Research into the feasibility of solar panel installation at the Crawley campus.

Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Visual Arts

Research into the feasibility of

solar panel installation at the

Crawley campus.

UWA Sustainable Development Summer Scholarship

Prepared by Doug Pearce

P a g e | 2

Table of Contents

Current energy consumption ... 5

Currently available technologies... 7

Mono Crystalline (monocrystalline c-Si) ... 7

Advanced Mono Crystalline ... 7

Poly Crystalline (polycrystalline c-Si) ... 7

Thin Film - Cadmium Telluride Thin-Film panels (CdTe) ... 7

Thin Film - Other ... 7

Orientation of panels ... 8

True available output from PV array... 9

Architectural considerations ... 10

Building integrated Photovoltaics ... 10

Aesthetics: ... 11

New Buildings ... 12

Refurbishments or Retrofits ... 13

Symbolism ... 13

Social and Community Spaces ... 14

UWA solar suitability ... 15

Overview ... 15

Potential solar panel locations on UWA campus ... 15

Financial Considerations ... 21

Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) for owners of power stations ... 21

Future Electricity prices ... 21

Payback calculations ... 22

Alternative solutions ... 28

Glasshouse Area ... 28

The Oak Lawn ... 30

Summary ... 31

P a g e | 3

Preface

This paper has been prepared as part of the UWA Sustainable Development Summer Scholarships - Summer of 2010/11.

The brief: Solar Panels

Various solar panel options, which supply electricity to homes / buildings using solar energy, are commercially available. There are significant variations in price and technical performance specifications between the different products. Further research is required to assess and compare the technical differences and effectiveness of the various products. Given the performance efficiencies, the payback period for the various alternatives could then be calculated.

Introduction

The photovoltaic effect, or the conversion of sunlight into electricity, was first discovered in 1839. Just over 100 years later in 1941 the first solar cell was invented. By the early sixties, satellites were being powered by solar panels, albeit very expensive. Although commercially available since the seventies, solar panels were prohibitively expensive (around $100 per watt) and as such found use mainly in remote area power supplies where grid connection was not available. By the early nineties efficiencies were

improving, but cost was still a major issue. With the advent of concerns over global warming research into solar panel technologies has accelerated and in February 2009 First Solar became the first manufacturer to produce a panel for less than $1 per watt.1 Solar is now a financially viable alternative power source and with continuing development of existing and new technologies will become even more so.

This paper will concentrate on existing, commercially available technologies in an endeavour to ascertain the viability of the University of Western Australia installing solar power to supplement existing grid feed power supplies.

An overview of the different technologies available in the marketplace will be given, an examination of existing medium to large scale installations in similar institutions made and indicative cost and payback calculations made. Architectural issues and opportunities will also be discussed.

1

P a g e | 4

Precedent sites

Universities around the world are installing solar panels as part of a quest to reduce carbon emissions, reduce energy costs, provide research opportunities and be seen as good corporate citizens. Two

comparison sites were chosen, Arizona State University in the US, because it has the largest current solar installation on a university campus and the University of Queensland, because it is a local site and is currently in the process of installing the largest rooftop solar system in Australia.

Arizona State University currently has 4.6MW of solar installations, with a further 5.2MW in the process of installation. Their forward projects would bring total installed capacity to 15.9MW. The current system consists of 18 individual installations ranging from 12KW to 884KW. These systems are installed on rooftops, multi storey buildings and even dedicated structures above car parks. The bulk of these systems are owned and operated by third parties, with the university purchasing the power generated under contract. 2

The University of Queensland is currently installing a 1.2MW system at their St Lucia campus. This project involves 7670 square metres of crystalline panels over three buildings; it has a capital cost of $7.75m and is forecast to generate 1750MWh of electricity per annum. The university expects savings of $6.6m in the next 15 years through avoided electricity costs, and the project has a net present value of between $2m and $2.5m. Significantly, this will be the largest flat panel solar PV array currently installed in Australia. It was made possible in part by a contribution of $1.5m through the Queensland Government’s Office of Clean Energy.3

Aerial views of partially completed solar installation at University of Queensland.

2

(Arizona State University Campus Solarization)

3

P a g e | 5 Brisbane has an average solar irradiation of 5.35kwh/m2/day where Perth has a figure of

5.85kwh/m2/day; a similar array located in Perth would therefore be expected to generate up to 8% more than in Brisbane.4

Elsewhere in Australia, numerous universities have embarked on small to medium scale projects; these include the University of New South Wales, Australian National University, Monash University and Macquarie University. Locally, Murdoch University has a 56Kw array installed on their library roof, consisting of 363 panels.5

Murdoch University Solar array.

