complicated control points such as the boiler control already have installed control mechanisms which react to the temperature of the service hot water loop, irrespective of the SWH system. The control system operates by measuring the difference between the collector inlet temperature and the collector outlet temperature, T. The system collects solar energy by turning the pump on whenever T reaches a preset amount, Ton. The controller turns the pump off whenever T drops to another preset amount, Toff. The value of Toff is typically 0.5 1 C and the value of Ton typically 4 6 times Toff (7 p. 102). Selection of these constants is important in order to reduce the frequency of cycling that the will system experiences, which increases the parasitic losses incurred by the pump.

23

5.5. PERFORMANCE RESULTS The final system design was evaluated using the performance estimation model. The resulting energy gains represent the performance of the system in a typical year. The annual net solar energy delivered by the system was estimated to be 241,459 [MJ], displacing 10,835 [m3] of natural gas. Parasitic pumping losses consumed 5,613 [kWh] of electrical energy. Therefore the system generated 11.95 times more energy than it consumed. The overall fraction of the total heating load supplied by the SWH system was 2.69%, while the monthly solar fraction during July and August was 100%. Figure 10 charts the solar fraction as well as the total solar energy gain in [MJ].

35,000 30,000 25,000

Energy Gain [MJ]

1.0

0.9
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Energy Gain

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 5,775 Dec 2,853 0.0

9,024 14,300 22,017 25,719 28,919 29,430 28,658 27,615 28,863 20,680

Solar Fraction 0.0058 0.0105 0.0178 0.0370 0.0728 0.3296 1.0000 1.0000 0.1998 0.0379 0.0060 0.0019

Figure 10: Fraction of the heating load supplied by solar energy

Solar Fraction

24

6. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
6.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The economics of the project depend on several key financial factors: the availability of a government subsidy, the energy cost escalation rate, the debt ratio and interest rate, and the discount rate. The following section will describe the selection of those factors as well as the economic indicators that will be used to evaluate the project. GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY Solar water heating installations are generally characterized by high initial costs and low operating costs. Thus the basic economic problem is one of comparing an initial known cost with estimated future operating costs. Reducing the initial cost can substantially benefit the economics of a project, especially if debt is taken on for financing. Many governments offer subsidies to renewable energy installation projects to help offset costs and give the emerging technology a boost. The Government of Ontario currently offers a rebate on the provincial sales tax for residential SWH systems, however, a building such as the school considered in this project would not qualify. Since 1998, the Canadian Federal Government has offered substantial rebates through its Renewable Energy Deployment Initiative (REDI) program. The program provides a refund of 25 percent of the purchase and installation costs of qualifying renewable energy systems, to a maximum refund of $80,000 per installation (8). On January 19th, 2007 Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the cancellation of the REDI program, and beginning of the the ecoENERGY program that will replace it. The ecoENERGY for Renewable Heat program, will provide $36 million over four years to increase the adoption of clean renewable thermal technologies for water heating and

25

space heating and cooling (9). However, there has been no information made public about the details of this program. For the purposes of this project, the assumption will be made that the two programs are equivalent in their rebates. In order to gain insight into the effect of government subsidies on the economics of SWH projects, the project will be evaluated with and without this subsidy. ENERGY COST INFLATION RATE The energy cost inflation rate is that rate at which the price of energy is expected to increase in the future. Selecting a suitable rate is difficult given the high degree of price volatility that the energy market experiences. The methodology used in this analysis was to use both the historic data and future projections. The historic 25 year overall rate of increase in US natural gas prices was estimated at 43%, based on records from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) (10). However, forecasts by the EIA predict that natural gas prices will have declined by -0.7% by the year 2030 (11). Both figures have discounted increases due to general inflation. Since it is likely that the true energy cost inflation rate will fall within this range, the project will be evaluated at 0%, 20%, and 40% overall 25 year energy cost inflation rates. This rate will be applied on top of a flat general inflation rate of 2.0% based on current Canadian trends (12). DEBT RATIO AND INTEREST RATE The debt ratio is the percentage of the initial costs that were borrowed to finance the project. This ratio changes the project economics because with increasing debt ratio there will be increasing interest paid. The project will be evaluated at debt ratios of 100%, 50%, and 0% in order to examine its effect. The interest rate paid on debt was

