Green Hill Engineering Critical Design Review

A Proposed Building Plan for the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute Building at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Project Dates: 16 September 2008 to 9 December 2008

Green Hill Engineering Erin Dagg, Student Engineer Caroline Morel, Student Engineer Matthew Sugiyama, Student Engineer Erik Walker, Student Engineer

Date Prepared: 9 December 2008

Prepared for: Professor Levi T. Thompson Department of Chemical Engineering The University of Michigan

Senior Project Manager Hans Herfurth Center for Laser Technology Fraunhofer, USA Plymouth, Michigan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Green Hill Engineering and Fraunhofer USA, Center for Laser Technology, have recently begun a partnership to evaluate the energy uses of a building on the campus of the University of Michigan. We were asked to compile a critical design review for converting the energy source of the University of Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute (MMPEI) to solar energy. The purpose of this report is to inform the client and interested parties of our final design proposal. Green Hill Engineering, in partnership with Fraunhofer USA, was able to devise a suitable design for the renovation of the MMPEI building. This design incorporates the aspects of cost effective materials, innovative technologies, and strives to maximize the energy returns of the building with the use of solar devices. After preliminary research, we developed three initial designs that we evaluated based on their compliance with Green Hill Engineering’s objectives. We chose the best parts of each design and formulated a final concept model. From a time perspective, this proposal could be implemented in approximately two years, depending on weather conditions and the availability of components. The greatest risk associated with this design is the large initial investment. We were not given a budget constraint for the project, but one of our goals was to minimize the payback period. Our design will take approximately 39 years to break even with the initial investment. A positive outcome of our design proposal is the impact it will have on the community and the environment. The solar exhibit will be an informative component to our design that will share the benefits of using only renewable sources of energy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................3 2.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROPOSALS .................................................................3 2.1 Preliminary Design 1 .........................................................................................3 2.2 Preliminary Design 2 .........................................................................................4 2.3 Preliminary Design 3 .........................................................................................4 2.4 Evaluating Preliminary Designs ........................................................................4 2.5 Numerical Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................5 3.0 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW ........................................................................................5 3.1 Solar Overview ..................................................................................................5 3.2 Insolation and Solar Trackers ............................................................................6 3.3 Final Design .......................................................................................................6 4.0 ANALYSIS OF SUBSYSTEMS .................................................................................7 4.1 Roof Installation.................................................................................................7 4.2 Garage Structure ................................................................................................7 4.3 Solar Awning .....................................................................................................7 4.4 Solar Wall ..........................................................................................................8 4.5 Educational Display ...........................................................................................8 5.0 TIMELINE ...................................................................................................................8 6.0 INITIAL COSTS ..........................................................................................................9 6.1 Aluminum Roof Canopy ....................................................................................9 6.2 Tether System ....................................................................................................9 6.3 Garage Structure ................................................................................................9 6.4 Solar Awning .....................................................................................................9 6.5 Solar Wall Structure .........................................................................................10 6.6 Power Inverters ................................................................................................10 6.7 Tree Removal and Educational Display ..........................................................10 6.8 Solar Trackers and Solar Panels ......................................................................10 7.0 COST ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................10 7.1 Tax Credit ........................................................................................................11 8.0 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................11 References .........................................................................................................................12 Appendix ...........................................................................................................................13

