HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY

Blue Creek Solar Electric System Proposal

Off-grid PV solar electric system design proposal and site analysis for Ah Pah Traditional Yurok Village in Blue Creek, CA.
Daniel Gent, Ryan Flynn, Max Petras and Kayla M. Williams 12/10/2012

Table of Contents
Table of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 2 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 2 Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3 Project Background ......................................................................................................................... 4 Solar Resource Assessment ............................................................................................................ 5 Electric Load Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 8 Alternative Designs ......................................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 1 Basic ................................................................................................................. 10 Alternative 3 Comprehensive ................................................................................................ 11 System Outputs ............................................................................................................................. 12 System Sizing................................................................................................................................. 13 Mounting Size and Pricing ........................................................................................................ 13 Roof ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Ground ..................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Inverter ..................................................................................................................................... 15 Battery....................................................................................................................................... 16 Charge Controllers .................................................................................................................... 19 Wires and Breaker .................................................................................................................... 20 Economic Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 17 Final Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A: Part Pictures ............................................................................................................. 19 Appendix B: Reference Tables ...................................................................................................... 25 Appendix C: ................................................................................................................................... 27 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 28

1|Page

Table of Tables
Table 1 - Estimated annual solar resource data for the Ah Pah Village site for flat-plate collectors at 0 tilt ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2 - Percentage of insolation available by month for each alternative. ................................ 7 Table 3 Average percentage of insolation available during three time periods for each alternative. ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 4 Total useful energy available to the solar collectors for each month in kWh/m2/day... 8 Table 5 - Electric Load Analysis for Willard Carlsons property in Ah Pah Village. ......................... 9 Table 6 - Price of each component for each mounting brand in USD .......................................... 14 Table 7 - Total price for all components for each mounting brand in USD .................................. 14 Table 8 - Price total for components of a ground mounted PV system ....................................... 22 Table 9 - Inverter options and their respective parameters (Wholesale Solar, 2011). ................ 15 Table 10 - Battery ampacity requirement scenarios. ................................................................... 16 Table 11-: Battery options (Wholesale Solar, 2011) ..................................................................... 16 Table 16 - Cost of system components for each alternative (Not including Tax and Shipping Costs)............................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 17 - Lifetime cost breakdown for each alternative ............................................................. 18 Table 18 Payback Period ............................................................................................................ 18 Table 12 - Comparison of the features of each charge controller... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 13 - Price comparison of wire types in each altenative in $/ft of wire ............................... 21 Table 14 - Approximate price of each breaker by supported amperage. .................................... 21 Table 15 - Approximate cost in USD of all breakers for each alternative..................................... 21 Table 19: kwh/day corresponding to the graph in Figure 7 ......................................................... 27 Table 20: Simple rate of return. Simple rate of return is the inverse of simple payback ........... 27 Table 21: Percent of shading for each month of the year at different points of the roof ........... 27

Table of Figures
Figure 1 - Map of land ownership within Yurok Territory, delineating Ah Pah Village site (Meuser, 2012)................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2 - Elevation view of the three PV panel location options at the Blue Creek Ah Pah Village residential site. .................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3 - Plan view of the three PV panel location options at the Blue Creek Ah Pah Village residential site................................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 4 - Side view design schematic for Alternative 1. .............................................................. 10 Figure 5 - Side view design schematic for Alternative 2. .............................................................. 11 Figure 6 - Side view design schematic for Alternative 3. .............................................................. 12 Figure 7 - Output of each alternative design with the summer months marked......................... 13 Figure 9 - Inverter efficiency curve (Peacock, 2012) ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2|Page

Executive Summary
An off-grid solar electric power system was designed for the residency at Ah Pah Traditional Yurok Village in Blue Creek. Development of this design aligned with owner Willard Carlsons mission to establish a self-sustaining and self-sufficient sanctuary for local tribes. The proposed system design is sized to support a 4.9 kWh/day load and has a capital cost of approximately $2,754. The solar resource at the Village was determined through analysis of direct normal irradiance maps by comparing nearby cities with documented solar data to the location of the Village. Due to location and shading at the site, the system could only be designed to support the electric load for the six summer months (April-October). This dictated further sizing specifications and system component selection. The residence currently employs two generators: one running off gas and the other propane gas. The gas generator currently supports the majority of the electric load, and reducing its usage was the primary focus of the project. A load analysis generated an estimate of power usage at the residence on an annual time scale. This estimate allowed the formation of three alternatives that support basic, advanced, and comprehensive power usages. System component was investigated for each of the alternatives. For most components, the brand and size of each component depended on the electric load it would support, differing between alternatives. These components included the mounting system, inverter, battery, charge controller, wires and breaker. A final economic analysis outlined, for each alternative, the capital cost of each component, period of return, and total lifetime cost. Given these costs and the goals Mr. Carlson has for the residence, a final system proposal was developed. This proposal would initially cost approximately $2,750 to set up however based on the savings in gas, the return period for the project is four years and the system will have a net value of roughly $7,500.

