Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Project Dates:
Prepared for:
Green Hill Engineering, in partnership with Fraunhofer USA, was able to devise a suitable
design for the renovation of the MMPEI building. This design incorporates the aspects of cost
effective materials, innovative technologies, and strives to maximize the energy returns of the
building with the use of solar devices. After preliminary research, we developed three initial
designs that we evaluated based on their compliance with Green Hill Engineering’s objectives.
We chose the best parts of each design and formulated a final concept model.
From a time perspective, this proposal could be implemented in approximately two years,
depending on weather conditions and the availability of components. The greatest risk associated
with this design is the large initial investment. We were not given a budget constraint for the
project, but one of our goals was to minimize the payback period. Our design will take
approximately 39 years to break even with the initial investment. A positive outcome of our
design proposal is the impact it will have on the community and the environment. The solar
exhibit will be an informative component to our design that will share the benefits of using only
renewable sources of energy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................3
References .........................................................................................................................12
Appendix ...........................................................................................................................13
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The University of Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute, located on the College of
Engineering’s North Campus, is home to research laboratories that produce cutting-edge studies
on the development of sustainable energy. Green Hill Engineering was consulted by Fraunhofer
USA, Center for Laser Technology, to assess the viability of converting a portion of the
building’s energy source to photovoltaic. As technology develops, “green” buildings that are
energy efficient and use little or no fossil fuels are becoming more prevalent. The primary goal
of the project was to maximize the use solar energy in powering the MMPEI building. We had to
take into consideration both the energy consumption specific to the facility and the feasibility of
harnessing sunlight at Michigan’s latitude. Several factors were to be considered in our task,
including returns on investment and maximization of available technology.
Green Hill Engineering took a unique approach to the project. In maximizing the total available
area used in harnessing solar energy we made allowances for all sides of the building as well the
land area on the South side of the MMPEI building. Cost was another significant consideration in
our design strategy. In compromising a small percentage of solar cell efficiency for cells of
cheaper material we were able to reduce the payback period a substantial amount. We wanted a
balance between the design’s effectiveness as a power source and the need for a reasonable
initial investment for the project.
3
2.2 Preliminary Design 2
Design 2 concentrated primarily on the usability of the roof for harnessing solar energy. To
maximize available roof space, we included an aluminum canopy-like structure that would
stretch over the top of the utilities equipment. This would also address any structural concerns
for the roof, as it would focus the weight of our added solar components towards the center and
the outside of the MMPEI building. A collection of flat photovoltaic panels would line the top of
this canopy as the main source of energy for powering the building. A solar tracking awning
would be mounted above the windows on the West side of the MMPEI building. This awning
incorporates new technology and will have the ability to adjust its position based on the location
of the sun. Not only would this provide shelter from the sun’s rays for the rooms on this side of
the building, but the solar panels along the top of the awning would also utilize sunlight as an
energy source. Another part of this design featured a sculpture composed of solar panels that
would be an additional energy source for the building, though minimal. Located in the grassy
area on the south side of the building, this sculpture would help satisfy aesthetic concerns related
to the project.
Preliminary Design 1 received 0.4 of 0.8 possible point in relation to the efficiency of the area
used by the photovoltaic devices. This is mostly because of the parabolic trough style cells that
are not as efficient as their counterparts. Also, this type of module does not give significant
energy returns for the amount of roof space it uses. Design 1 did not receive any points in the
4
categories of cost effectiveness of the design or the use of new technology. Overall, this design
received 0.4 of 1.0 point possible.
Preliminary Design 2 received 0.7 of 0.8 point possible for the efficiency of the area taken up by
the flat solar panels. This type of photovoltaic panel is quite efficient when made of germanium.
Design 2 received 0.05 of 0.1 point in the category of cost effectiveness; the flat panels give
significant energy returns for the initial investment. This design received full points, 0.1 of 0.1
for featuring new technology, for a total of 0.85 of 1.0 point possible.
Preliminary Design 3 received 0.6 of 0.8 point possible for its incorporation of parabolic dish
solar modules. These modules give decent energy returns based on the amount of area used on
the roof. Both categories of cost effectiveness of materials used and the incorporation of cutting-
edge technology were weighted 0.05 of 0.1 point possible. All together, this design received a
rating 0.7 of 1.0 point possible.
Our proposed design allows for the use of the optimal components of each preliminary design.
We feel that each adds a certain level of innovation and prestige to the overall concept of a solar-
powered building. The aerial view (see pg.14, Picture A-3) shows the addition of the carport and
solar awning to the west side of the MMPEI building, the roof installation, and also gives a feel
for the size of the educational exhibit relative to the building.
5
from solar radiation, multi-junction cells can be used. These cells utilize multiple materials in
order to absorb more energy. To decide whether to use a multi-junction germanium cell or a
single-junction monocrystalline silicon cell, we looked at the efficiencies and costs of each.
While multi-junction germanium solar cells are extremely efficient, they are also prohibitively
expensive. In order to make this large-scale project cost effective, we decided to use a more
economical monocrystalline silicon solar cell.