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION The University of Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute, located on the College of Engineering’s North Campus, is home to research laboratories that produce cutting-edge studies on the development of sustainable energy. Green Hill Engineering was consulted by Fraunhofer USA, Center for Laser Technology, to assess the viability of converting a portion of the building’s energy source to photovoltaic. As technology develops, “green” buildings that are energy efficient and use little or no fossil fuels are becoming more prevalent. The primary goal of the project was to maximize the use solar energy in powering the MMPEI building. We had to take into consideration both the energy consumption specific to the facility and the feasibility of harnessing sunlight at Michigan’s latitude. Several factors were to be considered in our task, including returns on investment and maximization of available technology. Green Hill Engineering took a unique approach to the project. In maximizing the total available area used in harnessing solar energy we made allowances for all sides of the building as well the land area on the South side of the MMPEI building. Cost was another significant consideration in our design strategy. In compromising a small percentage of solar cell efficiency for cells of cheaper material we were able to reduce the payback period a substantial amount. We wanted a balance between the design’s effectiveness as a power source and the need for a reasonable initial investment for the project. 2.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN PROPOSALS In the initial phase of the planning process we discussed ways to approach the project. After researching solar components and deliberating the advantages and disadvantages of each, we were able to piece them together into three preliminary designs. The designs were contrived with the purpose of incorporating different aspects of solar technology while still utilizing the available space. Each design proposal is unique and, in assessing all options, we made considerations for different solar modules on the roof, the accessibility of land around the building, and the use of the window area on the east and west sides. These initial ideas gave a solid starting point for evaluating solar components in our final design proposal. 2.1 Preliminary Design 1 Design 1 incorporates the necessity of maximizing the available area in which to place photovoltaics. The roof of the building would support a field-like array of parabolic trough solar modules, which are essentially solar concentrators that focus sunlight for optimal capture. The makeshift parking lot and loading dock on the west side of the MMPEI building would remain in Design 1, but with the addition of a carport-like assembly. This elevated platform would provide shelter over the parking area, as well as harness a significant amount of additional energy through the solar panels covering the top portion. In the final aspect of this design, we chose to utilize ground space and include an educational exhibit on the south side. This display would feature different types of solar collectors that would contribute to the overall energy source of the building. It would be a place where the community could come to learn about the future of solar technology. For anyone interested, it would also be a tribute to the renovation of the MMPEI building and, through informative signs and models, would show how the building made the switch to becoming a “greener” facility.

3

2.2 Preliminary Design 2 Design 2 concentrated primarily on the usability of the roof for harnessing solar energy. To maximize available roof space, we included an aluminum canopy-like structure that would stretch over the top of the utilities equipment. This would also address any structural concerns for the roof, as it would focus the weight of our added solar components towards the center and the outside of the MMPEI building. A collection of flat photovoltaic panels would line the top of this canopy as the main source of energy for powering the building. A solar tracking awning would be mounted above the windows on the West side of the MMPEI building. This awning incorporates new technology and will have the ability to adjust its position based on the location of the sun. Not only would this provide shelter from the sun’s rays for the rooms on this side of the building, but the solar panels along the top of the awning would also utilize sunlight as an energy source. Another part of this design featured a sculpture composed of solar panels that would be an additional energy source for the building, though minimal. Located in the grassy area on the south side of the building, this sculpture would help satisfy aesthetic concerns related to the project. 2.3 Preliminary Design 3 Design 3 had several aspects that allowed for the most effective utilization of available space. Parabolic dish solar collectors would be mounted in an array on the roof of the MMPEI building. Though available roof space for these would be limited, the comparable size of these components would be counterbalanced by the heightened efficiency that their solar tracking technology provides. The south side of the building would prove to be an additional energy source through the use of solar panels. These flat panels would be mounted on an angled wall constructed against the building as to receive maximum amounts of solar insolation. To stabilize temperatures in the building, and therefore decrease the energy consumption of the facility, the windows along the west side would be shielded from the afternoon sun. Window blinds inside the building would be covered by solar collectors, with the individual slats closing gradually based on the sun’s position. This component would also harness a substantial amount of solar energy to be used in powering the building. 2.4 Evaluating Preliminary Designs The tool used to assess each of the preliminary designs was a numerical evaluation matrix. To begin, we had to define the project’s constraints and objectives. Both of the constraints were related to safety—a maintenance walkway and a tether system for roof access. Our objectives were to maximize the efficiency of the area used by the cells, to use cost effective components, and to incorporate new technology. These objectives were weighted so as to establish a method of comparison. The first objective, to maximize the efficiency of the area used by the cells, was weighted the most. We determined that this would account for 80% of our overall design. The next two objectives, to use cost effective components and to incorporate new technology, were weighted equally, with 10% each. All three designs met the constraints. Preliminary Design 1 received 0.4 of 0.8 possible point in relation to the efficiency of the area used by the photovoltaic devices. This is mostly because of the parabolic trough style cells that are not as efficient as their counterparts. Also, this type of module does not give significant energy returns for the amount of roof space it uses. Design 1 did not receive any points in the