3|Page

Project Background
The Blue Creek Ah Pah Traditional Yurok Village project was envisioned by Willard Carlson Jr., a member of the Yurok Indian tribe, who is committed to protecting the land and sacred High Country of the Yurok, Karuk and Tolowa peoples. The objective of the project was to construct a traditional Yurok village in Willards aboriginal home on the Klamath River (Figure 1). Indigenous people currently face many challenges externally that include diversions of their water, collapse of the Salmon population, unaffordable energy, land takings and misuse, in addition to internal threats including drugs, alcohol and cultural disintegration (Meuser, 2012). Mr. Carlsons mission is to combat these threats by creating a village that will exemplify selfsufficiency, sustainability, cultural preservation and renewal, community building, ecological stewardship, individual renewal and healing (Meuser, 2012).

Figure 1 - Map of land ownership within Yurok Territory, delineating Ah Pah Village site (Meuser, 2012).

In order to achieve self-sustainability, clean energy sources must be developed. One way this can be done is by implementation of off-grid solar electric technology. The goal of this project is 4|Page

to begin the renewable energy conversion process by producing a solar electric system design proposal and economic feasibility analysis for the residential home in the Village. This proposal includes an analysis of the sites solar resource, an electric load assessment for the house, and multiple PV solar electric system designs that meet various levels of energy demand while minimizing cost. Currently the house is powered by two generators: an EU 2000iu Watt Honda generator and a propane-powered 10 kiloWatt Generac generator. The Honda generator supports the appliances most-often used (e.g. lights, television, satellite dish, etc.), whereas the Generac generator only supports the washing and drying machines, septic sump pump, stove, refrigerator, water heater and forced air heating system. The Honda generator accounts for the majority of the energy demands (the Generac generator has only been used approximately 75 hours in two years, whereas the Honda generator is used approximately six hours a day). Its load is considered to be the bare minimum energy needs for the solar system design. A site visit was conducted to interview Mr. Carlson, perform an electric load analysis, and assess the solar resource. The interview yielded estimates of Mr. Carlsons generator and electrical appliance usage. These estimates and appliance energy consumption measurements taken on site constitute the load assessment. This assessment is used to formulate different levels of energy demands that serve as the foundation for each solar electric system design. The solar resource analysis is used to determine the location and parameters of the solar electric system.

Solar Resource Assessment

The solar resource assessment is used to identify how much solar resource is available inherently at the site, the panel inherently at the site, the panel design that will maximize the energy yield, and an estimate of what that yield is annually. what that yield is annually. The assessment includes two primary components: collection of solar resource data and shading solar resource data and shading analysis of the site. For details on how the solar resource was estimated see Appendix A, estimated see Appendix A,

Table 1 presents the results. 5|Page

Table 1 - Estimated annual solar resource data for the Ah Pah Village site for flat-plate collectors at 0 tilt

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Solar Resource (kWh/m2/day) 1.9 2.6 3.7 5.1 6 6.3 6.3 5.5 4.7 3.3 2.2 1.7

Shading Analysis The solar resource was analyzed for three different locations at the Ah Pah Village residential site: two on the roof of the house, and one adjacent to the house. These options are illustrated aerially in Error! Reference source not found. and from the side in Error! Reference source not found..

6|Page

Figure 2 - Plan view of the three PV panel location options at the Blue Creek Ah Pah Village residential site.

Figure 3 - Elevation view of the three PV panel location options at the Blue Creek Ah Pah Village residential site.

A shading analysis was performed for each of these options using a Solar Pathfinder. The resulting evaluation provided the percent of insolation shaded at each location on a monthly basis (Table 2) and for three different time periods (Table 3).
Table 2 - Percentage of insolation available by month for each alternative.

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Option #1 3 20 73 88 95

Option #2 6. 28 78 88 97

Option #3 27 56 75 85 96

7|Page

June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

98 97 91 84 49 5 2

99 98 91 83 58 9 3

94 97 94 80 64 37 8

Table 3 Average percentage of insolation available during three time periods for each alternative.