Technical Considerations

Current energy consumption

According to measurement data supplied by UWA Facilities Management, UWA consumed 36,259,870 Kwh of electricity in 2010, the equivalent consumption of 5,500 average Perth households. To put this in perspective the suburb of Nedlands has 3,475 households.6

An array equal to the size installed at the University of Queensland would provide approximately 5.3% of UWA’s power requirements. In order to provide all energy required from solar UWA would need to install in the order of 143,000 square metres of panels (378m x 378m). Whilst this is not likely to be feasible, the example cited at Arizona State University shows that large scale installations are possible on a distributed campus. The graphic on the following page demonstrates the size array that would be required for all of UWA’s power requirements to be served by solar. (The array size exceeds peak demand as it allows for export of sufficient energy to serve non solar producing hours)

4 (PV Watts) 5 (News Archive) 6

P a g e | 6 Required area of Solar Panels to generate all of UWA’s power requirements.

As can be seen from this graphic, the likelihood of supplying all required power from solar sources is highly improbable, it does however highlight two things. Firstly it illustrates the amount of power that is currently consumed, and secondly it shows the relativity between solar generating capability and power consumption on such a campus.

P a g e | 7

Currently available technologies

There are a number of different photovoltaic panel technologies currently available on the market. These differ in efficiency, size, shape and appearance and may therefore be utilised in different situations depending on the particular circumstances. They include:

Mono Crystalline (monocrystalline c-Si)

These panels are a proven technology and have been in use for over 50 years. Essentially these are the industry workhorse of panels. Their efficiency ranges from 12-15% in real world conditions. They have a slow degradation rate, usually losing 0.25 - 0.5% of their generating capacity per year.

There are many different manufacturers of these panels in the market place.

Advanced Mono Crystalline

These panels are modified in differing ways to improve the efficiency of the mono crystalline technology. Current commercially available panels have efficiencies as high as 19%. More power can therefore be generated from the same area of panels, which is important if space is limited.

Manufacturers include:

Suntech Pluto (co-developed with University of New South Wales) Sunpower

Sanyo HIT

Poly Crystalline (polycrystalline c-Si)

Similar to Mono Crystalline panels, but the silicon used is Multi-Crystalline which is easier to make. They are comparable to Mono Crystalline in performance and durability, with a slightly lower efficiency, generally 11-13%. More panels are therefore required to produce a given amount of electricity.

Thin Film - Cadmium Telluride Thin-Film panels (CdTe)

New research has resulted in CdTe panels with an efficiency of up to 11.2%. These panels are manufactured by First Solar.

Thin Film - Other

These panels have a lower efficiency of 5-6% so the panel is typically nearly double the size of the other panel varieties.

These include:

• Copper Indium Gallium Selenide Thin-Film panels (CIGS) • Amorphous silicon Thin-Film panels (a-Si)

Thin film panels, whilst producing less energy per unit area are less prone to reduction in output due to temperature increase and therefore are more likely to produce close to their rated capacity in hot conditions. They are also usually more uniform in colour, which to some people provides a more aesthetically acceptable solution.

The different panel technologies have been ranked according to their potential suitability for installation at the UWA campus. The following criteria were considered:

x Cost per watt

P a g e | 8 x Appearance x Degradation rate x Reliability x Durability x Technology maturity

x Temperature output decrease The results of this ranking were as follows

1. Advanced Mono Crystalline

2. Cadmium Telluride Thin-Film panels (CdTe) 3. Poly Crystalline (polycrystalline c-Si) 4. Mono Crystalline (monocrystalline c-Si) 5. Thin Film – Other

Cadmium Telluride Thin-Film panels (CdTe) would have been the first ranked panel except for the consideration of efficiency, given that there is limited space available the higher efficiency of the advanced mono crystalline resulted in their number one rank.

Orientation of panels

The ideal orientation and angle for installation of solar panels in Perth is facing directly north, at an angle of approximately 32 degrees. It is generally accepted that between 20 and 40 degrees is acceptable. The graphic below indicates that panels facing directly East and West are still able to generate approximately 85% of their rated maximum output, so long as they are angled appropriately.7

7

P a g e | 9

True available output from PV array

The available power output from a photovoltaic array cannot be gained simply by multiplying the panel rating by the number of panels in the array. This is because a number of factors reduce the available power; these are typically allowed for by applying a de-rating factor to the nameplate rating on the panels. The table below shows a typical de-rating calculation to get from the DC rating on the panels to the AC output from the inverter and the various elements that contribute to it.8

Component Derate Factors

Component

Derate Values

Acceptable Values

Range of

PV module nameplate DC rating

0.80 - 1.05

Inverter and Transformer

0.88 - 0.98

Mismatch

0.97 - 0.995

Diodes and connections

0.99 - 0.997

DC wiring

0.97 - 0.99

AC wiring

0.98 - 0.993

Soiling

0.30 - 0.995

System availability

0.00 - 0.995

Shading

0.00 - 1.00

Sun-tracking

0.95 - 1.00

Age

0.70 - 1.00

Overall DC to AC derate factor

0.77

Further to the de-rating calculations above, the actual output of panels will vary depending on the solar radiation available on a particular day. Temperature and wind velocity also play a part as panel output is reduced as the temperature of the panel itself rises. A PV array will typically produce the highest output on a clear day with temperature and wind velocity sufficient to keep the panels cool. The nameplate rating is based on a standard set of test conditions (STC); these are solar irradiance of 100Watts/m2 and module temperature of 25 degrees.