4

categories of cost effectiveness of the design or the use of new technology. Overall, this design received 0.4 of 1.0 point possible. Preliminary Design 2 received 0.7 of 0.8 point possible for the efficiency of the area taken up by the flat solar panels. This type of photovoltaic panel is quite efficient when made of germanium. Design 2 received 0.05 of 0.1 point in the category of cost effectiveness; the flat panels give significant energy returns for the initial investment. This design received full points, 0.1 of 0.1 for featuring new technology, for a total of 0.85 of 1.0 point possible. Preliminary Design 3 received 0.6 of 0.8 point possible for its incorporation of parabolic dish solar modules. These modules give decent energy returns based on the amount of area used on the roof. Both categories of cost effectiveness of materials used and the incorporation of cuttingedge technology were weighted 0.05 of 0.1 point possible. All together, this design received a rating 0.7 of 1.0 point possible. 2.5 Numerical Evaluation Matrix The numerical evaluation matrix (see pg.13, Table A-2) was a useful tool in our final design selection. It allowed us to determine which aspects were most important to us, and which qualities we most valued in our ideal design. From Design 1 we chose to keep our educational exhibit idea and the garage structure for extra solar intake. Both components give our design a creative edge and increase the surface area that can be covered with solar devices. Design 2, on the other hand, was favored for its solar awning on west side of the MMPEI building and the use of a canopy for mounting solar devices on the roof. These items give high-energy returns for their respective environmental footprints, and the awning adds innovative technology. The aspect we liked best from Design 3 was the incorporation of solar panel-covered walls, which add to the overall energy input and are relatively cost-effective. Our proposed design allows for the use of the optimal components of each preliminary design. We feel that each adds a certain level of innovation and prestige to the overall concept of a solarpowered building. The aerial view (see pg.14, Picture A-3) shows the addition of the carport and solar awning to the west side of the MMPEI building, the roof installation, and also gives a feel for the size of the educational exhibit relative to the building. 3.0 TECHNICAL OVERVIEW In creating our final design, we had to consider the characteristics of the components we wanted to include. The types of solar cell and their respective efficiencies were a major concern, but we also had to consider the situation from an economic standpoint. Additionally, the type of mounting device used would affect the insolation captured by the design and also the amount of energy available for use in powering the building. 3.1 Solar Overview When photons in sunlight strike a solar cell, the semiconducting material absorbs them. This excites electrons in the cell and causes them to flow, resulting in electricity. This electricity can then be harnessed and used to power an exterior load. In our case we want to channel this electricity directly into the power grid for the MMPEI building. However, certain materials can only harness certain photons from the electromagnetic spectrum. In order to harness more energy 5