Time Period Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Yearly 58.7 61.8 67.8 Mar - Sept 92 92.9 91 Feb - Oct 77.1 80.2 82.3

As indicated in Table 2, the solar resource is almost entirely shaded in the month of December for every option. Thus, the solar array will only be able to power Ah Pah Village for part of the year. If the system is intended to support the load during only the sunniest six months (April through October), the difference in available insolation at the three alternative locations is negligible, as shown in Table 3. With a nine month design, there is a slight insolation difference between the options favoring the third option. Energy Yield Estimate Using the estimated solar resource data for the Blue Creek Ah Pah Village and the percent of insolation available for each of the three options, an approximation of the total energy available to the solar collectors expected under each of the options was determined (Table 4).
Table 4 Total useful energy available to the solar collectors for each month in kWh/m /day.
2

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Option #1 0.1 0.7 3.1 4.7 5.7 6.0 6.1 5.1 4.4 2.0 0.2 0.04

Option #2 0.2 0.9 3.3 4.8 5.8 6.1 6.1 5.2 4.4 2.4 0.3 0.1

Option #3 0.7 1.9 3.2 4.6 5.7 5.8 6.1 5.3 4.2 2.7 1.1 0.2

During the middle months of the year (March through July) option two resulted in the greatest collection. However, option three returned the greatest collection over the entire year. If the solar collector is to only be used during the summer months, option two will provide the most 8|Page

energy. A summary of the relative advantages and disadvantages for each option are listed below: Option #1: Cheapest option (due to lower mounting costs), very poor results in winter. Option #2: Slightly better year round results throughout the year than option one. Option #3: Best year round results, but blocks the view shed from the house.

After consultation with the client, option one was concluded to be the most desirable. The loss of the view shed and the additional cost due to a more complex mounting system necessitated by option two were determined to outweigh its energy gains during the summer months.

Electric Load Analysis

The propertys current electrical needs were assessed during the site visit and interview with Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson uses an EU 2000i Watt Honda generator for his primary power needs, which runs the television, lights, and kitchen and living room outlets (Table 5 provides a simple electrical load analysis for these items). Occasionally, Mr. Carlson uses AC devices such as cell phone chargers, a vacuum sealer, and a small power tool charger that are also powered by this generator. Mr. Carlson estimates that he runs the Honda generator four to six hours a day: briefly in the morning and a few hours in the evening. He fills the generator with one gallon of gas every 12 hours or every other day, spending approximately $120 per month on gas. According to the basic load assessment and conversation with Willard, the generator was determined to run at less than maximum power the majority of the time. The other source of power currently used at Ah-Pah Village is a propane fueled 10 kW Generac generator. During the 18 months Mr. Carlson has owned the generator, he has only ran it for approximately 72 hours. This generator is used to power the washing and drying machines, forced air heating (rarely used), as well as a septic sump pump. The septic pump siphons sewage from a lower holding tank to an elevated leach field. Mr. Carlson estimates that he runs the propane generator for 20 minutes each week to empty the septic holding. Mr. Carlson intends on continuing to use the propane generator to run these appliances. Mr. Carlson has plans for additional power consumption. As an active member within the Yurok community, Mr. Carlson is interested in preserving their native language by constructing a recording studio. The studio would require enough electricity to power a computer, microphone, amplifiers, lights, stereo, and additional equipment. He would also like to be able to power his smoke house and a laptop which he is considering purchasing. For the time being, Mr. Carlson hopes to produce enough solar power to supplement the use of his gas powered Honda generator.
Table 5 - Electric Load Analysis for Willard Carlsons property in Ah Pah Village.

Electric Load

Quantity Volts Amps

AC Power AC Hours/Week (Watts) (Watt-hours/week)

9|Page

Light (Kitchen) Light (CFLs in House) Light (L R) Lights (CFL Porch) Lights (Bathroom) Bathroom Fan (NuTone) TV DVD player Satellite Box Coffee maker Toaster

4 8 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120

2.6 1.5 2.6 1.9 5 0.3 1.2 0.45 0.21 7.5 6.7

128 144 64 46 180 36 155 55 26 900 805 TOTAL

6.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.1 5.0 0.3 0.1

768 144 9.14 0.16 180 36 775 3.93 130 225 115 2386.2

Alternative Designs
Based on an initial part selection and input from Mr. Carlson, three alternatives are available for development. The alternatives differ in the size of electric load they support: the first, second, and third alternative supports a minimum, intermediate, and maximum load, respectively.

