I

F i n a l P ro j e c t

BERKELEYSOLAR

PREPARED FOR: BERKELEY CLIENT, PROFESSOR GLASSEY PREPARED BY: NASSIM FARROKHZAD, REGINE LABOG, KENNETH LEE, RHONDA NASSAR, MIRANDA ORTIZ, CHRISTINA YOU

University of California, Berkeley

IEOR 160 FINAL PROJECT

Table of Contents

Executive Summary!
Objective! Goals! Solution! Recommendations!

1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 13
IEOR 160 Final Project

Task List! PERT Chart! Design Objectives - Solar System Batteries!

Solar System Batteries! Maintenance Cost! Acid Leakage and Durability! Determining the Optimum Battery Capacity! Minimizing the Lifetime Cost of the Battery System! Battery Cost Optimization Results! Conclusion!

Design Objectives - Solar System Panels!

Choosing the best solar panels!
U C B e r k e l e y!

The Optimal Tilt Angle for Fixed Solar Panels!

15 17 17 17 19 19 19 21 21 23 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 33
IEOR 160 Final Project

Problem Analysis!
Determining the Monthly Demand! Determining the Average Amount of Sunlight in Berkeley!

Models - Introduction!
Variables! Parameters!

Model 1!
Introduction: Off-Grid, Solar Contractor (Buy/Sell Power)! AMPL Model: Minimizing the Objective Function! Constraints!

Model 2!
Introduction: On-Grid, Solar Contractor! AMPL Model!

Model 3!
Introduction: Off-Grid, Solar Contractor (No Buy/Sell Power)! AMPL Model!

Works Cited! Appendix A - Battery Selection! Appendix B - Demand Calculations! Appendix C - Weather Calculations! Appendix D - AMPL Model Outputs!
U C B e r k e l e y! ii

Introduction! Model 1! Model 2! Model 3!

33 33 36 38 41 41 42 42 43 44 45 46

Appendix E - Battery Cost Optimization!

Minimizing the Cost per Lifetime!

Appendix F - Solar Panel Cost Optimization!

Minimizing the Cost per Watt!

Appendix G - Solar Installation Costs! Appendix H - Night Hours v Months! Appendix I - kWh Bill for 25 Years! Appendix J - Solar Power Calculator!

U C B e r k e l e y!

IEOR 160 Final Project

iii

Executive Summary
Objective For this project, our goal was to provide our client with an optimal solar system design for their Berkeley residence. Because every city has a different policy on solar panel installation and gets varying amounts of sunlight, we had to tackle many variables to provide our client with his best options. Goals The owner outlined the following: Off the grid where he would have no connection to PG&E and would require a self-sustainable solar panel system, even during consecutive cloudy days where there would be little sunshine. If possible, he would like to sell excess power and buy it if necessary. The solar system must t the needs of his home with a working space of 1500 sq ft of roof space. Before even attempting to address the owners concerns, we needed to take multiple variables out of the equation: ! ! How many hours of sunshine does the house get every day? How much energy does the owner need every month? What kind of batteries and solar panels would serve the clients needs while minimizing the cost?

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

Solution To answer these questions, we created ve models 1: 1. Off grid but buying and selling power: This is not a feasible option for the user because the cost of the batteries needed to support the house during cloudy days exceeds the payout from switching to solar. 2. On grid and selling excess power: In this situation, the user should install 103 solar panels while selling to PG&E excess power during months when he doesnt use as much energy. After 25 years, the cost of the solar system panels would be $913. Also, because the cost of maintenance will be marginal compared to the cost of installation and the lifetime of the solar panels are longer than what we outlined, the user would be making revenue after 25 years. Also, we based our interest rate on 4% which could change over time and did not factor the renancing value of the home after switching to solar. 3. Completely off grid getting nothing for excess power: This model was very difcult to justify. Although it is possible to go off grid with the size of the roof and the amount of sunshine Berkeley gets, we had to completely omit the budget constraint due to the large costs. 4. Optimizing the batterys cost over lifetime: To factor in key characteristics for our ideal battery, we researched multiple batteries and created a model that used cost over lifetime and added multiple constraints. After putting the batteries through this model, we found that the Premium Surrette performed the best. 5. Minimizing the cost of solar panels: Before subjecting our choices through the model, we limited our options to panels that t four key characteristics that will be outlined later. We nally settled on the Evergreen 210W panels due to its lower cost per watt, but still decent efciency and a low impact on the environment.

See appendix D-F for all models.

BerkeleySOLAR

I E O R 1 6 0!

Recommendations From our model, we found that the best option for our client would be to go with the on-grid option and sell excess power to PG&E. Although the client can feasibly go offgrid, it would be in his best interest to stick with the second model because it is the most likely to t in his budget. The key issue with solar panels is that their cost does not justify their low efciency and the main barrier in this is a lack of technological research in solar panels. If the user goes on-grid, he will be able to get governmental aid in the form of the California Solar Initiative as well as tax rebates. That way, he will reach his breakeven point sooner and can later invest in cheaper solar technology.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

Task List
1. Research general solar power system background information to see what components need to be considered. 2. Determine how much power the system needs to provide to be fairly certain that he will not ever use more than this amount of power. 3. Research all things about batteries including information about their capacities, lifetimes, sizes, brands, costs, etc. 4. Find optimal battery. 5. Research different panels including their wattage, size, efciency, costs, etc. 6. Research costs projected by different contractors for the average home in Berkeley. 7. Research federal tax deductions and California Solar Initiatives. 8. Research variances in weather and sunlight availability in Berkeley. 9. Create models for different options: 1. Have contractor build your system design, on grid. 2. Build your own system, off grid 3. Have contractor build your system, off grid, but can buy and sell power 10. Solve models. 11. Write executive summary and recommendations. 12. Create PERT chart.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

PERT Chart

Task # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Time (in days) 1 0.2 5 0.5 2 0.5 0.2 1 2 1 1 0.2

Corresponding Nodes Start, A A,B B,D D,E B,C B,F B,G B,H I,J J,K K,L L,M

Completed By: Rhonda, Regine, Kenneth, Nassim, Miranda Miranda Rhonda, Kenneth, Nassim Kenneth Regine Regine and Rhonda Regine, Miranda, and Rhonda Miranda Miranda and Regine Rhonda, Regine, Kenneth, Nassim, Miranda All Miranda