from solar radiation, multi-junction cells can be used. These cells utilize multiple materials in order to absorb more energy. To decide whether to use a multi-junction germanium cell or a single-junction monocrystalline silicon cell, we looked at the efficiencies and costs of each. While multi-junction germanium solar cells are extremely efficient, they are also prohibitively expensive. In order to make this large-scale project cost effective, we decided to use a more economical monocrystalline silicon solar cell. 3.2 Insolation and Solar Trackers Insolation is the measure of solar radiation on a surface over a period of time. Solar cells operate at their maximum efficiency when the solar panel is perpendicular to the sun’s rays. In order to ensure that our solar panels create the maximum amount of electricity from the available sunlight, we used dual-axis solar trackers. The Wattsun AZ-225 Azimuth Tracker uses an optical sunsensing device to orient the mounted solar panels perpendicular to direct sunlight throughout the course of the day. These trackers can pivot along both latitude and longitude in order to maximize power output [1]. Using solar insolation maps we determined the average amount of solar insolation for every month of the year in Ann Arbor [2]. 3.3 Final Design In our final design we incorporated the best aspects of our original three design projects. On the roof we decided to maximize the useable area by constructing an aluminum canopy over the existing utilities. This canopy not only utilizes area, but also displaces weight to its supports at the center and outside of the roof. On the canopy, we placed eighteen dual-axis solar trackers, each with twelve solar panels. We staggered the trackers on the roof to reduce the amount of shadows cast by the other trackers. On the west side, we decided to both provide shade for the building as well as harness this unwanted sunlight for energy to power the MMPEI building. To do this, we decided to construct the solar garage as well as the solar awnings. On the south side we wanted to maximize the energy produced as well as making an educational exhibit to inform the public of the various solar technologies used on the MMPEI building. We can accomplish all this by constructing a solar wall tilted south at latitude plus 15 degrees. The educational display will incorporate one of the dual-axis solar trackers that are located on the roof as well as an informative sign. While the solar trackers are the most efficient at utilizing the available sunlight throughout the day, it is not plausible to use them in all of the available areas. The best areas to use the solar trackers are on the roof and in the solar display. In order for the solar awning to shade the west side of the building and maximize power output, its solar panels must be horizontally oriented. The solar garage will also be oriented horizontally due to height restrictions. Since the sun spends most of its orbit south of Ann Arbor throughout the year, the solar wall will be tilted at an angle of latitude plus 15 degrees. Using solar insolation maps, we determined the average amount of solar insolation per square meter for every month of the year in Ann Arbor for all the angles we used (see pg.15, Table A-3) [2]. We then multiplied these values by the solar panel efficiency and then by the square meters from each area of our project (see pg.15, Table A-4). This gave us the amount of energy produced from each area per month (see pg.15, Table A-5).

6

4.0 ANALYSIS OF SUBSYSTEMS The final design proposed by Green Hill Engineering consists of five main components to be added to the Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy Institute: a roof installation, a garage structure, solar awning, a solar wall, and an educational display. Though each component will contribute to the energy produced in the design and consumed by the building, each is unique in both its purpose and functionality. 4.1 Roof Installation The roof installation will consist of both an aluminum canopy system and 18 dual-axis solar trackers. Currently, the MMPEI building’s air conditioning units are located in the center of the roof. This proved to be an obstacle when planning to put some sort of solar installation on the roof, since at certain times during the day the equipment would create shadows across the solar panels. Thus, Green Hill Engineering decided to elevate the solar installation to the height of the utility equipment by constructing a canopy system upon which to mount solar modules. Since the roof of the MMPEI building was the largest, mostly unobstructed space available to our team, we decided that our design must capitalize on this area and optimize the energy returns on the area utilized on the roof. Since the air conditioning utilities are located in the center of the roof’s usable area, the canopy must be built in two sections. The dimensions of each side of the canopy are 49 x 69.5 feet; they will abut the air conditioning unit in the middle and will be three feet from any edge of the roof. This is mainly a safety consideration; since this walkway is only three feet wide, a tether system shock-rated to 5000 lbs will also be included for fall protection. Green Hill Engineering has proposed the use of dual-axis tracking solar modules in the roof installation. This type of module, when paired with relatively inexpensive 17% efficient silicon solar panels, will provide 113,475.61 kWh of energy per year, using insolation data specific to Ann Arbor, Michigan (see pg.15, Table A-5). Though the solar modules we will be using each weigh approximately 100 pounds, the weight distribution limit of the roof, 30 lbs/ft2, will be met, since the aluminum canopies will allow the weight to be distributed to the center and edges of the roof, where structural supports for the building are already in place. 4.2 Garage Structure On the west side of the building will be a garage structure standing approximately 10 feet tall. The shell of this component will also be made of aluminum and will stand against the side of the building. It will extend approximately 15 feet into the current parking lot area and will span 117 feet along the length of the MMPEI building. On the roof of the garage structure, which will be horizontal rather than sloped, flat solar panels will be installed. Again, these panels will be 17% efficient, as will all of the solar panels used in this design. Thus, the garage structure will provide shade for cars as well as capture the sun’s energy to create electricity for the MMPEI building. This feature of our design will produce 35,577.31 kWh each year. 4.3 Solar Awning Covering the top floor of windows on the west side of the building will be a solar awning. This awning will be a typical window awning except that solar panels will be mounted on top. In the initial consultation between Fraunhofer USA and Green Hill Engineering, it was noted that the 7