In addition, panels slowly lose their ability to generate electricity as they age; guarantees vary by manufacturer and panel type, but most offer a guarantee of around 90% of rated output after 10years and 80% of output after 25 years.

8

P a g e | 10

Architectural considerations

The UWA campus consists of a variety of buildings, with its public face being the sandstone block, terracotta tiled roof exemplar. This typology stems from the early beginnings of the University and dominates a significant portion of the campus. There are however many other building types that have been built over time, some with better results than others. Whilst there would certainly be those who would suggest that the terracotta roofs should remain unadorned by solar panels, the university is in a new age of environmental considerations, mandated renewable energy targets and indeed public sentiment. It would seem therefore that the time is right to consider such a move.

Other items also need to be taken into account under the auspices of architectural considerations, these include the role of building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), aesthetics, what requirements should be placed on new buildings, what if anything can be done when refurbishments are required, what symbolic role may be played by solar and whether there is opportunity for solar to enhance the social and

community aspects of campus life.

Building integrated Photovoltaics

Building integrated Photovoltaic panel installations are seen by many as the most appropriate way to incorporate solar generating capability into a building. There is a genuineness and honesty that is portrayed by a photovoltaic array that is an integral part of a building and not simply “bolted on” after the building is complete. This is further enhanced if the building has other environmental credentials, which coupled with the BIPV system result in an efficient outcome.

BIPV are essentially an energy generating external fabric of a building, they take many forms, the most common of which is to clad the walls or roof with a matrix of solar panels. The panels are secured and waterproofed in a variety of ways depending on the individual proprietary system. The most apparent of these systems use a semi-transparent solar panel in an essentially glazed façade or atrium like structure as can be seen in the examples below.

P a g e | 11 There are however many BIPV installations that do not use the potential for transparency, such as those shown here:

In essence the panels are in integral, considered part of the design and as such are inextricably linked to the building; they are part of the architecture not additional to it.

Aesthetics:

As with many things there are good and bad ways of undertaking an installation of solar panels. Choice of panel type, panel framing material and colour, type and colour of mounting system, etc need to be carefully considered before embarking on any significant installation program. The examples below show the difference aesthetically between a good and bad set of choices made when retrofitting panels to an existing building. Each installation, so long as technically installed correctly will produce similar power, however the visual result is very different.

P a g e | 12 Should UWA decide to install panels onto the terracotta tiled roofs a panel with a reasonably uniform appearance, panel framing to match the colour of the panel (ie black) with a well designed black

mounting system would probably be appropriate. Panel arrays should be kept uniformly rectangular and be well balanced within the roof section on which they are installed.

An aluminium framed panel with highly visible individual cells on an aluminium mounting system with panels arranged non uniformly around roof protrusions would produce a far less desirable end result and should be avoided.

New Buildings

UWA should adopt a policy that stipulates that all new buildings should have their solar generating capability maximised. As noted above in reference to BIPV there are many proprietary systems available for roofs, facades and awnings that contain integrated solar panels. In addition all new buildings should also be mandated to have a minimum 6 star Greenstar rating. Amongst other desirable factors this will ensure that the buildings are as energy efficient as possible, which will make the solar contribution that can be gained from them more significant. No attempt should be made to hide the solar generating capability of new buildings; it should be proudly worn as a badge of honour, showing the progressive mindset of the university. The examples below show how solar generating capability can be incorporated beautifully into the fabric of a building, even on a massive scale.

P a g e | 13

Refurbishments or Retrofits

All buildings that are refurbished or retrofitted on campus should also have their solar generating capability maximised. Buildings can be given an entirely new look and feel with the addition of, for example a new roof structure incorporating solar panels. If an ageing building in need of refurbishment is treated to a new “solar skin” it not only modernises it, but also changes the look and feel of the campus. Note in the photo below the sleek curved roof that has obviously been retrofitted to an existing structure (see ageing roof system on the structure to the left). It is examples like this that allow the shell of a building to be reused (environmentally friendly in itself) to provide new amenity along with support for an environmentally conscious mindset.