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

Design Objectives - Solar System Batteries

Solar System Batteries Since we have decided to go off the grid, a battery backup system is required to save the excess energy gained during the day for nights and cloudy days. This means the batteries would be deeply discharged on regular basis. For a solar system, the following batteries are offered by different vendors: Lead-acid Batteries are made of lead electrode plates submerged in dilute sulfuric acid as an electrolyte. They are readily available in the market and have low initial cost. These batteries can be designed for either shallow or deep cycle usage. oShallow cycle batteries are designed to supply a large amount of current for a short time but they cannot tolerate being deeply discharged frequently. oDeep cycle batteries are designed to be repeatedly discharged by as much as 80% of their capacity (Depth of Discharge, DOD). Marine batteries are made of lead sponge electrodes and considered to be a hybrid of starting and deep cycle battery. Gelled Deep Cycle contains an acid gel which means if its broken, the acid does not leak. But, this type of batteries must be charged at a slower rate and lower voltage to prevent excess gas from damaging the cells. Absorbed Glass Mat (AGM) Batteries are made of ne ber Boron-Silicate glass mats which contains the acid. These batteries also dont leak acid if broken.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

Fig. 1 demonstrates the life span of these batteries if they are used in deep cycle service. According to this plot, Industrial Deep Cycle battery demonstrates the longest life
30 Years (max) Years (min)

23 Years

15

0 Marine Gelled Deep Cycle Industrial Deep Cycle

span, followed by Rolled Surrette Deep Cycle. Figure 1: Life span of batteries used in "Deep Cycle Services" (Source: www.windsun.com, deep cycle battery FAQ) Choosing the Best Battery In general, Lead-acid batteries are cheaper and last longer than Marine, AGM and Gelled batteries, but they are not as safe as the latter ones. So, in order to make the right selection, rst we need to make some assumptions for our problem: Assumption 1) The batteries will be used in an off-grid, full-time home for an indenitely long time, therefore, capacity and long term cost will be the most important factors. Assumption 2) The batteries will be placed in the residents home and not in a remote site; therefore, maintenance is not much of a concern in our choice of batteries. Price and lifetime is valued over maintenance in our research. Assumption 3) The batteries are stored in a place where the temperature does not fell under 50F below which the batteries capacity starts to decline. Assumption 4) Nickel-Cadmium batteries were not considered in our analyses because they are extremely toxic to the environment and require very expensive disposal (3).
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

Therefore, the user will most probably not want to store them in his house and they will end up costing more to dispose of than buying new lead-acid batteries. Assumption 5) We do not consider Lithium ion batteries because they are extremely expensive for this specic type of application. Assumption 6) The user have no constrains on his/her initial capital investment and has enough and appropriate space to store the batteries and the solar panels. Within different brands of lead-acid batteries, Surrette repeatedly is reported as the most efcient and economical choice by vendors and contractors.2 Our initial calculation for lifetime cost has conrmed3. In particular, Premium Surrette 500 (12CS11PS) excels over all the other batteries in an economic sense. The initial up front expense may be out of reach for some customers, but given its lifetime, it is the cheapest.4 In contrary to sealed batteries, Surrette batteries require frequent maintenance, which after researching and discussing in detail below does not alter our choice of battery. Maintenance Cost As mentioned earlier, AGM and Gel batteries are almost maintenance free. There are also so-called Lead-Acid Sealed batteries which needs to be replaced every 5-7 years in the exchange of no maintenance throughout these years. These batteries are not economically suited for our purpose. The maintenance of Flooded Lead Acid-Surrette 500 batteries require watering, equalizing charges and keeping the top and terminals clean (7). One of the websites our group researched that supported AGM batteries, conducted numerical analyses of the price difference between Surrette and AGM. Even after adding the electrolyte maintenance costs, the Surrette Premiums 500 still remained the cheapest. (8) Their calculation costs were based on some assumptions:
1) Cycle once a day
2 www.solarinfo.com, www.rollsbattery.com, www.dcbatteries.com 3 For further detail on battery calculation refer to page 27 4 Based on Assumption 1
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

2) Hiring someone and paying him$20/hr for maintenance chores 3) Each battery requires hour maintenance each month 4) Each cell requires qt of $ 1/qt distilled water that equates to

$0.000583/(Ah*cycle) for Surrette 400 and $0.00049 (Ah*cycle) for Surrette 500 Table 1: Maintenance cost per cycle for various batteries (Source: www.vonwentzel.net) Lifeline AGM
Adjusted Cost($) 0.0015

Surrette 400
0.00147

Surrette 500
0.00108

Acid Leakage and Durability The Premium Surrette 500 (12CS11PS) utilizes the new generation dual container modular construction (6). This feature eliminates breakage and subsequently acid leakage due to rough handling or abuse. Even if the outer container were to break, the battery would still operate without any acid spills (7). Therefore, Premium Surrettes are safe for our user to store in his garage or a battery room in his house. In addition, these batteries can be installed without any special skills or tools. Therefore, our user is going to highly value this option, since he wants to save as much money as possible.

Our analyses and assumptions show that Premium Surrette 500 (12CS11PS) cells are unsurpassed in the qualities they offer. Their higher cycle lives compared to their budget competition, their durability, their thick lead plates and not having to replace them every few years makes them an attractive economic choice, even if their up-front price is not the most economical (4). Determining the Optimum Battery Capacity In order to nd the optimum battery capacity, rst we looked at customers average daily usage based on Kwh-hr. In order to be in safe side, we decided to design a storage system that would provide up to 5 times of this capacity in case of an emergency. This number is an industry standard. Next, given their ampere-hour5, depth of discharge6, and the cost of the batteries, we calculated the lifetime cost of different batteries.
5 Ampere-hour is a measure of a batterys capacity (e.g. 6 Amp-hr battery can maintain a current of 1 Ampere

for 6 hours)

6 Depth of Discharge (DOD) is the extend at which a battery is being discharged

I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

The depth of discharge affects the lifespan of batteries. For example, Fig. 2 demonstrates the effect of DOD on the lifecycle of Surrette 400 and 500 series.

5000

3750 # of cycles

2500

1250

0 0 25 50 DOD (%) 500 Series 400 Series 75 100

Figure 2: Surrette(R) batteries lifecycle vs. %DOD (Source: www.surrette.com) Since we will have batteries for 5 times of the users average usage, we assume the batteries rarely go beyond DOD of 50%. Now, our goal is to nd which battery would offer the minimum lifetime cost.