windows on the west side of the building allow substantial amounts of sunlight to enter the building in the afternoon hours, causing the building to heat up. The solar awning will provide shade to the upper floor while collecting solar energy to use for providing a portion of the MMPEI building’s energy needs; the awning will produce 8,132.06 kWh annually. 4.4 Solar Wall On the south side of the MMPEI building there will be a solar wall. The wall will consist of 77 solar panels connected so as to represent a single sheet of material. This component of the design will be at an angle of approximately 57 degrees, Ann Arbor’s latitude plus 15 degrees, so as to maximize the amount of solar insolation received by the solar panels on the wall. Since the wall faces south, it is already in an ideal position to receive the maximum amount of solar radiation possible. This portion of our proposed design will produce 26,954.73 kWh of energy annually. Not only will this large array provide a good deal of energy for the MMPEI building, but also it will be a noticeable change to the façade of the MMPEI building, giving added attention to the renovations brought about by the partnership between Green Hill Engineering and Fraunhofer USA. 4.5 Educational Display The educational display, also located on the south side of the building, consists of a dual-axis solar tracking module and a large, informative sign. The dual-axis solar tracking module is identical to those found in the rooftop installation, and is meant to be a full-scale, operating model of the technology implemented elsewhere on the building. The sign will inform visitors of the various solar technologies and applications in place at the MMPEI building. The purpose of this portion of Green Hill Engineering’s proposed design is to inform the general public of the benefits of solar energy and to increase awareness of the applications of solar energy technologies in this renovation. The solar module in the educational display will produce 6,303.94 kWh of energy per year. 5.0 TIMELINE Green Hill Engineering has identified several next steps for the proposed design. First, we will need to contact several contractors and receive their respective companies’ bid estimates for managing the purchasing of components and installation of our design. This entire process should take approximately four to six weeks, and will include selecting companies to give bids, receiving their bids, and determining which contracting company to award the project. When deciding which contractor to ultimately use in the implementation of our design, we will consider not only the proposed dollar amounts to complete the task, but also each company’s reputation in Southeast Michigan as well as their consideration for sustainable and energy efficient practices. Once a contractor has been decided upon, the next logical step would be to work with them to obtain all of the components necessary for our design. The timeline in which this portion of the project will be completed is the least certain; depending on many factors, this step could require two months up to one year to complete. If many of our design’s components must be custom made, the length of this portion will certainly be on the longer end. However, if the majority of the parts of the design can be delivered directly upon ordering, the time required to complete the process will be significantly reduced. 8

Installation can begin once the contractor has received all of the design parts. However, depending on the contractor’s approach to the installation, this step may begin as soon as the largest portions of the project arrive at the site. It is possible that the contractor may desire to complete each section of the proposed design as the pieces are received, or may want to wait until all of the parts have arrived to begin the installation process. This process should take no longer than two months, allowing for timely delivery of materials from suppliers. After installation, the only remaining segment of the project is funding. Grants may be applied for throughout the duration of the project, but once all installations are complete, the payback period must begin. The total cost of Green Hill Engineering’s proposed design is $642,315.80, and it will take approximately 39 years to receive total returns on the initial investment. 6.0 INITIAL COSTS A striking aspect of our proposed project is that the initial cost is quite high at $642,315.80. The reason for such a high cost comes from the new structures that will be added onto the building to maximize all of the space possible by staying within our restrictions. 6.1 Aluminum Roof Canopy The canopy structure covers the entire roof, and is five feet tall, as to not go beyond the height restriction of the building. It will be supported mainly in the center, but will need to be supported by the edge of the roof and other structural columns. The cost of this aluminum canopy was estimated at about $40,000 [3]. We were not able to acquire a more precise price since exact dimensions of the roof would be needed. The canopy was essential to the use of the trackers on the roof since it helped to both distribute weight and maximize usable area of the roof. 6.2 Tether System Our design also required a tether system to be included because we wanted to maximize the area on the roof. The tether system was estimated at a cost of $6000 dollars. We believe that the extra area on the roof we gained by installing a tether system will be worth the installation cost. 6.3 Garage Structure The garage structure has dimensions 15 x 117 x 10 feet and is a major component of the design. It will be installed into the parking lot of the west side of the building. The reason for this garage structure was to again provide space for the installation of solar panels, and to allow cars to park on the west side of the building. The top of the garage structure will be covered with 105 solar panels. The cost of this garage was estimated to be approximately $15,000, while the solar panels themselves cost $91,476 [3,4]. 6.4 Solar Awning The solar awning was proposed in our plan to gather solar energy and shade the MMPEI building to cut down on cooling costs in the summer. The awning, which is to be installed on the top floor of the building, maximizes the ability of the solar panels to absorb energy from the sun. The height of the awning prevents the structure from being shaded by the Duderstadt building. Twenty-four solar panels are to be applied to the solar awning. The awning was estimated to be $46,800 [5]. The awning covers the entire west side length of the building, which is roughly seven hundred square feet. Because of the shade from the Duderstadt building, it was not cost 9