Retrofitted Solar Roof Panels retrofitted to existing roof

Symbolism

An extremely important factor for an institution like UWA is the public’s perception that is held for it. Do the public see it as old and stuffy, young and progressive, etc? The careful addition of solar technology should be used to enhance UWA’s position in the community. It already has an enviable reputation for academic excellence which would only be enhanced by bringing new green technology to existing buildings in a way that by respects their heritage and acknowledges that they will need to be more efficient in the future. It also highlights that the learning experience does not stop in the class room, but is embodied in the institutions attitudes to its own environment. If the built environment of the campus reflects an attitude of conservation and efficiency the university is leading by example in a way that cannot be disputed or underrated.

Any new buildings or substantial refurbishments should overtly promote their ability to be efficient and produce at least part of their own energy requirements. The examples on the following page demonstrate this and at the same time incorporate their solar capability into their very essence; it is truly part of the architecture, not additional to it.

P a g e | 14 Solar generating capability expressed as part of the architecture.

Social and Community Spaces

The addition of new solar structures has the potential to greatly enhance social spaces and collegiality on campus if executed appropriately. If for example the Oak Lawn was augmented with a semi-transparent solar panelled roof it would provide an all weather space that could have a multitude of uses, without losing any of its current amenity. The transparency would create a glasshouse effect that would mean plants and lawn would be unaffected but the usefulness of the area would be enhanced by being able to be used in inclement weather. Properly designed, the structure would provide a powerful symbolic example of the universities commitment to a sustainable future. It would be in constant use and as students used the area they would be reminded that the structure that is providing them with a level of shade and weather protection is also generating electricity, reducing pollution and contributing to the very future of our planet. The examples shown below are indicative of the sorts of solar structures that might be used as inspiration for a project such as this.

P a g e | 15

UWA solar suitability

Overview

Although lacking a very large building with an uninterrupted roof surface, UWA campus is highly suited to medium scale solar installations for a number of reasons, these include:

x Decentralised building structure provides multiple roof spaces which could be used to install panels and provide part of the energy requirements for individual buildings.

x Peak loadings are generally in the time period when solar production will be greatest.

x Orientation of buildings on the campus is primarily in line with the cardinal directions, providing pure north facing rooves. In addition many buildings are longer in their East-West axis, further increasing the available roof area.

x Most buildings also have a roof pitch that is favourable to panel installation without requiring additional mounting structures to elevate panels to an appropriate angle for efficient solar collection.

Potential solar panel locations on UWA campus

Because of the size of the site and the issues involved in physical inspection, a desktop study was undertaken to ascertain potential solar PV installation locations on existing rooves within the campus. This study utilised aerial photography from Nearmap9, which allows detailed examination of the current status of building rooves (latest photo 8th January 2011). As historical photos are also available a basic shading analysis can also be made by comparing photos from different times of the year (photo from 15th May 2009 used to analyse potential shadowing which ruled out some otherwise suitable sites). Before any installation is undertaken a detailed shade survey would need to be undertaken to ensure

overshadowing would not overly affect solar production. In addition to standard aerial photography, nearmap also provides north, south, east and west oblique photos, which can be used to further analyse site conditions, shading etc. Some locations were ruled out due to proximity of large trees, in the event these trees were trimmed or removed further options would be available.

The graphic below illustrates an overview of the results of this exercise. Areas shown in red indicate potential sites for PV panel installations.

9

P a g e | 16

Campus Overview – Possible Rooftop Solar Panel Installation Sites

The following four graphics show detailed possible installation sites, along with indicative array sizes for each location. These arrays are based on a 195 watt panel with dimensions of 1580mm by 808mm. (Suntech Pluto STP195G - 24/ADA)10

10

P a g e | 17

Architecture, Education and Motorola Building

Location Array size

ALVA childcare centre 117

ALVA 94

P a g e | 18

Northern End of Campus

Location Array size

Computer Science 75 GP2 41 Administration 48 Recreation Center 102 Electrical Engineering 34 Reid Library 230 University Club 76

P a g e | 19

Central Area of Campus

Location Array size

Ecomonics and Commerce 122

Social Science 98 Guild Village 204 CTEC 99 Molecular Sciences 196 Sanders 23 GP3 31 Physiology 25 Biochemistry 44

P a g e | 20

Southern End of Campus

Location Array size

Concrete Lab 15 Maths Library 50 Agri central 11 CRC 28 Soil Science 28 Combined Workshop 18 Zoology 26 Exercise Lab 12

Large animal facility 27

P a g e | 21 These sites total 2187KW of potential solar installations, which after allowing for different orientations and system losses would generate approximately 9% of UWA’s total power requirements.

Given that the total installed solar PV capacity in Australia at the end of September 2010 was 300MW11 a system of this size would be significant in national terms as it would add over .7% to the national solar capacity.

