Photovoltaic System Analysis The following analysis was produced to predict the best photovoltaic system that would yield thehighest annual savings and the fastest return period with high performance. The energy consumption forthe building was first calculated to address the PV system size requirements. Table 1: BuildingConsumption has the designated kWh/day required for this facility and the available roof area for thesolar panels. With this information a better cost comparison was created. Table 2: Cost Analysis compares thefour distinct solar panels that have qualified for CPS rebate and have high performance. The first optionwas the one UTSA has used, the second is one of the panels with the highest wattage in the market, andthe last two have the lowest price to wattage ratio. All solar panels have high performance ratings.Moreover, Table 2 predicts the daily production of kWh/day and the PV system size for each distinctsolar panel. Table 2: Cost Analysis takes into account the prices of the panels (obtained fromhttp://www.affordable-solar.com). The installation cost was estimated by 411 Energy LLC, who is asolar rebate contractor that meets the qualifications for CPS rebate by being NABCEP Certified. TheNorth American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) is the “gold standard” for PV andsolar heating installation certification. This certification is designed to raise industry standards andpromote consumer confidence. In terms of rebate, the $100,000 comes from the CPS Energy SolarInitiative Rebate Program. This rebate program provides tiered incentives ranging from $1.30 to $2.50per AC watt based on the calculated expected performance of the system with a rebate of up to $100,000for commercial installations. With this information the total cost for each system was acquired. After estimating the system’s cost, Table 3: Financial Performance was constructed to do thefinal comparison of the electric monthly bill, monthly savings, return period and price per kW. Thistable was populated through the use of the result acquired from tables 4-7. The four different system’sfinancial projections, see table 4-7, were constructed using the following assumptions. A 6.95 cents perkWh current electrical cost with a 4.35% annual increase, and an annual kWh production degradation of0.05% per year based on manufacturer’s warranty guideline. The projected kWh production was basedon the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s “PV Watts" Performance Calculator. Table 4-7 havethe calculations for all four PV systems return period. In summary, efficient option 2 (CS6P 240 Canadian Solar) has the lowest return period, lowestcost per kW, second to the highest percentage of solar energy bill, and second to the highest monthlysavings as seen in Table 3: Financial Performance. For these reasons this will be the chosen solar panel.The final PV system will be a 87.2 kW system with 167,935 kWh average annual production and$14,282 average yearly savings. Additionally, a 30% tax credit will be applicable under the Federal TaxCredits for Consumer Energy Efficiency.
Table 1: Building Consumption Size sq. ft. 23,000.00 Building Energy Consumption kWh/day 1,474.52 Solar Panel Roof Area sq. ft. 6,300 Table 2: System Cost Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 Type UTSA Option E-20-435 Efficient Option 1 Efficient Option 2 No Solar Power Size (kW) 84.00 117.79 86.84 87.23 - Cost of each panel $314.12 - $342.00 $280.59 - Cost of System $109,942.00 $ 6 per watt $104,213.13 $101,977.54 - Cost of Installation $336,000.00 $706,718.19 $347,377.11 $348,902.11 - Cost of Inverters, etc. $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 *CPS Rebate $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 - Total System Cost $385,942 $606,718 $391,590 $390,880 -Comparison of the four chosen panels that qualify for the CPS rebate and outputs the total system cost.*This estimate presumes that the local utility, CPS Energy, provides close to $100,000 as part of their renewableenergy incentive program. The actual value may differ depending on circumstances interpretation, daterestrictions, and other incentive guidelines. Table 3: Financial Performance 1 2 3 4 5 Type UTSA Option E-20-435 Efficient Option 1 Efficient Option 2 No Solar Power Total Electric Cost $2,176 $1,797 $2,147 $2,140 $3,117 monthly Monthly Savings $941 $1,320 $971 $977 0 Return Period (yr.) 21.3 23.1 21.2 21.1 $/kW $4,594.55 $5,151.01 $4,509.11 $4,481.25