effective to install another awning on the second floor of the MMPEI building as its shade would cut down on the amount of direct sunlight the original awning would receive. 6.5 Solar Wall Structure The solar wall structure is to be installed on the south side of the building at an angle of Ann Arbor’s latitude plus fifteen degrees to maximize the amount of direct sunlight the cells would receive. The wall structure was estimated to cost $2,000 however, without precise measurements an exact cost could not be acquired. This solar wall is to be mounted with seventy-seven solar panels that cost a total of $67,082.40 [4]. 6.6 Power Inverters The solar panels we used in our proposed design take the sun’s energy and convert it into direct current (DC). However, most appliances and devices run on an alternating current (AC). We were required to take this into account, and realized that we would need four power inverters to invert the DC into AC while compensating for the amount of energy we were producing and for possible surges in power consumption from the building. Two of these inverters are to be installed on the roof, one on the west side, and one on the south side. The cost of these invertors total $25,960 [6]. 6.7 Tree Removal and Educational Display The tree on the South-side of the building would hinder our solar wall from gaining direct sunlight for much of the day so we decided that removing the tree would help maximize space. The cost to cut down the tree, remove the stump, and reuse the tree through chipping would cost approximately $2,000 [7]. The educational display sign is a simple sign that describes how solar cells work and how the MMPEI maximizes the use of solar energy. This sign, which would be ascetically pleasing, will cost approximately $200. 6.8 Solar Trackers and Solar Panels The solar trackers we are using are dual-axis trackers that track the sun throughout the day in order to receive the most direct sunlight possible. Each of these trackers costs $6,645 [1]. The initial cost of these trackers is high, but the ability of the trackers to increase the amount of direct sunlight received throughout the day is essential to maximizing the power output of our solar panels. The solar panels themselves are 17% efficient and cost $871.20 per solar panel [4]. These solar panels were cost effective because they were relatively inexpensive, but have a comparatively high efficiency rating. The project requires 434 silicon solar panels total. 7.0 COST ANALYSIS The total cost for maximizing the MMPEI building’s use of solar energy is an estimated $642,315.80. One of the main goals of the project was to pay back this cost in as little time as possible. After figuring out how many kilowatt hours our design will produce annually from insolation and the area available, and multiplying that by the cost of kilowatt hours provided by the University of Michigan power plant, we calculated that our design will save $16,568.60 annually in energy costs. We then calculated how long it would take to pay back the initial cost by dividing the total initial cost by $16,568.60 and determined it will take approximately 39 years. The span of 39 years does not take into account the rising cost of electricity nor does it take into account any cooling issues we may have solved with shading. As the cost of electricity 10