26

selected at 6.0%, based roughly on the current (March 2007) prime rates for long term closed loans (13). DISCOUNT RATE The discount rate represents an investors minimum acceptable rate of return on investment, or in other words, the rate of return that would be earned had the money be put into an alternate investment. The discount rate was selected at 4.0%, roughly based on the current rate on long term government bonds in Canada (13). ECONOMIC INDICATORS Net Present Value (NPV) is defined as the present value of a series of cash flows, evaluated at the discount rate. It is an indication of the profitability of an investment minus the opportunity cost of an alternative investment returning at the discount rate (14 p. 152). Simple Payback (SPB) is the amount of time it takes to recover the initial costs, not taking into account the time value of money. It is simply the initial costs divided by the income generated per year. It is a highly popular indicator due to its lack of dependence on variables such as discount and interest rates, however, it is suggested not to rely completely on this indicator since the timing of cash flows and duration of the project are ignored (14 p. 155). Discounted Payback (DPB), similar to simple payback, is the amount of time it takes to recover the initial costs of a project. The discounted payback, however, takes into consideration the time value of money. It is considered a more realistic indicator than simple payback (4 p. 467).

27

6.2. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The economic analysis of the project was evaluated at differing values of three key factors: the availability of a government subsidy, the energy cost escalation rate, and the debt ratio. The project was evaluated over an expected lifetime of 25 years. The results of these evaluations are given below.
Energy Cost Inflation Rate 0% 20% 40%

No Subsidy
NPV -$44,573 -$36,848 -$28,127 SPB 25.22 25.22 25.22 DPB Never Never Never

With Subsidy
NPV -$14,768 -$7,043 $1,678 SPB 18.92 18.92 18.92 DPB Never Never 21

Figure 11: Case 1 standard initial cost, 100% debt ratio Energy Cost Inflation Rate 0% 20% 40%

No Subsidy
NPV -$33,741 -$26,016 -$17,296 SPB 25.22 25.22 25.22 DPB Never Never 23

With Subsidy
NPV -$6,644 $1,081 $9,801 SPB 18.92 18.92 18.92 DPB 21 18 16

Figure 12: Case 2 standard initial cost, 50% debt ratio Energy Cost Inflation Rate 0% 20% 40%

No Subsidy
NPV -$22,909 -$15,184 -$6,464 SPB 25.22 25.22 25.22 DPB 21 20 18

With Subsidy
NPV $1,480 $9,205 $17,925 SPB 18.92 18.92 18.92 DPB 17 16 15

Figure 13: Case 3 standard initial cost, 0% debt ratio Energy Cost Inflation Rate 0% 20% 40%

No Subsidy
NPV -$9,321 -$1,596 $7,124 SPB 17.76 17.76 17.76 DPB Never 23 18

With Subsidy
NPV $20,494 $28,219 $36,939 SPB 11.46 11.46 11.46 DPB N/A N/A N/A

Figure 14: Undersize boiler replacement, $30,000 savings in year 0, 100% debt ratio

28

6.3. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The range of initial costs given in Figure 3 was used to perform a sensitivity analysis on the cost estimation. The best case scenario (low cost estimation, 0% debt ratio) and the worst case scenario (high cost estimation, 100% debt ratio) are presented below.
Energy Cost Inflation Rate 0% 20% 40%

No Subsidy
NPV -$1,806 $5,919 $14,640 SPB 19.77 19.77 19.77 DPB 17 16 15

With Subsidy
NPV $17,307 $25,033 $33,753 SPB 14.82 14.82 14.82 DPB 14 13 12

Figure 15: Best case scenario low initial costs, 0% debt ratio Energy Cost Inflation Rate 0% 20% 40%