Minimizing the Lifetime Cost of the Battery System7 Given the ampere-hour and the hour rating, we were able to determine the maxi- mum current that would be pulled from the battery to last for 20 hours. Then, with the given voltage and the calculated current, we were able to calculate the maximum energy in Kilowatt-hours by multiplying the voltage and current and dividing by 1000 to convert it to the correct units.

Refer to the appendix for the numerical results of the model

BerkeleySOLAR

I E O R 1 6 0!

10

In order to determine the number of batteries to buy, it was necessary to make the deJinition of the number of batteries to buy be a function in terms of the depth of discharge. Because each battery had a different maximum energy, a different depth of discharge had to be used for each battery. Also, the chosen depth of discharge for each battery would affect the number of batteries bought, with lower requiring more batteries due to the low level of drain on the battery. The numerator of that function was obtained by Jinding the average daily energy usage of the household which ended up being approximately 20KWH. The av- erage daily energy usage was used because that would reJlect the average amount of energy drained from the battery each day, which would give a more realistic analysis of the cost per cycle through a more accurate cost and lifetime determination. Because there are some days where the sun will not shine, and the battery will not charge, the battery energy capac- ity should be greater than the average daily discharge. Five times the average daily usage was used because the probability of having Jive days of no sunshine is very small. There- fore the number of batteries required was determined using the total energy required, mul- tiplied by Jive and dividing it by the total energy of the battery that will be taken from each battery at that depth of discharge and rounding up. Total cost was then determined by multiplying the number of batteries by the price given. The lifetime in cycles is determined by using a function which is different for each battery, and the depth of discharge, which determined the lifetime of the battery. The cost per cycle of each battery was then found and the battery with the lowest cost per cycle is the one chosen to be the most optimal, with an optimal battery capacity equal to the com- bined capacity of the battery chosen and the number of batteries bought. Battery Cost Optimization Results As it was discussed earlier, we can safely assume that the batteries rarely would be discharge above 50% of their capacity since the user stores electricity ve times of his/her average daily usage. Based on manufacturers data on corresponding number of lifecycles to DOD, we found the minimum cost per cycle that is required for the residence to completely supply his own energy, for approximately four days without recharging. The cheapest battery cost per cycle according to our calculation is $8.96. It means that we need to buy 42 of the Premium Surrette 500 (12CS11PS) batteries. We need to mention, there are also some aspects of the battery selection that can affect our nal decision but not easy to incorporate into the model. The saving of using 500 series battery is $120 per year which for twenty-ve years translates to $1080 (assuming 10% discount rate). The resident can save on the front cost of batteries by buy-

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

11

ing Surrette 400 series and invest the difference in the market. Hopefully, 8 he is able to at least earn twice as this future saving. That decision is based on the customers personality and lifestyle. The model also doesnt take into the account the energy loss by the wires. By having more wiring, there is more energy loss during transportation. So a battery of a larger voltage, say 6V, would lose less energy than several batteries of smaller voltage, say three 2Vs. So, the user may want to consider using the same series of the batteries our model suggest but pick the one with higher voltage. Also there is energy lost during the conversion of DC to AC and that is not taken into account our model either. Conclusion The total storage capacity would then be 172 KWH with a Depth of Discharge of 50%. It is feasible to go completely off the grid but it is an ill advice based on the battery costs alone. If one chose to go off grid, one would have to pay at least $8.96 dollars per cycle. Each cycle is one day, so the cost per month would be 268.8 dollars, much more than the price of electricity from PG&E. Also the weight and volume demand for storage of batteries would exceed the typical free space in a typical household. The volume required for all of the batteries is 110 Cubic feet and would weigh 11,424 lbs., a space of which one would be hard pressed to nd in Berkeley.

8 Assuming no recession for foreseeing future

I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

12

Design Objectives - Solar System Panels

Choosing the best solar panels Every square meter of the Earths surface receives approximately 164W of solar energy from the sun. If we could cover 1% of the Sahara desert with solar panels, we could generate enough electricity to power the entire world. Although we could potentially harness the suns energy to satisfy all of our needs, the technology currently available can only harness, at most, 20% of that power. As is frequently said in the solar industry, not all solar panels are created equal. Therefore, we based our choice in solar panels on the following four criterions:
1. Minimum warranted power rating - This is the amount of power guaranteed by the

manufacturer that the solar panel can generate. In some solar panel specication sheets, this was also known as the negative tolerance rating. Generally, a good solar panel would have a negative tolerance rating at 5% or less. 2. PVUSA Test Conditions (PTC): PVUSA is an independent lab that releases a PTC rating for all solar panels listed under the California Solar Initiative. Compared to the STC (Standard Test Conditions) rating that manufacturing companies use, the PTC tests the panels under more extreme, real-world conditions. 3. Efciency Rating: This is the most well-known rating since researchers are focused on creating a low-cost high-efciency solar panel. The higher this efciency, the more power attainable per square inch of the panel surface. 4. UL Listing: Underwriters Laboratories is a product rating company that tests the safety of products. They test solar panels for their mounting method, weather resistance, performance, as well as other safety considerations and have a large photovoltaic testing site in Silicon Valley. Products that pass ULs harsh tests are often advertised as UL Listed. After passing the four constraints, we narrowed our options to two solar panels which excelled in either efciency, or environmental impact and affordability. The Sanyo 195W PV module, compared to the average 12% efciency of most panels, surpasses them with a 19.7% cell efciency. They do this with a patented HIT (heterojunction w/ intrinsic thin layer) technology that allows the PV module to obtain max
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

13

power within a xed space. This creates a lower de-rating related to temperature. In other words, as the temperature increases, these solar panels produce 10% or more electricity than conventional crystalline silicon modules. The PV design reduces recombination loss of the charged carrier by surrounding the energy generation layer of single thin crystalline silicon with high-quality ultra-thin amorphous silicon layers. The solar panels operate silently with no moving parts and are among the lightest per watt in the industry. They have a PTC rating of 180.9W and its packing density reduces the transportation, fuel, and storage cost per installed watt. Evergreens 210W PV modules are ideal for grid-tied solar systems and feature antireective glass, an anodized aluminum frame, 108 cells per panel, and watertight junction boxes that require zero maintenance. All panels have a minimum warranted power of -0/+5W, have a PTC rating of 180.7W, and are independently tested by four labs that regularly check panel power so the power given is the power promised. The antireective glass delivers 2-3% more electricity than panels containing standard glass and maintains 4% higher output than most other crystalline silicon panels under hot conditions. The amount of time it takes for the environmental footprint of the manufacturing process to be offset by the clean energy created by the PV module is called the low energy payback. Evergreens products can recoup the environmental impact in a year with a combination of efciency and environmentally responsible manufacturing processes. The Evergreen Spruce PV module produces 30g of CO2 per equivalent kWh as well as uses less lead than other panels thanks to lead-free solder.