Alternative 1 Basic
The first alternative is a basic system, designed only to support the lighting of the house for the previously outlined time period of April through October. The system would consist of five 35 Watt solar modules in parallel, providing a 175 Watt system at 12 volts (see Figure 4).

10 | P a g e

Figure 4 - Side view design schematic for Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 Advanced
The second alternative is an advanced system, designed to support the lights, TV, and satellite dish for the aforementioned six month time period. The system would consist of four 100 Watt solar modules in series to produce a 400 Watt system at 24 volts (see Figure 5).

11 | P a g e

Figure 5 - Side view design schematic for Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 Comprehensive
The third alternative is comprehensive and would power the entire house for the previously defined six month time period. The system would consist of eight 100 Watt solar modules in series, providing an 800 Watt system at 48 volts (see Figure 6).

12 | P a g e

Figure 6 - Side view design schematic for Alternative 3.

System Outputs
The annual energy generation profile of the various alternatives are presented in Figure 7 below, delineating the six summer months (April through October).
6.00 5.00 kWh per Day

4.00
3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Five 35-Watt Four 100-Watt Eight 100-Watt

13 | P a g e

Figure 7 - Output of each alternative design with the summer months marked.

As can be seen in Figure 7, the average outputs during the summer months are: Alternative #1: 1.1 kWh/day; Alternative #2: 2.4 kWh/day; and Alternative #3: 4.9 kWh/day.

System Sizing
Selection of various system components is integral to development of this project. The system components must be compatible with one another and sized to operate within the constraints of the system. The primary components include mounting system, inverter, and battery. The mounting system can largely impact the feasibility of the project: failure to design a functional or cost-efficient mounting system for the chosen location will hinder project completion. Inverter selection will substantially affect the efficiency of the system and therefore is of high importance. Appropriate battery sizing for each alternative influences the life of the battery and effectually the life cycle of the entire power system. Other necessary components of less importance are the charge controllers, wires, and breaker; the selection of these components is detailed in Appendix A. Due to donations to the project, two sets of PV arrays were made available for implementation; five 35 Watt panels or eight 100 Watt panels could be used for the project free of cost. These two options are considered for system component selection.

Mounting Size and Pricing

In order to use solar panels, mounting systems and prices must be taken into account. The data for this sizing and mounting is based on the number and size of the Solarex panels donated to the project. Initially, there were two locations considered for panel mounting: the roof or the ground adjacent to the house. Each location elicits a specific mounting method that requires exploration. However, conversation with Mr. Carlson dictated impropriety of the ground location; therefore, the ground mounting analysis is detailed in Appendix A.

Roof
Placing the solar panels on the roof yields a few options regarding mounting brands, however all use similar materials. In almost all cases, the common materials include mounting rails, mid clamps and end clamps (pictured in Appendix B). There is some limit to selection of mounting rack brands, as many manufacturers list pricing and sizing based on the solar panel brand. The brand that will be used for this project, Solarex, is not always recognized. Therefore, utilizing a universal mounting system is suggested. Of the various universal mounting system brands, the two most prevalent appear to be the Unirac and the SnapNrack. A price comparison of the two brands (based on panel specifications) is used to select which mounting system best fits this system. Two rails longer than 100 inches will be 14 | P a g e

required since each of the five modules is 20 inches wide and extra space is needed for the end clamps. The cost comparison of the two module brands is presented in Table 6.
Table 6 - Price of each component for each mounting brand in USD

Unirac1 Rail (132 inches) x1 Rail (240 inches) x1 Rail (122 inches) x2 Mid clamps x1 End clamps x1 $58.08 $105.60 $4.60 $7.91

SnapNrack2 $106.00 $4.00 $5.00

Note that there are several different rails listed, as a few options exist. For the Unirac, installation would require two 132 inch rails, doubling the listed price, or a single 240 inch rail could be used if the rail was cut into two equal pieces. The SnapNrack rails come in packages of two, so the price does not need to be doubled. For both brands the mid and end clamps are sold as single units and in both cases require four mid clamps and two end clamps. The total price for all necessary components for mounting the PV panels can be seen below in Table 7.
Table 7 - Total price for all components for each mounting brand in USD

Unirac1 Rails x2 Rails x1 Mid Clamp x4 End Clamp x2 TOTAL $116.16 $105.60 $18.40 $15.82 $150.38 $139.82