increases, the number of years required to pay back the building decreases. Furthermore, since our plan produces 20% of the building’s energy needs, even a rise in electricity costs as small as $0.002 will decrease the amount of time required to pay back the initial cost by approximately 2 years. For a complete cost analysis refer to page 16, Table A-6. 7.1 Tax Credit In recent legislation, Congress passed an extension for a 30% tax credit on the installation and use of solar energy [8,9]. The tax credit would apply to all solar installation and devices we use to gather solar energy, and if this tax credit does apply to our proposed plan, $173,134.74 will be saved. This substantially lowers the number of years required to pay back the initial cost of the building. If we receive the credit, it will take only 28 years with a 2009 baseline cost of electricity (see pg.16, Table A-6). 8.0 CONCLUSION Green Hill Engineering, in partnership with Fraunhofer USA, was able to devise a suitable design for the renovation of the MMPEI building. Our proposed design consists of an array of dual-axis solar trackers on the roof, a solar garage, a solar awning, a solar wall, and an educational exhibit. This design will provide 20% of the building’s current energy needs. At a cost of $642,315.80, this project will take approximately 38 years to pay back. The switch of the MMPEI building to solar energy will have a positive impact on the environment as well as inform the Ann Arbor community of the importance and benefits of using sustainable sources of energy.

11

REFERENCES [1] “Wattsun Solar Tracker.” Wattsun. Retrieved 3 December 2008 from http://www.wattsun.com/prices/Wattsun_Tracker_Prices.pdf. [2] “US Solar Radiation Resource Maps.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved 3 December 2008 from http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/. [3] “Steel Carport Pricing.” Rontimco. Retrieved 3 December 2008 from http://rontimco.com/index.php/carports/steel-carports/aluminum-awning-pricing. [4] “Solar Module 220W.” Dmsolar. Retrieved 3 December 2008 from http://www.dmsolar.com/solar-module-2221.html. [5] “Commercial Awnings.” Mid-Michigan Canvas & Awning. Retrieved 7 December 2008 from http://www.midmichigancanvas.com/commercial.html. [6] “Wind Energy & Solar Power Australia (2007). “Fronius 5000Watt Grid Connect Inverter.” Retrieved 7 December 2008 from http://www.energymatters.com.au/fronius-5000watt-grid-connect-inverter-ig60hvoutdoor-ip45-p-623.html. [7] “Tree Removal Cost.” Cost Helper. Retrieved 3 December 2008 from http://www.costhelper.com/cost/home-garden/tree-removal.html. [8] “Federal Solar Tax Incentives (2008). “Federal Solar Tax Credits Extended for 8 Years: US Poised to Become Largest Solar Market in the World.” Retrieved 7 December 2008 from http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageID=710. [9] “Federal Incentives for Renewable Energy (2007). “Business Energy Tax Credit.” Retrieved 7 December 2008 from http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/incentive2.cfm?Incentive_Code=US02F&State= Federal¤tpageid=1. [10] “University of Michigan Plant Operations (2008). “The University of Michigan Annual Report of Utilities.” Retrieved 7 December 2008 from http://www.plantops.umich.edu/utilities/Utilities/reports/FY08_Annual_Report_by_ Fund.pdf.

12

APPENDIX Table A-1: Gantt Chart GREEN HILL ENGINEERING

16-Sep 23-Sep 30-Sep 7-Oct 14-Oct 21-Oct 28-Oct 4-Nov 9-Nov 11-Nov 16-Nov 20-Nov 21-Nov 23-Nov 25-Nov 30-Nov 1-Dec 2-Dec 3-Dec 7-Dec 9-Dec

Preliminary Research Generate three designs Research project ideas Evaluate Designs Define objectives and constraints Meet with Fraunhofer Numerical evaluation matrix Cost analysis Progress Report Create outline/divide parts Compile & edit Turn in progress report Presentation Create visual Create outline/divide parts Compile & edit Run-through of presentation Present to Fraunhofer Final Report Rough draft Group edit Turn in final report

Table A-2: Numerical Evaluation Matrix Constraints: Walkway Tether System Objectives: Maximize Efficiency of Cells (.80) Cost Effective (.10) Efficient Cells/New Technology (.10) Totals (1.00)

Design 1 Y Y

Design 2 Y Y

Design 3 Y Y

0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40

0.70 0.05 0.10 0.85

0.60 0.05 0.05 0.70

Picture A-1: West Side View

13

Picture A-2: East Side View

Picture A-3: Aerial View

Picture A-4: South Side View

14

Table A-3: Insolation [2] Total Kilowatt Hours per Meters Squared (Per Day) Month January February March April May June July August September October November December