No Subsidy
NPV -$73,873 -$66,148 -$57,427 SPB 31.42 31.42 31.42 DPB Never Never Never

With Subsidy
NPV -$36,743 -$29,018 -$20,297 SPB 23.57 23.57 23.57 DPB Never Never Never

Figure 16: Worst case scenario high initial costs, 100% debt ratio

6.4. DISCUSSION The results of the economic analysis presented above gives an insight into the economics of SWH systems. As was expected, financial feasibility increased with the availability of a subsidy, increasing energy cost inflation rate, and decreasing debt ratio. The most obvious trend in the economic analysis was the benefit of a government subsidy towards the economics of the project. Under standard initial costing, no case had a positive NPV without the aid of the subsidy. However, with the subsidy, all three cases had the possibility of returning a positive NPV. The best case scenario (low initial cost, 0% debt ratio) had a positive NPV without subsidy, indicating that if initial costs could be lowered then financial feasibility without subsidy might be reached.

29

The energy cost inflation rate had a strong effect on the financial feasibility of the project. Under a rate of 0%, only Case 3 with subsidy and the Best case scenario with subsidy had a positive NPV. This indicates that if fuel costs remain stable at current relative costs for the next 25 years as predicted by the EIA (11), solar water heating may never become economically feasible without government subsidies, even with reduced initial costs. Increasing the amount of debt taken on in order to finance the project drastically reduced the financial feasibility of the project. The worst case scenario (high initial cost, 100% debt ratio) had no chance of generating a positive NPV, even with high energy cost inflation rates. It is ideal to finance the initial cost of a SHW system with cash to avoid paying any interest charges, however, this is not an option for most organizations. Simple payback periods depended only on initial costs and the availability of a subsidy. The simple payback periods ranged from 31.42 years (high initial cost, no subsidy) to 11.46 years (Undersize boiler replacement, $30,000 savings in year 0 with subsidy). Under standard initial costs and with subsidy the SPB was 18.92 years. Discounted payback periods ranged from never paying back to 12 years (low initial cost, with subsidy, energy cost inflation 40%). The average DPB for standard initial costs with subsidy was 16 years and without subsidy was 20.5 years, not including scenarios that never reached payback. Even the best payback scenario yielded a payback much longer than the TDSB is willing to consider, which is typically 8 years. In the case where the replacement summer boiler was undersized, a credit of $30,000 was applied in year 0. This improved the economics significantly, surpassing

30

even the best case scenario. However, a positive NPV was still only reached with the availability of a government subsidy, or a high energy inflation rate.

31

7. CONCLUSION
The financial feasibility of a SWH project was found to be highly dependant on initial costs, energy cost inflation rates, and debt ratios. This study found that under the right conditions, such as utilizing an available subsidy, a high energy cost inflation rate, or a low debt ratio, the installation of a SWH system could have a positive net present value, indicating that the investment would a good one. However, many of the results of the scenarios analyzed in this study found that under unfavourable conditions, such as the opposite of those mentioned above, the system caused a net economic loss. A specific case was examined where the addition of the SWH system allowed a summer boiler to be undersized, resulting in savings for the SWH project and a boosted financial feasibility. More research should be done into finding such niche applications that maintain an acceptable level of comfort for the buildings occupants, but allow the SWH system to fit into construction budgets. The economic analysis indicated that if fuel costs remain stable at current relative costs for the next 25 years as predicted by the EIA (11), large solar water heating systems may never become economically feasible without government subsidies, even with reduced initial costs. Currently solar water heating systems seem to be poised right on the line between profits and losses. It is up to the design team to create a system that is cost effective, yet robust enough to provide free solar energy to its building for years to come.