SnapNrack2 $106.00 $16.00 $10.00 $132.00

Two Rails One Rail

If purchasing two 132 inch rails for the Unirac system, the SnapNrack is less expensive by a margin of $18.38, or approximately 12%. With that approximately $20 difference, the disparity between the two systems is small. If one long rail is purchased for the Unirac the price margin gets even smaller, falling to a difference of $7.82, or about 5.6%. There is an additional benefit to both brands: the option of utilizing roof flashing mounts (pictures in Appendix B). Normally a rail needs to be attached to points on the roof where it intersects with the roofs beams. However, the flashing can be attached to the roof at any point and acts as the anchor instead of the main beams. This allows for quicker installation as locating the roof beams is unnecessary. Additionally, it would allow for optimal placement of the panels regardless of beam spacing. Each flashing tile costs $14 for SnapNrack and $31 for Unirack

1 2

Prices found from (Affordable Solar, 2012) Prices found from (Solar Panel Store, 2012)

15 | P a g e

meaning additional cost but also increased ease of installation. Due to this appeal, SnapNrack is the recommended mounting model because of the cost savings with respect to flashing.

Inverter
Inverters convert the DC power produced by the solar panels to AC power which can be utilized by household appliances. Inverter selection is dependent on the maximum power drawn from the system. The maximum power pull for Mr. Carlsons property would occur if all appliances were being used at one time and is calculated to be just over 2.5 kW. Selecting an inverter considering only this parameter might prove costly and inefficient. When Mr. Carlson draws a minimal amount of power (500 Watts or less) a 2.5 kW inverters efficiency will drop significantly (Figure 8).

Figure 8 - Inverter efficiency curve (Peacock, 2012).

Since Mr. Carlson rarely consumes maximum power (his generator can only handle 2kW) a smaller inverter could be selected. A PV system designed to support only the lighting load would require a 600 Watt inverter. However, utilizing the full power potential of the modules seems advantageous. Using these maximum and minimum inverter sizes as a baseline, a range of available products is tabulated for comparison purposes (Table 9).
Table 8 - Inverter options and their respective parameters (Wholesale Solar, 2011).

Inverter Cotek SK series 2000w 48v Pure Sine-wave Cotek S series 1500w 48v Pure Sine-wave

Part Number 2915313 2915306

Watts 2000 1500

Input 48 VDC 48 VDC

Output 120 VAC 120 VAC

Type Sinewave Sinewave

Cost $815 $608

16 | P a g e

Cotek ST series 600w 12v Pure Sine-wave Inverter Magnum MM-612AE XP 1100-48 GVFX3648 Gridtie/Vented Magnum MM-1512AE

2915317 2906120 2910482 2536492 2915220

600 600 1100 3600 1500

12 VDC 12 VDC 48 VDC 48 VDC 12 VDC (for 24 VDC add $31)

120 VAC 120 VAC 120 VAC 120 VAC 120 VAC

Sinewave Modified Sinewave Sinewave Sinewave Modified Sinewave

$416 $479 $1,078 $1,770 $720

Given Mr. Carlsons electrical needs, the Magnum MM 1512AE appears to be optimal (pictures in the Appendix). This inverter is large enough to power the coffee machine but is small enough that the drop in efficiency for small electric loads is negligible. This inverter also seems to be in a suitable price range given Mr. Carlsons budget.

Battery
Batteries are important features of off grid electrical systems. Undersized batteries will be discharged too rapidly and deeply, thereby diminishing the batterys capacity over time. Oversizing the battery will increase project costs and may prove difficult to fully recharge. Six scenarios were developed to estimate required battery ampacity given variations in electrical use (Table 10).
Table 9 - Battery storage capacity scenarios.

Scenario 1 2 3 4 5 6

Daily Electrical Use (Watthours) 409.1 409.1 162.5 162.5 292.0 292.0

Amp-hours/day 35.9 8.5 13.5 3.4 24.3 6.1

Days of Autonomy 4 4 3 4 5 3

System Voltage (V) 12 48 12 48 12 48

Storage Capacity (Amp-hrs) 191.4 45.5 54.2 18.1 162.2 24.3

Scenarios 1 and 2 reflect a system which could meet all of Mr. Carlsons current electrical needs while tolerating up to a 20% increase in electrical use. Scenarios 3 and 4 reflect a system which would only power house lighting. Scenarios 5 and 6 reflect an intermediate system, one which could power lighting as well as other heavily used items such as the TV and satellite. Increases in system voltage from 12 volts to 48 volts reduce the storage required by the battery. Table 11 provides battery options which could be implemented in the system.
Table 10-: Battery options (Wholesale Solar, 2011)