Dual Axis Horizontal Latitude + 15 Degrees 3.5 1 2.5 4.5 2.5 3.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 6.5 4.5 4.5 7.5 5.5 4.5 9 6.5 4.5 9 6.5 4.5 7.5 5.5 4.5 6.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 1 2.5 2.5 1 2.5

Table A-4: Solar Panel Area Specific Area Roof (Dual‐Axis) Solar Garage (Horizontal) Awning (Horizontal) Southern Solar Wall (Latitude + 15 Degrees) South Side Display (Dual‐Axis)

Area of Solar Panels (meters squared) 317.023 154.108 35.225 113.013 17.612

Total: Dual‐Axis Total: Hoizontal Total: Latitude + 15 Degrees

334.635 189.333 113.013

Table A-5: Energy Produced Month Roof (kWh) Solar Garage (kWh) Solar Awning (kWh) Solar Wall (kWh) Display (kWh) Annual Total (kWh) January 5847.49 812.15 185.64 1488.95 324.85 February 7035.15 1899.38 434.15 1950.04 390.72 March 9188.91 2842.52 649.73 2680.10 510.48 April 10509.31 3536.78 808.41 2593.65 583.84 May 12530.33 4466.82 1021.00 2680.10 696.11 June 14551.36 5108.68 1167.71 2593.65 808.39 July 15036.40 5278.97 1206.63 2680.10 835.34 August 12530.33 4466.82 1021.00 2680.10 696.11 September 10509.31 3536.78 808.41 2593.65 583.84 October 7518.20 2030.37 464.09 2084.52 417.67 November 4042.04 785.95 179.65 1440.92 224.55 December 4176.78 812.15 185.64 1488.95 232.04 Annually 113475.61 35577.37 8132.06 26954.73 6303.94 190443.71

15

Table A-6: Cost Breakdown Component(s) 18x Solar Trackers 216x Solar Panels Roof Canopy 2x Power Inverter Tether System Total

Cost Per ($) Total Cost ($) 30% Tax Credit ($) Total Cost with Tax Credit ($) 6,645.00 119,610.00 35,883.00 871.20 188,179.20 56,453.76 40,000.00 40,000.00 ‐‐ 6,490.00 12,980.00 3,894.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 ‐‐ $366,769.20 $96,230.76 $270,538.44

West‐Side Building Costs: Component(s) Garage Structure (15x117x10ft) Awning (700 sq ft) 1x Power Inverter 105x Solar Panels on Garage 24x Solar Panels on Awnings Total

Cost Per ($) Total Cost ($) 30% Tax Credit ($) Total Cost with Tax Credit ($) 15,000.00 15,000.00 ‐‐ 46,800.00 46,800.00 14,040.00 6,490.00 6,490.00 1,947.00 871.20 91,476.00 27,442.80 871.20 20,908.80 6,272.64 $180,674.80 $49,702.44 $130,972.36

South‐Side Building Costs: Component(s) 1x Solar Tracker 12x Solar Panels Solar Wall Structure 77x Solar Cells on Solar Wall 1x Power Inverter Tree Removal in Grassy Area Educational Display (Sign) Total

Cost Per ($) Total Cost ($) 30% Tax Credit ($) Total Cost with Tax Credit ($) 6,645.00 6,645.00 1,993.50 871.20 10,454.40 3,136.32 2,000.00 2,000.00 ‐‐ 871.20 67082.40 20,124.72 6,490.00 6,490.00 1,947.00 2000.00 2000.00 ‐‐ 200.00 200.00 ‐‐ $94,871.80 $27,201.54 $67,670.26

Total Cost of Project ($) $642,315.80 Total Tax Deduction ($) $173,134.74 Total Cost of Project w/Tax Credit ($) $469,181.06 Total Amount Saved Annually ($)* $16,568.60 *Based on $.0087 per kWh 2009 Est. [10] Note: Cells containing “—“do not contain numerical data because they are not eligible for tax credit.

16