32

8. REFERENCES
1. Andren, L. Solar Installations: Practical Applications for the Built Environment. London : The Cromwell Press, 2003. 2. A General Design Method for Closed-Loop Solar Energy Systems. Klein, S. A. and Beckman, W. A. 1979, Solar Energy, Vol. 22, pp. 269-282. 3. Environment Canada. Canadian Climate Normals 1971-2000 (Toronto, Ontario). National Climate Data and Information Archive. [Online] http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/. 4. Morehouse, J. Optimum System Design Techniques. [ed.] G. Lf. Active Solar Systems. Cambridge : The MIT Press, 1993, pp. 152-180. 5. Duffie, J. A and Beckman, W. A. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. Hoboken : John Wiley & Sons, 2006. 6. Toronto District School Board. Internal Records. 7. Karaki, S. Space Heating: System Concepts and Design. [ed.] G. Lf. Active Solar Systems. Cambridge : The MIT Press, 1993, pp. 411-463. 8. Bryon Winn, C. Controls in Active Solar Energy Systems. [ed.] G. Lf. Active Solar Systems. Cambridge : The MIT Press, 1993, pp. 81-149. 9. Natural Resources Canada. Renewable Energy Deployment Initiative (REDI). Natural Resources Canada web site. [Online] Mar 2007. http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.asp?x=692. 10. . ecoENERGY Efficiency Initiative. Natural Resources Canada web site. [Online] http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.asp?x=698. 11. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Natural Gas Prices. EIA web site. [Online] http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3020us3A.htm. 12. . Forecasts and Analysis of Energy Data - Natural Gas Prices AEO. EIA web site. [Online] http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html. 13. Statistics Canada. Latest Release from the Consumer Price Index. Statistics Canada web site. [Online] http://www.statcan.ca/english/Subjects/Cpi/cpi-en.htm. 14. Bank of Canada. Rates and Statistics. Bank of Canada web site. [Online] http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/rates/index.html. 15. Szonyi, A. J., et al. Principles of Engineering Economic Analysis. Toronto : Wall & Emerson, Inc., 2003. 16. Klein, S. A. Design Methods for Active Solar Systems. [ed.] G. Lf. Active Solar Systems. Cambridge : The MIT Press, 1993, pp. 39-76. 17. White, F. M. Fluid Mechanics. New York : McGraw-Hill, 2003. 18. City of Toronto. Building Permit Fee Schedule. City of Toronto web site. [Online] 2007. http://www.toronto.ca/building/fee_schedule.htm. 19. RETScreen International. RETScreen Software Online User Manual, Solar Water Heating Project Model. RETScreen International web site. [Online] 2005. www.retscreen.net.

33

9. APPENDIX A: PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION DETAILS

,-CHART CALCULATION DETAILS The concept of Utilizability was first discussed by Whillier in 1953 in his Ph.D. dissertation at MIT (15). Utilizability, , is defined as the fraction of incident solar irradiation in the plane of the collector that can be extracted as useful heat. The monthly average utilizability is defined by the following equation (4 p. 700)

IT ITc
Days Hours

ITN

where IT is the solar irradiation in the plane of the collector and ITc is the critical level of solar irradiation that just exceeds the amount needed to counter the energy lost to the environment from the collector surface. At any intensity of radiation below this critical level the system will experience a net energy loss and will not circulate the collector fluid. ITc is defined by the following equation (4 p. 697)

ITc

FRUL (Tm FR

Ta )

Tm is the minimum useful temperature; T a is the monthly average ambient temperature;

FR is the collector heat removal factor;

is the effective product of the cover

transmittance and the collector plate absorptance; UL is the collector overall energy loss coefficient. is a correction factor to introduce the monthly average

transmittance-absorptance product.