While the solar trackers are the most efficient at utilizing the available sunlight throughout the
day, it is not plausible to use them in all of the available areas. The best areas to use the solar
trackers are on the roof and in the solar display. In order for the solar awning to shade the west
side of the building and maximize power output, its solar panels must be horizontally oriented.
The solar garage will also be oriented horizontally due to height restrictions. Since the sun
spends most of its orbit south of Ann Arbor throughout the year, the solar wall will be tilted at an
angle of latitude plus 15 degrees. Using solar insolation maps, we determined the average
amount of solar insolation per square meter for every month of the year in Ann Arbor for all the
angles we used (see pg.15, Table A-3) [2]. We then multiplied these values by the solar panel
efficiency and then by the square meters from each area of our project (see pg.15, Table A-4).
This gave us the amount of energy produced from each area per month (see pg.15, Table A-5).
6
4.0 ANALYSIS OF SUBSYSTEMS
The final design proposed by Green Hill Engineering consists of five main components to be
added to the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute: a roof installation, a garage structure,
solar awning, a solar wall, and an educational display. Though each component will contribute to
the energy produced in the design and consumed by the building, each is unique in both its
purpose and functionality.
Since the air conditioning utilities are located in the center of the roof’s usable area, the canopy
must be built in two sections. The dimensions of each side of the canopy are 49 x 69.5 feet; they
will abut the air conditioning unit in the middle and will be three feet from any edge of the roof.
This is mainly a safety consideration; since this walkway is only three feet wide, a tether system
shock-rated to 5000 lbs will also be included for fall protection.
Green Hill Engineering has proposed the use of dual-axis tracking solar modules in the roof
installation. This type of module, when paired with relatively inexpensive 17% efficient silicon
solar panels, will provide 113,475.61 kWh of energy per year, using insolation data specific to
Ann Arbor, Michigan (see pg.15, Table A-5). Though the solar modules we will be using each
weigh approximately 100 pounds, the weight distribution limit of the roof, 30 lbs/ft2, will be met,
since the aluminum canopies will allow the weight to be distributed to the center and edges of
the roof, where structural supports for the building are already in place.
7
windows on the west side of the building allow substantial amounts of sunlight to enter the
building in the afternoon hours, causing the building to heat up. The solar awning will provide
shade to the upper floor while collecting solar energy to use for providing a portion of the
MMPEI building’s energy needs; the awning will produce 8,132.06 kWh annually.
5.0 TIMELINE
Green Hill Engineering has identified several next steps for the proposed design. First, we will
need to contact several contractors and receive their respective companies’ bid estimates for
managing the purchasing of components and installation of our design. This entire process
should take approximately four to six weeks, and will include selecting companies to give bids,
receiving their bids, and determining which contracting company to award the project. When
deciding which contractor to ultimately use in the implementation of our design, we will
consider not only the proposed dollar amounts to complete the task, but also each company’s
reputation in Southeast Michigan as well as their consideration for sustainable and energy
efficient practices.
Once a contractor has been decided upon, the next logical step would be to work with them to
obtain all of the components necessary for our design. The timeline in which this portion of the
project will be completed is the least certain; depending on many factors, this step could require
two months up to one year to complete. If many of our design’s components must be custom
made, the length of this portion will certainly be on the longer end. However, if the majority of
the parts of the design can be delivered directly upon ordering, the time required to complete the
process will be significantly reduced.
8
Installation can begin once the contractor has received all of the design parts. However,
depending on the contractor’s approach to the installation, this step may begin as soon as the
largest portions of the project arrive at the site. It is possible that the contractor may desire to
complete each section of the proposed design as the pieces are received, or may want to wait
until all of the parts have arrived to begin the installation process. This process should take no
longer than two months, allowing for timely delivery of materials from suppliers.
After installation, the only remaining segment of the project is funding. Grants may be applied
for throughout the duration of the project, but once all installations are complete, the payback
period must begin. The total cost of Green Hill Engineering’s proposed design is $642,315.80,
and it will take approximately 39 years to receive total returns on the initial investment.
9
effective to install another awning on the second floor of the MMPEI building as its shade would
cut down on the amount of direct sunlight the original awning would receive.
10
increases, the number of years required to pay back the building decreases. Furthermore, since
our plan produces 20% of the building’s energy needs, even a rise in electricity costs as small as
$0.002 will decrease the amount of time required to pay back the initial cost by approximately 2
years. For a complete cost analysis refer to page 16, Table A-6.
8.0 CONCLUSION
Green Hill Engineering, in partnership with Fraunhofer USA, was able to devise a suitable
design for the renovation of the MMPEI building. Our proposed design consists of an array of
dual-axis solar trackers on the roof, a solar garage, a solar awning, a solar wall, and an
educational exhibit. This design will provide 20% of the building’s current energy needs. At a
cost of $642,315.80, this project will take approximately 38 years to pay back. The switch of the
MMPEI building to solar energy will have a positive impact on the environment as well as
inform the Ann Arbor community of the importance and benefits of using sustainable sources of
energy.