BRAND

PTC

PRICE/ PA N E L

AREA (FT^2) 16.93 12.47

MAX # OF PA N E L S 93 125

PRICE/ WAT T $3.49 $5.06

Evergreen 210W Sanyo 195W

180.7 180.9

$643 $915

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

14

The Optimal Tilt Angle for Fixed Solar Panels The optimal orientation for solar panels would be to align the face of the solar panel with the sun. However, that would require continuous adjustments of the solar panel. It is too expensive to purchase the equipment to adjust it continuously and, therefore, changing the tilt angle to its daily and monthly optimal values is not practical, if the panels are mounted on the roof, or economical for our user. As professor Glassey at the Industrial Engineering and Operations Research department at UC Berkeley suggested and many solar panel websites our group consulted, tilting the xed plate by an angle equal to the latitude seems to be the most practical solution. At this tilt, if the collector is facing south, our case, since the user lives in the Northern Hemisphere, the sun will be normal to the collector at noon twice a year at the equinoxes, when day and night are equal length. The noontime sun will only vary above and below this position by a maximum angle of 23.5 degrees.8 Our group research presents the results of a study that was conducted on two south facing sites in Albuquerque, New Mexico and Madison Wisconsin. Figure 2.4 shows that by titling at the latitude, the user will only be slightly below the maximum yearly irradiation optimal position. The gure shows that variations in the tilt angle do not affect the irradiation received by much and therefore, given the amount of money and work the user has to invest in order to reach an optimal tilt angle each day, it is not worth his/her effort or money, because the amount of irradiation difference is minimal.8

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

15

Hence, the user should tilt the xed panel at the latitude angle, which is 37.87 from horizontal, because it is easiest, cheapest and will maximize annual performance.

Figure 2.4 Total irradiation south-facing tilted surfaces

_________________ 8. http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Chapter6/Chapter6.htm#6.3.1%20Orientation
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

16

Problem Analysis
Determining the Monthly Demand In order to determine how much demand the client would need monthly, our group rst assumed that the given KWH billed for this year and last year have a normal distribution. Using this assumption, the average and standard deviation of the two data sets were calculated. More data would have made the data sets more accurate, but our group was only given two, so we worked with what we had. According to the normal distribution, approximately 95% of data is located within two standard deviations of the mean. Thus, we made our target demand for each month equal to the average plus two times the standard deviation, so that we could be 97.5% sure that his demand would never exceed this value.

Determining the Average Amount of Sunlight in Berkeley In order to determine the average amount of sunlight that was available (kWh/m^2/ day) to the solar panels in Berkeley, we used the triangular distribution presented in
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

17

class. The Renewable Resource Data Center website provided us with information about the available solar insolation in Berkeley, taking into account cloudy days and monthly temperature variations. Since we were only given one set of averages, maximums, and minimums for each month, we used the triangular distribution to nd the standard deviation of the data. Firstly, the website only provided us with the solar insolation values for a 15 degree tilt and a 90 degree tilt. Since our optimal design required an approximately 38 degree tilt, we had to extrapolate the data. Upon making the assumption that the data was approximately linear, we used the degree of tilt as our x value and the solar insolation as our y value and calculated a line for each month passing through the two points (15, insolation[i]) and (90,insolation[i]). First, the slopes were calculated. Next, using the equation , plugging in the point (15, insolation[i]) for (x1,y1), and then plugging in x=38, we obtained the insolation (y) value for a tilt of 38 degrees. We performed this iteration for each months average, maximum, and minimum insolation values. Next, in order to nd the standard deviation, we assumed that the average given was equivalent to the mode, and we found the standard deviation formula on Wikipedia. Using this formula, the averages, the maximums, and the minimums, we calculated the standard deviation for each month. Adding and subtracting 2*standard deviation from the average, we obtained a 95% condence interval. To be safe, we assumed that the available amount of sunlight would be equal to the lower bound of this condence interval. In taking the lower bound of the condence interval to be our assumed solar availability for each month, we are 97.5% sure that the amount of available solar insolation will never be less than this value. Thus, we are 97.5% sure that there will always have enough sunlight to provide an adequate amount of power to our system.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

18

Models - Introduction
These are the variables and parameters that show up in our models. The ones with an asterisk next to them (*) are the variables/parameters that dont show up in every model Variables *net[i]= If negative, the system did not produce enough energy in month I and the consumer must purchase this much. If net[i] is positive in month i, then the system produced more than needed and the consumer will sell it. np = number of panels>=0 *nb = number of batteries>=0 p = If 0, then no panels were produced and therefore no installation costs were incurred and no tax can be deducted. If p=0 then they can. Parameters ce= cost to purchase electricity/price to sell back electricity cp = cost of each solar panel LI = labor and installation cost (equal to $7-$9 dollars per watt) nmc = number of miscellaneous costs (inverter, controller, maintenance) LT[j] = lifetime of each of the miscellaneous components mc[j] = cost of each miscellaneous component Budget = maximum initial budget d[i] = demand for each month *bc = cost of each battery *ltb = lifetime of each battery
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

19

*E = maximum useable energy within battery *dod = depth of discharge of battery sun[i] = sunlight availability per day per m^2 in month i sigmas[i] = standard deviation of available sunlight in month i sigmad[i] = standard deviation of demand in month i A = area of one panel in m^2 Eff = efciency of the panels

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

20

Model 1
Introduction: Off-Grid, Solar Contractor (Buy/Sell Power) In this model, the consumer is off grid but can buy/sell power that he needs/has overproduced. The objective function is to minimize the net present value of the costs incurred over a 25 year project lifetime.