Company

Model

Voltage(V)

Storage (amps*hrs)

Weight (lbs)

Size In. (L x W x H)

Price

17 | P a g e

Concorde Concorde U.S. Battery U.S. Battery Surrette/Rolls UPG East Penn/MK

PVX-1080T PVX-2580L 2 AGM L16 8 AGM L16 12CS-11PS UB-GC2 AGM 8G31

12 12 12 48 12 48 12

108 258 390 390 342 200 97.6

62 165 220 71.7

12.90 x 6.75 x 8.96 20.76 x 10.89 x 8.92 22 x 11.25 x 18.25 12.94 x 6.75 x 9.75

$297 $650 $900 $4,100 $1,033 $1,795 N/A

Due to the high cost and storage capacity of 48 V batteries, implementation of a 48 V system seems infeasible. The 12 V batteries made by Concorde are not only economical but fit within the storage requirements of the system given the various options. Selecting a battery with higher storage is strategic in that it allows for system upgrades and increased electrical use. This would suggest that the Concorde PVX-2580L is an optimal choice for the system.

Economic Analysis
The feasibility of each alternative is ultimately dependent on the associated costs. Costs to be considered are the capital costs of each component previously discussed as well as the replacement cost for certain components. Further, both the payback period and salvage value of each alternative are important considerations when determining economic optimality. The cost breakdown of each component and total cost for each alternative is presented in Table 16. Alternative 1 is the least expensive, which was expected due to the minimum electric load it supports.
Table 11 - Cost of system components for each alternative (Not including Tax and Shipping Costs).

Component Breakers Controller Mounting Inverter Batteries Wire Total

Alternative 1 $54 $89 $132 $479 $297 $31 $1,352

Alternative 2 $35 $119 $132 $720 $594 $37 $2,046

Alternative 3 $25 $119 $132 $720 $1,188 $19 $2,754

For each alternative, the cost of replacing the battery and charge controller is added to the capital cost of the components and the salvage value is subtracted. This results in a final lifetime cost of each system (Table 17). Similar to the capital cost breakdown, the alternatives are increasingly more expensive as the electric load is increased across the alternatives; however, the cost margin between alternatives is greater for lifetime cost (Table 17) than

18 | P a g e

component capital cost (Table 16). This can be attributed to large increases in battery replacement cost across the three alternatives.
Table 12 - Lifetime cost breakdown for each alternative

Cost Capital Battery Replacement Charge Controller Replacement Salvage Value Total Lifetime Cost Total with 20% increase for installation

Alternative 1 $1,352 $758 $88 $63 $2,135 $2,562

Alternative 2 $2,046 $1,515 $118 $95 $3,584 $4,300

Alternative 3 $2,754 $3,030 $118 $127 $5,774 $6,929

Finally, the payback period for each alternative is outlined in Table 18. Unlike the cost assessment, payback period does not increase with the electric load. Instead Alternative 2 has the fastest return, followed by Alternative 3, with Alternative 1 resulting in the longest period of time before the system begins yielding profit. This payback was calculated by assuming a percentage of gas usage would be reduced by each alternative, with Alternative 3 being the highest at 100%.

Table 13 Payback Period

Annual savings Return Period 20 Yr. Value

Alternative 1 $240 5.63 YRS $2,238

Alternative 2 $480 4.26 YRS $5,300

Alternative 3 $720 3.83 YRS $7,471

Final Recommendations
As shown through this report a number of designs are possible, but for the purposes of construction one must be settled on. Being that the panels for the project are donated, we recommend the third alternative (full) as the best choice of design. This would allow Mr. Carlson to power his house fully during a six month period while still having some extra power available to expand in the future. It also has the lowest payback period if it is assumed that no gas will be used during the 6 month span. The specifications for the system are shown below: Eight 100-Watt panels A SnapNrack mounting system A Magnum MM 1512AE inverter Four Concorde PVX-2580L batteries 19 | P a g e

A Xantrex C40 charge controller Wiring as required.