Financial Considerations

Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) for owners of power stations

As of 1 January 2011 the Federal Governments Renewable Energy Target (RET) has been split into the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES). Under the LRET accredited renewable energy power stations may be entitled to large-scale generation certificates (LGCs). These certificates can then be sold and transferred to liable entities (usually electricity retailers) using a market based online system called the REC Registry.

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) for eligible renewable energy power stations created from 1 January 2011 will be classified large-scale generation certificates (LGCs).12

This means that if UWA were to install a system such as that outlined above and became an accredited power station one LGC for each MWh of renewable energy generated can be created and sold into the market. This provides a further income stream from the system.

Although LGC’s are a tradeable commodity with a market driven price, for the purpose of this document a current value of $40 has been assumed. This is based on the fixed price for an STC (Small-scale

Technology Certificate) through the STC clearing house.13

Future Electricity prices

The Electricity Retail Market Review conducted by the WA Office of Energy in January 2009

recommended price increases in 2010/11 of 19% and in 2011/12 of 9%.14 This report was also used as the basis for electricity price increases already implemented by the State Government, so it is reasonable to assume that these price increases will likely occur.

The impact of any implemented Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is unknown and has not been factored into these calculations. It is safe to assume however that should any such scheme be implemented it would apply upward pressure to electricity prices.

11

(Clean Energy Council, Technologies)

12

(Power Stations guide)

13

(LRET/SRES – the basics)

14

P a g e | 22

Payback calculations

Accurate costing information for systems the size under consideration is difficult to ascertain without detailed, site specific quotations. For this reason the latest available Australian example has been used as a baseline, being the as yet uncompleted system at the University of Queensland.

This system has an installed cost of $6.46 per watt (1200KW system for $7.75m). This figure has been increased by 5% and rounded up to provide a base cost for the purpose of calculations.

University of Queensland cost $ 7,750,000.00 Size of system (Kw) 1,200 Cost per installed Kw $ 6,460

UWA potential array size (Kw) 2,187 Cost at $6,460 per Kw $ 14,124,375.00

Add 5% $ 14,830,593.75

Round up $ 15,000,000.00

Although details of UWA’s current tariff arrangements are unavailable due to commercial requirements a current figure of 13.8c per KW/h has been provided by UWA facilities management for the purpose of these calculations. It has been assumed that this rate will increase over the modeling period.

The calculations have been made on the basis that the system is fully funded by UWA; however as can be seen from the University of Queensland example, government assistance may be available.

Assumptions for the base modelling case are outlined below.

System Purchase cost (including installation) $ 15,000,000

Rated output of system (Kw) 2187

System output per day per Kw of installed panels for Perth (includes de-rating) KWh 4.1 System production (Kw/h per annum) 3,272,846 Current cost of grid sourced power (estimated) per Kwh $ 0.13 Savings in power usage by installing solar system (year 1) $ 428,285 System degradation (reduction in output per annum) 0.50% Energy tariff inflation 8%

Opportunity cost, (interest available for cash deposit) 5%

Number of LGC's (Large-scale Generation Certificates) created 3273

Assumed LGC value (Year 1) $ 40

Annual value of LGC's $ 130,920 Assumed LGC value inflation 8%

P a g e | 23 Note: The Cash Value column below compares making the investment in the system to maintaining an investment equal to the purchase price at the assumed interest rate and paying for an equivalent amount of grid fed power as the system would have generated.

Year System production (Kwh) Grid feed cost ($/Kwh) Electricity Savings $ LGC Income $ Total Income $ Investment Value $ Cash Value $ 1 3,272,846 $0.13 428,285 130,920 559,205 -14,440,795 15,321,715 2 3,256,481 $0.14 460,235 138,775 599,010 -13,841,786 15,627,567 3 3,240,199 $0.15 494,568 147,102 641,670 -13,200,116 15,914,377 4 3,223,998 $0.16 531,463 155,928 687,391 -12,512,725 16,178,633 5 3,207,878 $0.18 571,110 165,283 736,393 -11,776,332 16,416,454 6 3,191,838 $0.19 613,715 175,200 788,915 -10,987,416 16,623,562 7 3,175,879 $0.21 659,498 185,713 845,210 -10,142,206 16,795,243 8 3,160,000 $0.22 708,696 196,855 905,552 -9,236,654 16,926,308 9 3,144,200 $0.24 761,565 208,667 970,232 -8,266,422 17,011,058 10 3,128,479 $0.26 818,378 221,187 1,039,565 -7,226,858 17,043,233 11 3,112,837 $0.28 879,429 234,458 1,113,887 -6,112,971 17,015,966 12 3,097,272 $0.31 945,034 248,525 1,193,560 -4,919,411 16,921,730 13 3,081,786 $0.33 1,015,534 263,437 1,278,971 -3,640,441 16,752,282 14 3,066,377 $0.36 1,091,293 279,243 1,370,536 -2,269,905 16,498,604 15 3,051,045 $0.38 1,172,703 295,998 1,468,701 -801,204 16,150,831 16 3,035,790 $0.42 1,260,187 313,757 1,573,944 772,740 15,698,185 17 3,020,611 $0.45 1,354,197 332,583 1,686,780 2,459,520 15,128,898 18 3,005,508 $0.48 1,455,220 352,538 1,807,758 4,267,278 14,430,123 19 2,990,480 $0.52 1,563,779 373,690 1,937,469 6,204,747 13,587,849 20 2,975,528 $0.56 1,680,437 396,111 2,076,549 8,281,296 12,586,805 21 2,960,650 $0.61 1,805,798 419,878 2,225,676 10,506,972 11,410,347 22 2,945,847 $0.66 1,940,510 445,071 2,385,581 12,892,553 10,040,354 23 2,931,118 $0.71 2,085,273 471,775 2,557,048 15,449,601 8,457,099 24 2,916,462 $0.77 2,240,834 500,082 2,740,915 18,190,516 6,639,120 25 2,901,880 $0.83 2,408,000 530,087 2,938,087 21,128,603 4,563,076 NPV $ 2,153,329

