Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Case Study: Solar Panels at Boston College
A Case Study: Solar Panels at Boston College
A Case Study: Solar Panels at Boston College
Methods
Picking
the
location
Over
the
course
of
this
project
our
team
used
process
of
elimination
to
determine
the
best
location
for
a
solar
PV
system
on
Boston
College
properties.
Through
meetings
with
two
of
our
mentors
-
John
MacDonald
the
BC
Energy
Manager,
and
Bob
Pion
the
BC
Sustainability
Director
-
we
were
given
advice
on
how
to
decide
which
locations
would
be
feasible
and
most
beneficial
to
the
school.
We
examined
the
multitude
of
buildings
that
Boston
College
maintains
on
several
properties
-
Main
campus,
Newton
campus,
Brighton
campus,
and
the
Weston
Observatory.
From
these
options,
building
choices
were
narrowed
down
based
on
a
series
of
criteria,
an
overview
of
which
can
be
seen
in
Figure
1.
The
basic
variables
involved
were
aesthetics,
BCs
ten
year
plan,
and
annual
energy
use.
Figure
1:
Flow
chart
outlining
the
process
of
elimination
for
solar
system
locations.
The
initial
proposal
of
this
project
was
to
implement
solar
panels
on
the
roof
of
the
Commonwealth
Ave
Parking
garage.
We
ruled
this
option
out
due
to
aesthetics.
Its
proximity
to
St.
Marys
means
that
the
Jesuit
residents
would
directly
overlook
the
panels
on
top
of
the
garage.
We
ruled
out
all
of
middle
campus
because
it
consists
of
buildings
with
gothic
architecture,
which
is
the
aesthetic
that
the
BC
administration
is
most
dedicated
to
in
regards
to
the
campus
appearance.
This
group
includes
buildings
such
as
Devlin,
Lyons,
Gasson,
Fulton,
and
Stokes
Hall.
It
also
includes
buildings
in
close
proximity
to
gothic
architecture,
like
McGuinn,
as
well
as
buildings
in
view
of
middle
campus,
such
as
Conte
Forum
(the
roof
of
which
is
also
taken
up
mostly
by
skylights,
leaving
little
area
left
for
solar
panels).
Next,
our
team
was
shown
the
10-year
construction
plan
for
Boston
Colleges
campus
which
revealed
several
buildings
and
structures
that
will
be
knocked
down
in
the
near
future,
including
Edmonds
Hall
and
Carney.
Our
team
decided
not
to
propose
installing
solar
panels
on
any
buildings
that
will
be
built
in
the
near
future,
such
as
the
new
Plex
athletic
building,
because
the
construction
plans
for
them
are
not
yet
fully
concrete
and
we
want
this
proposal
to
be
applicable
in
real
time.
A
couple
of
buildings,
like
the
Brighton
Campus
Dance
Studio
building,
were
removed
from
our
list
because
they
are
simply
too
small
to
hold
a
valuable
number
of
solar
panels.
The
remaining
buildings
were
reviewed
based
on
their
year-round
energy
use.
Buildings
that
are
not
used
throughout
the
entire
year
(i.e.
not
used
very
much
during
the
summer)
were
also
eliminated
since
solar
panels
are
most
efficient
and
useful
in
places
where
energy
is
used
all
the
time.
This
group
included
all
dormitories,
including
all
those
on
Newton
Campus,
upper
Main
campus,
and
lower
Main
campus.
All
of
main
campus
runs
on
one
energy
meter,
which
makes
it
more
difficult
to
involve
another
type
of
energy
generating
system
on
one
of
the
main
campus
buildings.
The
energy
offset
from
the
panels
would
come
out
of
the
campus
total
energy
use
rather
than
out
of
just
the
energy
use
of
the
building
it
is
installed
on.
Though
it
would
be
possible
to
have
the
system
in
place
on
a
single
building
while
having
it
hooked
up
to
the
schools
net
metering
system,
our
team
agreed
that
since
we
are
proposing
installing
solar
panels
at
Boston
College
for
the
first
time,
it
would
be
best
to
make
this
a
contained
system
on
a
single
building.