Appendix A: Solar Resource Data

Irradiance data for Ah Pah Village could not be found directly. Estimated data was obtained through the following process 1. 2. The sites coordinates were obtained using Google Maps. The site was located on an interactive mapping tool called Solar Prospector (prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management) and the average annual direct normal irradiance (DNI) was determined. The difference in DNI between Arcata, CA and Ah Pah Village was used to estimate the solar resource at the site. This estimate was determined using the proportion of both sites DNIs and Arcatas solar resource for each month. Nearby cities/towns with approximately the same average annual DNI were identified until one was found that had solar resource data maintained by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). These monthly values were averaged with the corresponding monthly value already generated for the Ah Pah Village site.

3.

4.

5.

6. San Francisco, California was determined to be the closest location with a similar DNI to Ah Pah Village. These data, along with Arcatas will be used to estimate the solar radiation for Ah Pah Village.

Appendix A: System Sizing Continued

This appendix provides details about additional system components.

Charge Controllers
The charge controller is dependent on the alternative chosen because of the system voltage and maximum load current provided by the system. There is a large variety of available charge controllers and the price of the controller varies depending on the desired features. As such, the controller suggestions are based on two criteria: a fit for the desired system alternative and a reasonable amount of feedback for the end user. Based on this, three charge controller models were investigated. The Xantrex C35 would fit both the 12 V and 24 V alternatives (also known as Alternatives 1 and 2) and supports several different battery selections, such as NiCd and lead-acid. Xantrex C35 also has a digital face to communicate information, low voltage disconnection warnings, and the functionality to send extra power to a dedicated load, such as a water heater. The price is approximately $90, but is subject to increase if additional features are purchased. 20 | P a g e

The Xantrex C40 functions the same as the C35 above, but offers support for voltages of all three alternatives (12 V, 24 V, and 48 V). Additionally, it has the same add-on functionality support as the C35 for approximately $119. The Morningstar ProStar PS-15M-48-PG is a charge controller suited for a 48 V system and carries the highest price at $192. This model has many of the same warnings as the Xantrex controllers, but offers finer tuning of the batteries charge cycle so that they may operate more efficiently.
Table 14 - Comparison of the features of each charge controller.

System Parameter 12 V 24 V 48 V Battery Selection Warning Lights Digital Face Temperature Sensing Add-Ons Available

Xantrex C35 yes yes no yes yes yes no yes

Xantrex C40 yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes

ProStar no no yes yes yes yes yes only one

Given this information, the Xantrex C35 is recommended if a 12 V or 24 V system is chosen, due to the lower price and adequate optional supports. If a 48 V system is chosen, the Xantrex C40 is recommended. The ProStar is only recommended if the extra charge efficiency is important to the system of the client, but the almost $70 price increase diminishes the appeal of this alternative.

Wires and Breaker

Both the wiring and breaker selection is also dependant on the chosen alternative. All feasible wiring and breaker options will be outlined in this section, including a final recommendation for wiring selection. Each type of wire supports specific amperages, which vary across the three alternatives. For Alternative 1, connections between battery to controller require 10 American Wire Gauge (AWG) wire, connections between the battery and the DC load center require 14 AWG, and the connection between the battery and the inverter require 4/0 AWG. For alternative 2, all connections can use 14 AWG wire except between the battery and inverter connection which requires 1/0 AWG wire. Similarly, Alternative 3 can use 14 AWG on all connections except the battery to inverter, which requires 6 AWG. A price comparison of the wire AWG for each of the three alternatives was completed, as outlined in Table 13. While a pricing in $/ft allows for comparison between the wires, much of the wire (particularly the heavier gauges) come in set lengths rather than by the foot. For 21 | P a g e

example, buying a roll of 50 feet of 6 AWG wire is cheaper than buying 1,000 feet of 4/0 AWG wire which can run in excess of $400. Due to this economy of scale, Alternative 3 would require the lowest wiring cost as the prices for individual rolls of 6 AWG are cheaper and smaller than buying 1/0 or 4/0 wire.
Table 15 - Price comparison of wire types in each altenative in $/ft of wire

Wire AWG 14 10 6 1/0 4/0

Alternative 1 0.31 0.69 1.15

Alternative 2 0.31 4.67 -

Alternative 3 0.31 2.04 -

Similarly, breakers are also dependent on the amperage needs of the system. In the case of Alternative 1, most connections require a 30 A circuit breaker except the battery and inverter connection which requires a 200 A circuit breaker. Alternative 2 would need 15 A circuit breakers with a 100 A breaker between the battery and inverter. Lastly, Alternative 3 would also require 15 A circuit breakers, but a 50 A breaker for the battery to inverter connection. The price for each breaker is presented in Table 14. There will be approximately two lower amperage breakers and one higher amp circuit breaker in each system. The total cost of all breakers for each alternative breakers is outlined in Table 15.
Table 16 - Approximate price of each breaker by supported amperage.