P a g e | 24 A sensitivity analysis was performed with the following set of assumptions found to produce an outcome that just breaks even over the modelling period. Note that the system should still be operational for some time after this; however the modelling has only been undertaken over the guaranteed performance life of the panels.

System Purchase cost (including installation) $ 5,000,000

Rated output of system (Kw) 2187

System output per day per Kw of installed panels for Perth (includes de-rating) 4.1

System production (Kw/h per annum) 3,272,846

Current cost of grid sourced power (estimated) per Kwh $ 0.13 Savings in power usage by installing solar system (year 1) $ 428,285

System degradation (reduction in output per annum) 0.50%

Energy tariff inflation 6%

Opportunity cost, (interest available for cash deposit) 5%

Number of LGC's (Large-scale Generation Certificates) created 3273

Assumed LGC value (Year 1) $ 40

Annual value of LGC's $ 130,920

Assumed LGC value inflation 6%

-20,000,000 -15,000,000 -10,000,000 -5,000,000 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425 Electricity Savings $ LGC Income $ Total Income $ Investment Value $ Cash Value $

P a g e | 25 Year System production (Kwh) Grid feed cost ($/Kwh) Electricity Savings $ LGC Income $ Total Income $ Investment Value $ Cash Value $ 1 3,272,846 $ 0.13 428,285 130,920 559,205 -14,440,795 15,321,715 2 3,256,481 $ 0.14 451,712 138,775 590,487 -13,850,309 15,636,089 3 3,240,199 $ 0.15 476,420 147,102 623,522 -13,226,786 15,941,474 4 3,223,998 $ 0.16 502,481 155,928 658,408 -12,568,378 16,236,067 5 3,207,878 $ 0.17 529,966 165,283 695,250 -11,873,128 16,517,904 6 3,191,838 $ 0.18 558,955 175,200 734,156 -11,138,972 16,784,844 7 3,175,879 $ 0.19 589,530 185,713 775,243 -10,363,730 17,034,556 8 3,160,000 $ 0.20 621,778 196,855 818,633 -9,545,097 17,264,506 9 3,144,200 $ 0.21 655,789 208,667 864,455 -8,680,641 17,471,942 10 3,128,479 $ 0.22 691,660 221,187 912,847 -7,767,794 17,653,879 11 3,112,837 $ 0.23 729,494 234,458 963,952 -6,803,842 17,807,079 12 3,097,272 $ 0.25 769,398 248,525 1,017,923 -5,785,920 17,928,035 13 3,081,786 $ 0.26 811,484 263,437 1,074,920 -4,710,999 18,012,953 14 3,066,377 $ 0.28 855,872 279,243 1,135,115 -3,575,884 18,057,729 15 3,051,045 $ 0.30 902,688 295,998 1,198,686 -2,377,199 18,057,927 16 3,035,790 $ 0.31 952,065 313,757 1,265,822 -1,111,376 18,008,759 17 3,020,611 $ 0.33 1,004,143 332,583 1,336,726 225,349 17,905,054 18 3,005,508 $ 0.35 1,059,070 352,538 1,411,607 1,636,957 17,741,237 19 2,990,480 $ 0.37 1,117,001 373,690 1,490,691 3,127,648 17,511,298 20 2,975,528 $ 0.40 1,178,101 396,111 1,574,212 4,701,860 17,208,762 21 2,960,650 $ 0.42 1,242,543 419,878 1,662,421 6,364,281 16,826,657 22 2,945,847 $ 0.44 1,310,510 445,071 1,755,581 8,119,861 16,357,481 23 2,931,118 $ 0.47 1,382,195 471,775 1,853,970 9,973,831 15,793,160 24 2,916,462 $ 0.50 1,457,801 500,082 1,957,882 11,931,714 15,125,017 25 2,901,880 $ 0.53 1,537,542 530,087 2,067,629 13,999,343 14,343,725 NPV -$ 734,924 -20,000,000 -15,000,000 -10,000,000 -5,000,000 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425 Electricity Savings $ LGC Income $ Total Income $ Investment Value $ Cash Value $

P a g e | 26 A further analysis was undertaken with a slightly more favourable set of assumptions, with the modelling period extended to 30 years. The results of this are shown below.