The term is a summation of the consumers costs from buying extra energy that he needs and the revenues from selling power in the months he has excess. If in month i net[i]>0 then this means that he has produced excess power and will sell it at price ce (we are making the assumption that the price to sell energy is equal to the price to buy it). Thus, if net[i]>0 then the cost is subtracted, whereas if net[i]<0 then the cost is added to the total cost.

The term is the annuity formula, where is the money that we discount back each year for the duration of 25 years at a rate of 4%. In order to simplify our calculations, we assumed that the interest was compounded at the end of each year, so that the fact we discounted the sum of the payments at the end of each year rather than discounting them each month does not make a difference.

The term represents the total discounted cost of both the initial batteries and their replacements over the 25 year period. We made the assumption that you have to buy new batteries every ltb years. So, if the lifetime of the battery is 10 years then we have to buy a battery every 10 years (i.e. in year 0, 10, and 20). Ceil(25/ltb) is equivalent to 25 divided by ltb rounded to the next highest integer (i.e. ceil(25/10)=ceil(2.5)=3). This determines, based upon the lifetime of each battery (ltb) in years, how many times you will have to buy new batteries throughout the project lifetime of 25 years, assuming that
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

21

you have to buy them every ltb years. We start at time t=0 because you must buy parts for the installation now.

The term is a summation of the j miscellaneous parts, such as controllers, inverters, mounting systems, and switches. The parameter LT[j] is the respective lifetime of miscellaneous cost j; here we assume again that we must buy a new miscellaneous part every LT[j] years. Of course, there are more costs, but we are assuming that the rest are negligible in comparison.

The term takes into account the Federal Tax Deduction of 30% of total costs (not including batteries) for people who go off the grid. Unfortunately, when people go off the grid, they do not qualify for the California Initiative, which compensates you for an additional 13% of the total after tax rebate costs.

-1318* Lastly, the term is the revenue that you save by not having to pay your monthly PGE bills. The term -1318 is the average amount that Berkeley residents pay for their PG&E bill and discounts this annual payment back at a 4% discount rate for the duration of the project lifetime.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

22

AMPL Model: Minimizing the Objective Function

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

23

Constraints Constraint #1 is the budget constraint, which says that the initial investment that the consumer made on the solar power system does not exceed the amount (Budget) available to him. This brings me to another assumption: in order to simplify our calculations we are assuming that this person has savings from which he can invest this money, rather than having to deal with complications of a loan and loan payments. Constraint #2 is binary and is determinant of whether or not certain costs associated with actually installing the system will be incurred. In some of the models it was optimal to not build the solar powered system, and to instead just stick with PGE bills, so the installation and labor costs would not be incurred. Constraints and costs multiplied by variable p are the constraints and costs that are only applicable if the system is actually built, and equal to zero if it is not. Constraint #3 makes sure that your power demands are met. As explained earlier, net is the variable which measures the amount that you must purchase in order to have an adequate amount of power (if negative), and the amount by which you have exceeded your power needs and can sell back (if positive). Constraint #4 ensures that the panels do not exceed the available roof space. Constraint #5 ensures that we have adequate battery capacity to store the energy we need, and is explained further in the Battery section of our paper. Constraint #6 is a measure of installation costs, which we have found is approximately $8 per watt. Thus, constraint #6 nds the wattage of our system and multiplies it by 8 dollars to get total installation costs.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

24

Model 2
Introduction: On-Grid, Solar Contractor This model is essentially the same as Model #1, except now the person is connected to PGE. We modeled the net again like revenue for two reasons. One, PGE gives you the option of a plan where they do buy back your excess energy, and sell you energy in the months that you do not have enough. Two, even if you choose to go with the plan in which you buy extra energy and PGE credits you for future electricity (in this case you would qualify for the California Solar Initiative), the electricity that you dont have to pay in the future is like revenue. For simplicity, we will assume that the person is selling to PGE excess power and buying power that he did not make enough of himself. Thus, everything is the same as in the previous model except batteries are not included in the cost or the constraints because the consumer does not need them. AMPL Model

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

25

Model 3
Introduction: Off-Grid, Solar Contractor (No Buy/Sell Power) In this scenario, the person is completely off grid and does not have the means to buy or sell to anyone; for this reason the variable net is not included in the objective function, because whatever he makes extra is lost. Due to the fact that he must sustain himself completely, we have added the constraint that all values of net must be greater than or equal to zero. If during any month net<0, then he did not have enough energy and his power went out. Lastly, since the panels must be built if he wants any electricity at all, p will equal one no matter what.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

26

AMPL Model

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

27

Works Cited
"Batteries Catalog." Kyocera Solar. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec 2010. <www.kyocerasolar.com>. "Surrette Rolls are the crown jewels of DC batteries." N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec 2010. <www.dcbattery.com>.

"How about Nickel-Cadmium Cells?" N.p., "NASA Surface Meteorology and Solar Enn.d. Web. 6 Dec 2010. ergy." NASA Langley Atmospheric Science <www.vonwentzel.net>. Data Center (Distributed Active Archive Center). Web. 06 Dec. 2010. <http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/grid.c "Life span of batteries used in "Deep Cycle gi?>. Services" ." Web. 6 Dec 2010. "Solar Calculator." Solar Power Facts and <www.windsun.com>. Helpful Info. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. <http://www.solartradingpost.com/calcu "My third letter." Von Wentzel Family Site. late.php?name=5>. "SOLAR RADIATION FOR FLAT-PLATE N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec 2010. COLLECTORS FACING SOUTH AT A <http://www.vonwentzel.net/>. FIXED-TILT." Renewable Resource Data Center (RReDC) Home Page. Web. 06 Dec. 2010. <http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/ns "Renewable Energy 2010 Design Catalog." rdb/redbook/sum2/23234.txt>. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec 2010. <www.aeesolar.com>.

"Solar Series 5000." Kyocera Solar. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec 2010. <www.kyocerasolar.com>.

"Solar Series 5000." Pure Energy Systems. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Dec 2010. <www.pureenergysystems.com>.