Breaker Type (amps) 15 30 50 100 200

Approximate Price (USD/Breaker) 5 10 15 25 34

Table 17 - Approximate cost in USD of all breakers for each alternative.

Total Cost ($)

Alternative 1 54

Alternative 2 35

Alternative 3 25

In comparison with the other system components, breaker costs are minimal. Therefore, breaker selection factors into determination of the optimal alternative minimally, if at all. Additionally, prices can vary depending on the place of purchase.

Ground
The other option for installation is ground mounting the panels. Most ground mounting brands do not support the solar panels that will be used for this project, including Unirac. Therefore, 22 | P a g e

SnapNrack is already the best option. Different materials are needed to support ground mounting: specialized rails, pipe clamps, galvanized pipe, and tee clamps, in addition to end clamps and mid clamps, as well as concrete pier blocks to support the set up. A price break down is presented in Table 7.
Table 18 - Price total for components of a ground mounted PV system

Rails x2 Pipe Clamps (1.5 in) x2 Single Socket Tee Clamp x1 Mid Clamp x4 End Clamp x2 Galvanized Pipe x2 Total

$160 $14 $25 $16 $10 $40 $265

The price of a ground mounted PV system is about $133 or about a 50% more than the roof mount. Mounting on the ground does have benefits: the system is easier to conceal and there is no need to manually cut the rail. Despite these advantages, the roof mounted SnapNrack system is recommended over the Unirac and ground mounted SnapNrack systems.

Appendix B: Part Pictures

All pictures are from the solar panel store

Figure A1 - An example of mounting rails

23 | P a g e

Figure 9 - An example of mid clamps

Figure 10 - An example of end clamps

Figure 11 - An example of flashing

24 | P a g e

Figure 12 - An example of an inverter

Figure 13 - An example of a battery

25 | P a g e

Figure 14 - An example of a charge controller

Appendix C: Reference Tables

The table below is an example of an inverter/charger reference table that was used to decide on project components

26 | P a g e

Table 19 Inverter/charger reference table.

27 | P a g e

Appendix D:
The following are tables that were used during the project process, but not necessary for communicating how each alternative would work or be beneficial. They are recorded here for the sake of having all information be accessible.
Table 20: kwh/day corresponding to the graph in Figure 7

Five 35Watt Modules Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec kwh/day 0.02 0.1 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.4 0.03 0.01

Four 100Watt Modules kwh/day 0.04 0.3 1.4 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.4 2.0 1.0 0.1 0.02

Eight 100Watt Modules kwh/day 0.1 0.6 2.8 4.3 5.1 5.5 5.6 4.9 4.0 1.9 0.1 0.04

Table 21: Simple rate of return. Simple rate of return is the inverse of simple payback

Simple Rate of Return Alternative 1 Alternative 2 0.24 0.29

Alternative 3 0.26

Table 22: Percent of shading for each month of the year at different points of the roof

SouthWest Jan 0

NorthWest 6

SouthEast 0

NorthEast 8

South Middle 1

NorthMiddle 5

28 | P a g e

Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yearly Average % Shading

8 76 88 92 94 92 89 83 58 0 0

27 75 87 97 98 97 88 84 67 8 0

12 48 85 92 99 97 87 80 13 0 0

24 76 87 96 98 99 92 80 34 14 7

15 80 91 96 97 97 94 88 48 4 0

33 84 91 99 100 99 94 86 74 6 3

56.67

61.17

51.08

59.58

59.25

64.5

Bibliography
Affordable Solar. (2012, October 21). Unirac Solar Mount (E)volution. Retrieved from Affordable Solar: http://www.affordable-solar.com/store/UniRac-SolarMount-Evolution Meuser, M. (2012). Overview and History. Retrieved October 6, 2012, from Blue Creek - Ah Pah Traditional Yurok Village: http://www.bluecreekahpah.org/overview-history.htm Peacock, F. (2012, 1 29). inverter-efficiency-curve. Retrieved from Solar Quotes: ttp://www.solarquotes.com.au Solar Panel Store. (2012, October 20). SnapNrack PV Mount. Retrieved from Solar Panel Store: http://www.solarpanelstore.com/solar-power.snapnrack.html Wholesale Solar. (2011). Retrieved from wholesale Solar: http://www.wholesalesolar.com/

29 | P a g e