System Purchase cost (including installation) $ 15,000,000

Rated output of system (Kw) 2187

System output per day per Kw of installed panels for Perth (includes de-rating) 4.1

System production (Kw/h per annum) 3,272,846

Current cost of grid sourced power (estimated) per Kwh $ 0.13 Savings in power usage by installing solar system (year 1) $ 428,285

System degradation (reduction in output per annum) 0.50%

Energy tariff inflation 10%

Opportunity cost, (interest available for cash deposit) 5%

Number of LGC's (Large-scale Generation Certificates) created 3273

Assumed LGC value (Year 1) $ 40

Annual value of LGC's $ 130,920

Assumed LGC value inflation 10%

Year System production (Kwh) Grid feed cost ($/Kwh) Electricity Savings $ LGC Income $ Total Income $ Investment Value $ Cash Value $ 1 3,272,846 $ 0.13 428,285 130,920 559,205 -14,440,795 15,321,715 2 3,256,481 $ 0.14 468,757 144,012 612,769 -13,828,026 15,619,044 3 3,240,199 $ 0.16 513,055 158,413 671,468 -13,156,558 15,886,941 4 3,223,998 $ 0.17 561,539 174,255 735,793 -12,420,764 16,119,749 5 3,207,878 $ 0.19 614,604 191,680 806,284 -11,614,480 16,311,133 6 3,191,838 $ 0.21 672,684 210,848 883,532 -10,730,948 16,454,005 7 3,175,879 $ 0.23 736,253 231,933 968,186 -9,762,763 16,540,452

P a g e | 27 8 3,160,000 $ 0.26 805,829 255,126 1,060,955 -8,701,808 16,561,646 9 3,144,200 $ 0.28 881,980 280,639 1,162,618 -7,539,189 16,507,749 10 3,128,479 $ 0.31 965,327 308,703 1,274,029 -6,265,160 16,367,810 11 3,112,837 $ 0.34 1,056,550 339,573 1,396,123 -4,869,037 16,129,650 12 3,097,272 $ 0.37 1,156,394 373,530 1,529,924 -3,339,113 15,779,738 13 3,081,786 $ 0.41 1,265,673 410,883 1,676,556 -1,662,557 15,303,052 14 3,066,377 $ 0.45 1,385,279 451,971 1,837,251 174,694 14,682,925 15 3,051,045 $ 0.50 1,516,188 497,168 2,013,357 2,188,051 13,900,883 16 3,035,790 $ 0.55 1,659,468 546,885 2,206,353 4,394,404 12,936,459 17 3,020,611 $ 0.60 1,816,288 601,574 2,417,862 6,812,266 11,766,994 18 3,005,508 $ 0.66 1,987,927 661,731 2,649,658 9,461,924 10,367,417 19 2,990,480 $ 0.73 2,175,786 727,904 2,903,691 12,365,614 8,710,002 20 2,975,528 $ 0.80 2,381,398 800,695 3,182,093 15,547,707 6,764,104 21 2,960,650 $ 0.88 2,606,440 880,764 3,487,204 19,034,912 4,495,869 22 2,945,847 $ 0.97 2,852,749 968,841 3,821,589 22,856,501 1,867,914 23 2,931,118 $ 1.07 3,122,333 1,065,725 4,188,058 27,044,559 -1,161,024 24 2,916,462 $ 1.17 3,417,394 1,172,297 4,589,691 31,634,250 -3,417,394 25 2,901,880 $ 1.29 3,740,338 1,289,527 5,029,865 36,664,115 -3,740,338 26 2,887,371 $ 1.42 4,093,799 1,418,480 5,512,279 42,176,394 -4,093,799 27 2,872,934 $ 1.56 4,480,664 1,560,328 6,040,991 48,217,385 -4,480,664 28 2,858,569 $ 1.72 4,904,086 1,716,360 6,620,447 54,837,832 -4,904,086 29 2,844,276 $ 1.89 5,367,522 1,887,996 7,255,519 62,093,351 -5,367,522 30 2,830,055 $ 2.08 5,874,753 2,076,796 7,951,549 70,044,900 -5,874,753 NPV $8,301,372 -20,000,000 -10,000,000 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Electricity Savings $ LGC Income $ Total Income $ Investment Value $ Cash Value $

P a g e | 28

Alternative solutions

Glasshouse Area

The glasshouse area on campus provides an opportunity for a different type of installation of panels. This area in part or whole could be covered by an array of semi-transparent solar panels that would still allow the area to function as it does currently. The existing glasshouses could be left in place with an entirely new structure spanning above. This structure could take one of two main forms. It could be similar to the example cited above the car parking area at Arizona State University, ie a structure with a series of rows of panels tilted to the north with gaps in between. Alternatively it could be a complete roof structure similar to the example shown below.