"Surrette(R) batteries lifecycle vs. %DOD ." Web. 6 Dec 2010. <www.surrette.com>.
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR 28

Appendix A - Battery Selection

The Premium Surrette 500 (bold numbers in the table below) is our nal selection for the battery system Table 2: Summary of calculations for battery selection based on the model
Battery Voltage Ampere- Hour hours rating Current Power Max KWH DOD KWH # to buy Lifetime Price Total Cost Cost per Lifetime

Lifeline AGM (8D) West Marine Gel (8D) Inexpensive Trojan (2xT105) Premium Surrette 400 (HT8DM) Premium Surrette 500 (12CS11PS) 2-KS-33PS (Surrette 500 series) 4-KS-21PS (Surrette 500 series) 4-KS-25PS (Surrette 500 series) 6-CS-17PS (Surrette 500 series) 6-CS-21PS (Surrette 500 series) 6-CS-25PS (Surrette 500 series) Surrette S- 460 (Sur- rette 400 series) Surrette S- 530 (Sur- rette 400 series)

12 12 12

225 225 225

20 20 20

11.25 11.25 11.25

135 135 135

2.7 2.7 2.7

0.5 0.5 0.5

1.35 1.35 1.35

64 64 64

1000 500 500

$387.00 $449.00 $152.00

$24,768.00 $28,736.00 $9,728.00

$24.77 $57.47 $19.46

12

221

20

11.05

132.6

2.652

0.5

1.32

65

1250

$246.00

$15,990.00

$12.79

12

342

20

17.1

205.2

4.104

0.5

2.05

42

3200

$683.00 $28,686.00

$8.96

1750

20

87.5

175

3.5

0.5

1.75

50

3300

$1,184.00 $59,200.00

$17.94

1104

20

55.2

220.8

4.416

0.5

2.20

39

3300

$1,703.00 $66,417.00

$20.13

1350

20

67.5

270

5.4

0.5

2.7

32

3300

$2,130.00 $68,160.00

$20.65

546

20

27.3

163.8

3.276

0.5

1.63

53

3300

$1,316.00 $69,748.00

$21.14

683

20

34.15

204.9

4.098

0.5

2.04

42

3300

$1,643.00 $69,006.00

$20.91

820

20

41

246

4.92

0.5

2.46

35

3300

$1,905.00 $66,675.00

$20.20

350

20

17.5

105

2.1

0.5

1.05

82

1300

$484.00

$39,688.00

$30.53

400

20

20

120

2.4

0.5

1.2

72

1300

$550.00

$39,600.00

$30.46

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

29

Appendix B - Demand Calculations

Month KWH KWH Billed Billed Previous year This Year 784 665 566 557 396 465 507 421 374 646 686 795 776 701 561 485 459 526 472 509 567 413 654 645
Average Variance Standard De- Average KWH+2 via1on 4 18 2.5 36 31.5 30.5 17.5 44 96.5 116.5 16 75 788 719 568.5 593 490.5 556.5 524.5 553 663.5 762.5 702 870

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

780 683 563.5 521 427.5 495.5 489.5 465 470.5 529.5 670 720

16 324 6.25 1296 992.25 930.25 306.25 1936 9312.25 13572.25 256 5625

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

30

Appendix C - Weather Calculations

Average Solar Insola1on (In KWH/m^2/day)
January February March April May June July August September October November December InsolaFon with InsolaFon at Slope of Line Found Projected Insola- 15 Tilt 90 Tilt From Two Points Fon at 37.87 3.7 4.4 5.1 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.9 6.1 6.1 5.5 4.1 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.7 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.7 3.3 4.1 4.3 3.6 3.3 -0.005333333 -0.010666667 -0.018666667 -0.029333333 -0.038666667 -0.041333333 -0.042666667 -0.037333333 -0.026666667 -0.016 -0.006666667 -0.004 3.578026667 4.156053333 4.673093333 4.929146667 4.815693333 4.654706667 4.924213333 5.246186667 5.490133333 5.13408 3.947533333 3.50852 Average - 2 2.939376544 2.926498113 3.54510545 4.012497307 4.096906619 3.930582018 4.418053413 4.570613507 4.743232755 4.312633499 3.241059534 2.447386298

Minimum Solar Insola1on (In KWH/m^2/day)

InsolaFon with 15 InsolaFon at 90 Tilt Tilt 2.8 3.1 3.8 4.2 4.8 4.7 5.6 5.3 5.2 4.3 3.2 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.6 3 3.5 3.4 2.8 1.9 Slope of Line Found Projected InsolaFon at From Two Points 37.87 -0.004 -0.009333333 -0.014666667 -0.021333333 -0.030666667 -0.032 -0.04 -0.030666667 -0.022666667 -0.012 -0.005333333 -0.002666667 2.70852 2.886546667 3.464573333 3.712106667 4.098653333 3.96816 4.6852 4.598653333 4.681613333 4.02556 3.078026667 2.039013333

January February March April May June July August September October November December

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

31

Triangular Distribu1on Standard Devia1on Variance 0.101968495 0.37795151 0.318089166 0.210061512 0.129163585 0.131089127 0.064049466 0.114099774 0.139465118 0.168693588 0.124776307 0.281501183 0.319325061 0.61477761 0.563993942 0.45832468 0.359393357 0.362062324 0.25307996 0.33778658 0.373450289 0.41072325 0.3532369 0.530566851

Maximum Solar Insola1on (In KWH/m^2/day)

InsolaFon with 15 InsolaFon at 90 Tilt Tilt 4.3 6.1 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.3 6.4 4.9 4.6 4.2 5.4 4.9 3.8 3 2.6 2.8 3.6 4.7 5.2 4.6 4.7 Slope of Line Found Projected InsolaFon at From Two Points 37.87 -0.001333333 -0.009333333 -0.025333333 -0.041333333 -0.054666667 -0.06 -0.058666667 -0.050666667 -0.034666667 -0.016 -0.004 0.001333333 4.269506667 5.886546667 6.220626667 5.954706667 5.849773333 5.7278 5.858293333 6.241253333 6.507173333 6.03408 4.80852 4.630493333

January February March April May June July August September October November December

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

32

Appendix D - AMPL Model Outputs

Introduction AMPL Assumptions In these les, sigmas are not included in the calculations because we used the value of sun (calculated in our table) that already accounted for that We estimated/assumed that the total cost over the lifetime of inverter, controller, mounting system would be approximately 3000 We estimated/assumed that 1500 would be the initial cost of the inverter, controller, mounting system Also assumed r=0.04 (i.e. 4%) Assumed sell back cost for electricity = cost to buy electricity which is approximately 12 cents

Model 1 param ProjectLife; param sun {i in 1..12}; param d {i in 1..12}; param days {i in 1..12}; param ce; param cp; param A; param budget; param sigmad {i in 1..12}; param E; param dod; param eff; param bc; var net{i in 1..12}; var np>=0; var nb>=0;
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