34

As can be seen from the above equations, Utilizability is a function of climatic conditions such as ambient temperature, collector fluid inlet temperature, and irradiation level, as well as energy transfer characteristics of the chosen collector. Due to the transient nature of these climatic conditions, however, the monthly average utilizability, , cannot be approximated by substituting monthly average

climatic data into the equations above. Instead, it must be approximated through a dimensionless correlation. Xc Is the dimensionless critical radiation level, defined by (4 p. 700)

Xc

ITc rt,nRn H

FRUL Tm FR

Ta

rt,nRn K T Ho

The monthly average utilizability is calculated by the following correlation (4 p. 701)

exp

a b

Rn R

Xc

cXc
2

a b c

2.943 9.271K T 4.345 8.853K T

4.031K T 3.602K T 2.936K T

2 2

0.170 0.3061K T

The ,-Chart variables are then calculated as such (4 p. 704)

A cFR L

HTN

X'

A cFRUL 100 L

The solar fraction can then be solved for numerically from (4 p. 707)

35

Y 0.015 exp 3.85

1 1 exp

0.15X' R0.76 s

Where Rs is the ratio of the standard storage heat capacity per unit collector area of 350 [kJ/m2C]. is found for each month separately and multiplied by the monthly heating load, L, to arrive at the monthly solar energy gain, Qu.

The following parameters need to be solved for previous to the above calculation. , Solar Declination (4 p. 14)
23.45 sin 360 284 n 365

s , Sunset Hour Angle (4 p. 17)

sin sin cos cos tan tan

n , Solar noon Hour Angle (4 p. 17)

n

KT, Average Clearness Index: ratio of the monthly average radiation on a horizontal surface to the extraterrestrial radiation (4 p. 72)
KT H HO

rt,n, the ratio of hourly total to daily total radiation at noon (4 p. 82)
rt,n a bcos cos
n n

cos
s

s s

24

sin

180

cos

0.409 .5016 sin

s s

60 60

b .6609 .4767 sin

36

rd,n, the ratio of hourly total to daily diffuse radiation at noon (4 p. 83)

rd,n

cos 24 sin
s

cos
s

s s

180

cos

Rn, the ratio for the hour centred at noon of radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface for an average day of the month (4 p. 129)
Rn IT I 1
n

rd,nHd rt,nH

Rb,n

rd,nHd rt,nH

1 cos 2

1 cos 2

Hd/H , the fraction of diffuse radiation to total radiation (4 p. 80)

for Hd H
s

81.4 and 0.3 K T

0.8 2.137K T 3

1.391 3.56K T
s

4.189K T 2

for Hd H

81.4 and 0.3

KT

0.8

1.311 3.022K T

3.427K T 2 1.821K T 3

Rb . the ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface (4 p. 104)
cos Rb cos sin 's cos cos sin
s

180 180

's sin
s

sin

sin sin

's

min

cos 1 tan tan cos 1 tan tan

Rb,n. the ratio of beam radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface at solar noon (4 p. 25)

Rb,n

cos cos

R. the ratio of radiation on the tilted surface to that on a horizontal surface (4 p. 103)

37

HT H

Hd Rb H

Hd 1 cos H 2

1 cos 2

PUMPING POWER CALCULATION DETAILS The first step is to calculate the pipe flow Reynolds number from (16 p. 353)
Red 4Q d

If Red <= 2300 then the flow is laminar. Use the following equation to calculate the friction factor (16 p. 353)
64 Red

lam

If Red >> 2300 then the flow is turbulent. Use the following equation to calculate the friction factor (16 p. 366)
1
.5 tur

1.8log

6.9 Red

1.11

3.7d

Now calculate the head loss using (16 p. 352)

h LV 2 d2g

The required pumping power is then (16 p. 751)

gQ hs

hf

38

10.

APPENDIX B: SYSTEM DRAWINGS

Supply Service Hot Water Return Service Hot Water

Summer Boiler

Boiler #2

Modulating Control

Natural Gas

Boiler #1

Pressure Relief Valve Drainage Vessel Expansion Chamber

HX Filter
Solar Collector Array