Floriade Exhibition Hall in the Netherlands comprises 20,000 semi-transparent solar panels covering 28,000 square metres.15

15

P a g e | 29 If this area were to be entirely covered as shown in the graphic below, (130m x 130m) an area of 16,900 square metres would be available for installation of panels. This has the potential to generate over 2MW of electricity.

P a g e | 30

The Oak Lawn

Similar to the glasshouse area the Oak Lawn could have a semi-transparent solar panel canopy installed over it. As noted previously this area provides a huge opportunity for UWA to create a landmark structure that symbolises the commitment to renewable power and energy efficiency. It would also showcase in a very public way that renewable power generation need not be staid or boring, but can be incorporated into state of the art architectural structures of beauty and efficiency. The graphic below shows that this area has the possibility of providing a roof of up to 55 x 70 metres, an area of up to 3850 square metres of panels with a generating capacity of over 500Kw.

P a g e | 31

Summary

x Various panel technologies are available, advanced mono-crystalline are considered the most appropriate for roof top installation at UWA.

x UWA has building layouts and orientations that are favourable to solar panel installations. x Care should be taken to ensure panel installations are aesthetically pleasing.

x UWA has the potential to generate approximately 9% of its power requirements from roof top solar arrays.

x Large solar panel installations can generate income in the form of large scale generation credits, which improve financial viability.

x Panel installations are likely to be financially viable, especially in the long term.

x New buildings constructed on campus should have their solar generating capacity maximised. x Consideration should be given to building integrated photovoltaics wherever possible.

x Major refurbishments should maximise the solar generating capacity of the building in question. x UWA should consider the symbolic potential of major solar installations.

x Potential locations exist on site for construction of major new solar roofs, i.e. glasshouse area and Oak Lawn.

References:

Arizona State University Campus Solarization. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2011, from Arizona State University: http://cfo.asu.edu/fdm-campus-solarization

Clean Energy Council, Technologies. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2011, from Clean Energy Council: http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/cec/technologies/solarpv.html

Derate factor calculation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2011, from Renewable Resource Data Center: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/derate.cgi

Electricity Retail Market Review. (n.d.). Retrieved February 21, 2011, from Office of Energy:

http://www.energy.wa.gov.au/cproot/1448/2/OOE%20Final%20Recommendations%20Report%20Submit ted%20to%20Minister%20-%20Final.pdf

Energy Matters, Performance and Climate. (n.d.). Retrieved January 19, 2011, from Energy Matters: http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=performance&climate=529449450&town=Per th&state=WA&country=Australia&solarpanel=31

First Solar, News. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2011, from First Solar:

http://investor.firstsolar.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=201491&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1259614

LRET/SRES – the basics. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2011, from Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator: http://www.orer.gov.au/publications/pubs/LRET-SRES-the%20basics%200111.pdf

P a g e | 32 Nearmap. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2011, from Nearmap: http://www.nearmap.com/

News Archive. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2011, from Murdoch University:

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/News/Murdoch-becomes-WA's-largest-solar-grid-contributor/ Perth Suburb profiles - Nedlands. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2011, from REIWA:

http://reiwa.com.au/Research/Pages/Suburb-profile-results.aspx?suburb_id=2547&census_code=SSC52031&geogroup_id=1289&geogroup_parent_id=3 Power Stations guide. (n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2011, from Office of the Renewable Regulator: http://www.orer.gov.au/power-stations/index.html

PV Watts. (n.d.). Retrieved February 22, 2011, from National Renewable Energy laboratories: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/International/pvwattsv1_intl.cgi Suntech-pluto-solar-panel-195-watt. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2011, from Energy Matters: http://www.energymatters.com.au/suntech-pluto-solar-panel-195-watt-24-volt-monocrystalline-p-2516.html

The Largest Solar Roof In The World. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2011, from Metaefficient:

http://www.metaefficient.com/architecture-and-building/the-largest-solar-roof-in-the-world-floriade-hall.html

University of Queensland Solar Projects. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2011, from University of Queensland: http://www.uq.edu.au/sustainability/docs/energy/SolarProjectStL.pdf

Your Home, Photovoltaic systems, Siting. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2011, from Your Home: http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/fs67.html