11
REFERENCES
[2] “US Solar Radiation Resource Maps.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved 3
December 2008 from
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/.
[5] “Commercial Awnings.” Mid-Michigan Canvas & Awning. Retrieved 7 December 2008 from
http://www.midmichigancanvas.com/commercial.html.
[6] “Wind Energy & Solar Power Australia (2007). “Fronius 5000Watt Grid Connect Inverter.”
Retrieved 7 December 2008 from
http://www.energymatters.com.au/fronius-5000watt-grid-connect-inverter-ig60hv-
outdoor-ip45-p-623.html.
[8] “Federal Solar Tax Incentives (2008). “Federal Solar Tax Credits Extended for 8 Years: US
Poised to Become Largest Solar Market in the World.” Retrieved 7 December 2008 from
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=710.
[9] “Federal Incentives for Renewable Energy (2007). “Business Energy Tax Credit.”
Retrieved 7 December 2008 from
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=US02F&State=
Federal¤tpageid=1.
[10] “University of Michigan Plant Operations (2008). “The University of Michigan Annual
Report of Utilities.” Retrieved 7 December 2008
from http://www.plantops.umich.edu/utilities/Utilities/reports/FY08_Annual_Report_by_
Fund.pdf.
12
APPENDIX
Preliminary Research
Generate three designs
Research project ideas
Evaluate Designs
Define objectives and constraints
Meet with Fraunhofer
Numerical evaluation matrix
Cost analysis
Progress Report
Create outline/divide parts
Compile & edit
Turn in progress report
Presentation
Create visual
Create outline/divide parts
Compile & edit
Run-through of presentation
Present to Fraunhofer
Final Report
Rough draft
Group edit
Turn in final report
Objectives:
Maximize Efficiency of Cells (.80) 0.40 0.70 0.60
Cost Effective (.10) 0.00 0.05 0.05
Efficient Cells/New Technology (.10) 0.00 0.10 0.05
Totals (1.00) 0.40 0.85 0.70
13
Picture A-2: East Side View
14
Table A-3: Insolation [2]
Total Kilowatt Hours per Meters Squared (Per Day)
Month Dual Axis Horizontal Latitude + 15 Degrees
January 3.5 1 2.5
February 4.5 2.5 3.5
March 5.5 3.5 4.5
April 6.5 4.5 4.5
May 7.5 5.5 4.5
June 9 6.5 4.5
July 9 6.5 4.5
August 7.5 5.5 4.5
September 6.5 4.5 4.5
October 4.5 2.5 3.5
November 2.5 1 2.5
December 2.5 1 2.5
Total: Dual‐Axis 334.635
Total: Hoizontal 189.333
Total: Latitude + 15 Degrees 113.013
15
Table A-6: Cost Breakdown
Component(s) Cost Per ($) Total Cost ($) 30% Tax Credit ($) Total Cost with Tax Credit ($)
18x Solar Trackers 6,645.00 119,610.00 35,883.00
216x Solar Panels 871.20 188,179.20 56,453.76
Roof Canopy 40,000.00 40,000.00 ‐‐
2x Power Inverter 6,490.00 12,980.00 3,894.00
Tether System 6,000.00 6,000.00 ‐‐
Total $366,769.20 $96,230.76 $270,538.44
West‐Side Building Costs:
Component(s) Cost Per ($) Total Cost ($) 30% Tax Credit ($) Total Cost with Tax Credit ($)
Garage Structure (15x117x10ft) 15,000.00 15,000.00 ‐‐
Awning (700 sq ft) 46,800.00 46,800.00 14,040.00
1x Power Inverter 6,490.00 6,490.00 1,947.00
105x Solar Panels on Garage 871.20 91,476.00 27,442.80
24x Solar Panels on Awnings 871.20 20,908.80 6,272.64
Total $180,674.80 $49,702.44 $130,972.36
South‐Side Building Costs:
Component(s) Cost Per ($) Total Cost ($) 30% Tax Credit ($) Total Cost with Tax Credit ($)
1x Solar Tracker 6,645.00 6,645.00 1,993.50
12x Solar Panels 871.20 10,454.40 3,136.32
Solar Wall Structure 2,000.00 2,000.00 ‐‐
77x Solar Cells on Solar Wall 871.20 67082.40 20,124.72
1x Power Inverter 6,490.00 6,490.00 1,947.00
Tree Removal in Grassy Area 2000.00 2000.00 ‐‐
Educational Display (Sign) 200.00 200.00 ‐‐
Total $94,871.80 $27,201.54 $67,670.26
Total Cost of Project ($) $642,315.80
Total Tax Deduction ($) $173,134.74
Total Cost of Project w/Tax Credit ($) $469,181.06
Total Amount Saved Annually ($)* $16,568.60
*Based on $.0087 per kWh 2009 Est. [10]
Note: Cells containing “—“do not contain numerical data because they are not eligible for tax credit.
16