33

var LI>=0; var p; minimize cost: (sum{i in 1..12} -net[i]*ce)*(1-1/(1+.04)^ProjectLife)/.04+cp*np+LI+bc*(365*ProjectLife)/3600*nb*+3000 *p- .3*(cp*np+LI+1500*p)-1318*p*(1-1/(1+.04)^ProjectLife)/.04; subject to Budget: cp*np+bc*(365*ProjectLife)/3600*nb+LI+1500<=budget; subject to MeetDemand {i in 1..12}: days[i]*(sun[i])*A*np*eff=d[i]+2*sigmad[i]+net[i]; subject to Roof: A*np<=1500/0.7894; subject to Battery {i in 1..12}: nb>=if np=0 then 0 else ceil((d[i]+2*sigmad[i]+net[i])/ (E*dod)); subject to LabIns: LI = max {i in 1..12} ((d[i]+2*sigmad[i])/days[i])*(1000*8/24)*p; subject to cool: p= if np=0 then 0 else 1;

data; ############ DATA STARTS HERE ############ param sun:= 1 2.94 2 2.93 3 3.55 4 4.01 5 4.10 6 3.93 7 4.42 8 4.57 9 4.74 10 4.31 11 3.24 12 2.45; param d:= 1 720 2 670 3 529.5 4 470.5 5 465 6 489.5 7 495.5 8 427.5 9 521 10 563.5 11 683 12 780; param days:= 1 31 2 28 3 31 4 30 5 31 6 30 7 31 8 31 9 30 10 31 11 30 12 31; param ce:= 0.12; param ProjectLife:= 25; param cp:=868; param A:=1.164; param budget:= 100000; param sigmad:= 1 75 2 16 3 116.5 4 96.5 5 44 6 17.5 7 30.5 8 31.5 9 36 10 2.5 11 18 12 4; param E:=4.104; param dod:=0.5; param eff:=.197; param bc:=683;

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

34

Output: MINOS 5.51: optimal solution found. 1 iterations, objective 14605.39498 Nonlin evals: constrs = 6, Jac = 5. : _varname _var := 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 'net[1]' 'net[2]' 'net[3]' 'net[4]' 'net[5]' 'net[6]' 'net[7]' 'net[8]' -870 -702 -762.5 -663.5 -553 -524.5 -556.5 -490.5

9 'net[9]' -593 10 'net[10]' -568.5 11 'net[11]' -719 12 'net[12]' -788 13 np 0 14 nb 15 LI 16 p ; 0 0 0

Therefore, if the user is off the grid, he/she has to pay a lot for batteries, so it would be optimal for him to not invest in solar panels and buy all his electricity from PGE.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

35

Model 2 param ProjectLife; param sun {i in 1..12}; param d {i in 1..12}; param days {i in 1..12}; param ce; param cp; param A; param budget; param sigmad {i in 1..12}; param E; param dod; param eff; param bc;

var net{i in 1..12}; var np>=0; var LI>=0; var p; minimize cost: (sum{i in 1..12} -net[i]*ce)*(1-1/(1+.04)^ProjectLife)/.04+cp*np+LI+3000*p-.3*(cp*np+LI+1500*p)-1318* p*(1-1/(1+.04)^ProjectLife)/.04; subject to Budget: cp*np+LI+1500<=budget; subject to MeetDemand {i in 1..12}: days[i]*(sun[i])*A*np*eff=d[i]+2*sigmad[i]+net[i]; subject to Roof: A*np<=1500/0.7894; subject to LabIns: LI = max {i in 1..12} ((d[i]+2*sigmad[i])/days[i])*(1000*8/24)*p; subject to cool: p= if np=0 then 0 else 1;

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

36

data; ############ DATA STARTS HERE ############ param sun:= 1 2.94 2 2.93 3 3.55 4 4.01 5 4.10 6 3.93 7 4.42 8 4.57 9 4.74 10 4.31 11 3.24 12 2.45; param d:= 1 720 2 670 3 529.5 4 470.5 5 465 6 489.5 7 495.5 8 427.5 9 521 10 563.5 11 683 12 780; param days:= 1 31 2 28 3 31 4 30 5 31 6 30 7 31 8 31 9 30 10 31 11 30 12 31; param ce:= 0.13; param ProjectLife:= 25; param cp:=868; param A:=1.164; param budget:= 100000; param sigmad:= 1 75 2 16 3 116.5 4 96.5 5 44 6 17.5 7 30.5 8 31.5 9 36 10 2.5 11 18 12 4; param E:=4.104; param dod:=0.5; param eff:=.197; param bc:=683;

OUTPUT: MINOS 5.51: optimal solution found. 2 iterations, objective 913.0905062 Nonlin evals: constrs = 15, Jac = 14. : _varname _var := 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 'net[1]' 'net[2]' 'net[3]' 'net[4]' 'net[5]' 'net[6]' 'net[7]' 'net[8]' 'net[9]' 1276.38 1230.07 1829.22 2169.61 2440.25 2252.09 2670.37 2845.88 2755.86
BerkeleySOLAR

I E O R 1 6 0!

37

10 'net[10]' 2578.06 11 'net[11]' 1570.09 12 'net[12]' 1000.65 13 np 14 LI 15 p ; 102.702 9354.84 1

Therefore, the user can maximize his revenue by using 103 panels and producing extra and selling back what he doesnt need. This way, the cost is only 913 dollars over 25 years. If he continued past 25 years his revenue would probably be positive. Also, changes in interest rates over the years could also help.!

Model 3 **We had to take out constraint for budget

param ProjectLife; param sun {i in 1..12}; param d {i in 1..12}; param days {i in 1..12}; param ce; param cp; param A; param budget; param sigmad {i in 1..12}; param E; param dod; param eff; param bc;

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

38

var net{i in 1..12}>=0; var np>=0; var nb>=0; var LI>=0; var p; minimize cost: cp*np+LI+bc*(365*ProjectLife)/3600*nb+3000*p-.3*(cp*np+LI+1500*p)-1318*p*(1-1/(1+. 04)^ProjectLife)/.04; subject to MeetDemand {i in 1..12}: days[i]*(sun[i])*A*np*eff=d[i]+2*sigmad[i]+net[i]; subject to Roof: A*np<=1500/0.7894; subject to Battery {i in 1..12}: nb>=ceil((d[i]+2*sigmad[i]+net[i])/(E*dod)); subject to LabIns: LI = max {i in 1..12} ((d[i]+2*sigmad[i])/days[i])*(1000*8/24)*p; subject to blah: p=if np=0 then 0 else 1; data; ############ DATA STARTS HERE ############ param sun:= 1 2.94 2 2.93 3 3.55 4 4.01 5 4.10 6 3.93 7 4.42 8 4.57 9 4.74 10 4.31 11 3.24 12 2.45; param d:= 1 720 2 670 3 529.5 4 470.5 5 465 6 489.5 7 495.5 8 427.5 9 521 10 563.5 11 683 12 780; param days:= 1 31 2 28 3 31 4 30 5 31 6 30 7 31 8 31 9 30 10 31 11 30 12 31; param ce:= 0.12; param ProjectLife:= 25; param cp:=868; param A:=1.164; param budget:= 100000; param sigmad:= 1 75 2 16 3 116.5 4 96.5 5 44 6 17.5 7 30.5 8 31.5 9 36 10 2.5 11 18 12 4; param E:=4.104; param dod:=0.5; param eff:=.197; param bc:=683;
I E O R 1 6 0! BerkeleySOLAR

39

output: MINOS 5.51: optimal solution found. 3 iterations, objective 1260743.679 Nonlin evals: constrs = 4, Jac = 3. : _varname _var := 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 'net[1]' 'net[2]' 'net[3]' 'net[4]' 'net[5]' 'net[6]' 'net[7]' 75.6 149.185 379.296 584.642 765.694 698.742 865.116

8 'net[8]' 979.361 9 'net[9]' 882.36 10 'net[10]' 817.737 11 'net[11]' 289.474 12 'net[12]' 0 13 np 14 nb 15 LI 16 p ; 45.2459 719 9354.84 1

In Model 3, we had to omit the budget constraint because it is so expensive. Therefore, it is ill advisable to go completely off the grid.

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

40

Appendix E - Battery Cost Optimization

Minimizing the Cost per Lifetime The eventual model that we decided to use in order to minimize the cost per lifetime of the battery was:

The depth of discharge is the decision variable. Constraint# 1: The life time of the battery is equal to a function of the Depth of Discharge Constraint # 2: The total cost of batteries from one type = the number of batteries needed to meet demand multiplied by the price of one battery of a specic type. Constraint# 3: The number of batteries to buy is calculated by using the Ceiling of the total energy required divided by the energy multiplied by the depth of discharge

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

41

Appendix F - Solar Panel Cost Optimization

Minimizing the Cost per Watt min u = xy + m subject to x <= 1500 ft2/area of 1 solar panel max wattage > demand

x is an integer x = number of panels y = price per panel m = maintenance costs for 25 years

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

42

Appendix G - Solar Installation Costs

A1 Sun Inc. ACME Electric Acro Energy Tech, Inc. Advanced Alternative Energy Solutions Advanced Conservation Systems, Inc Akeena Solar, Inc. Albion Power Company, Inc. Alliance Solar Services Alter Systems, LLC American Solar Corp. Applied Star Energy Systems Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. CA Solar Systems, Inc. Century Roof and Solar Clean Solar, Inc. Gary Plotner Global Resource Options $0 $12,500.00$25,000.00$37,500.00$50,000.00 Costs

Company

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

43

Appendix H - Night Hours v Months

12.500

12.275

Night Hours

12.050

11.825

11.600

10

11

12

Months (JAN-DEC)

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

44

Appendix I - kWh Bill for 25 Years

Month kWH $ $/kWh billed Billed CurCur- Current rent rent Year Year Year Jan 795.00 $188.00 $0.24 Feb 686.00 $145.00 $0.21 Mar 646.00 $129.00 $0.20 Apr 374.00 $46.00 $0.12 May 421.00 $67.00 $0.16 Jun 507.00 $92.00 $0.18 Jul 465.00 $79.00 $0.17 Aug 396.00 $59.00 $0.15 Sep 557.00 $112.00 $0.20 Oct 566.00 $116.00 $0.20 Nov 665.00 $136.00 $0.20 Dec 784.00 $184.00 $0.23 Total 6,862.00 Average 571.83 $ $/kWh Ave. Billed Previ- kWH Previous for ous Year next 25 Year Years $128.00 $0.20 720.00 $132.00 $0.20 670.00 $55.00 $0.13 529.50 $100.00 $0.18 470.50 $93.00 $0.18 465.00 $81.00 $0.17 489.50 $100.00 $0.19 495.50 $78.00 $0.17 427.50 $85.00 $0.18 521.00 $114.00 $0.20 563.50 $151.00 $0.22 683.00 $181.00 $0.23 780.00 6,768.00 6,815 $0.19 564.00 567.92 kWH billed Previous Year 645.00 654.00 413.00 567.00 509.00 472.00 526.00 459.00 485.00 561.00 701.00 776.00 kwh/ day $ $/kWh Billed for for next 25 next 25 Years Years $158.00 $0.22 $138.00 $0.21 $89.00 $0.17 $72.00 $0.15 $79.00 $0.17 $86.00 $0.18 $88.00 $0.18 $69.00 $0.16 $98.00 $0.19 $115.00 $0.20 $144.00 $0.21 $182.00 $0.23 $1,318.00 $109.83

30 27.917 22.063 19.604 19.375 20.396 20.646 17.813 21.708 23.479 28.458 32.5

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

45

Appendix J - Solar Power Calculator

System Specications
Solar Radiance (kWh/sqm/day) Ave. Monthly Usage (kWh/month) System Size (kWh) Roof Size (sq. ft) Estimated Cost Post Incentive Cost Berkeley, CA 5.43 3901 29.82 2981 208,708.60 140,252.18

Incentives
Federal Incentives Tax Credit State Incentives Property Tax Local Inventives Rebate (for PG&E) 30%

Exempt

.35/W AC

Savings
Estimated Cost Post Incentive Cost Ave. Monthly Savings 25 Year Savings 25 Year ROI Break Even 208708.60 140,252.18 570 284,858.01 203.10% 15.27 Years

Carbon Emissions
Annual Carbon Dioxide Usage (pounds) Driving Equivalent Offset by planting: 70,209 77,800 miles 176 trees/year

I E O R 1 6 0!

BerkeleySOLAR

46