This
way
the
administration
can
look
at
the
project
and
decide
how
to
move
forward.
This
process
of
elimination
narrowed
down
our
choices
to
four
locations
-
Cadigan
Alumni
Center
(Figure
2a),
129
Lake
Street
(Figure
2b),
the
Beacon
Street
Garage
(Figure
2c),
and
St.
Clements
Hall,
the
campus
data
center
(Figure
2d).
All
four
of
these
buildings
we
have
flat
roof
tops,
which
means
that
solar
panels
could
be
set
at
the
proper
angle
and
direction
for
best
possible
production.
The
Beacon
St
Garage
is
large,
which
would
allow
it
to
accommodate
a
very
large
solar
panel
system.
Unfortunately,
it
has
parking
spots
on
its
roof,
so
a
canopy
structure
would
have
to
be
built
to
accommodate
the
panels.
This
is
a
fairly
standard
procedure
but
it
can
be
costly.
Though
we
did
not
calculate
the
expense
of
building
these
solar
canopies
on
top
of
the
garage,
it
would
be
an
added
expense
on
top
of
the
cost
of
buying
and
installing
a
system
at
this
location.
Unlike
the
Beacon
Street
Garage
(and
all
buildings
on
main
campus
for
that
matter),
the
three
other
buildings,
all
on
Brighton
Campus,
run
on
their
own
individual
meters.
This
would
make
it
easy
for
the
solar
panel
system
to
directly
offset
the
energy
use
of
the
building
on
which
it
is
installed.
Figure
2:
Aerial
views
of
the
four
buildings
that
were
considered
as
the
location
for
a
solar
panel
system,
with
roof
areas
mapped
out
in
blue
(a.
Cadigan
Alumni
center,
b.
129
Lake
Street,
c.
Beacon
Street
Garage,
and
d.
St.
Clements
Hall).
Financial
Analysis
a.
Building
and
System
Estimates
At
this
point
in
the
process
we
began
a
financial
analysis
of
a
potential
system
on
each
of
the
four
buildings.
This
was
made
possible
by
the
information
provided
to
us
by
John
MacDonald.
The
estimate
involved
finding
the
system
size
(in
kilowatts
per
hour
-kWh)
that
would
be
able
to
fit
on
the
roof
of
the
building
in
question,
as
well
as
the
cost
of
purchasing
that
sized
system.
In
order
to
get
the
most
well-rounded
estimate
possible
our
team
employed
three
different
sources
for
these
calculations.
After
finding
three
different
values,
we
took
an
average
to
obtain
the
most
accurate
numbers.
The
first
source
was
our
teams
own
calculations.
We
used
the
tools
on
Google
Earth
to
measure
out
the
roof
area
of
the
four
buildings.
We
then
deduced
how
many
panels
would
be
able
to
fit
on
that
sized
roof
by
dividing
the
area
by
the
size
of
a
standard
sized
solar
panel,
which
is
19.5
square
ft
(Timeline).
Since
a
standard
sized
panel
produces
250
watts
per
hour,
we
multiplied
the
number
of
panels
by
0.25
kilowatts
per
hour
to
calculate
the
system
size
in
kWh
(Aggarwal,
2014).
These
types
of
systems
generally
cost
$2.50
per
watt,
so
in
order
to
calculate
the
cost
of
purchasing
the
panels,
we
multiplied
the
system
size
by
the
price
for
kWh
($2,500).
The
error
involved
in
this
calculation
is
the
fact
that
solar
panels
are
often
tilted
meaning
that
the
roof
may
fit
more
or
less
than
the
exact
number
that
fit
inside
the
initial
roof
area.
The
second
source
was
the
solar
energy
calculator
on
the
PV
Watts
website.
Using
their
program,
we
again
mapped
out
the
roof
area
of
each
building,
and
were
provided
with
the
system
size
in
kWh.
We
then
calculated
the
cost
using
the
given
system
size,
using
the
method
mentioned
previously.
When
using
this
method,
tracing
the
building
area
was
difficult.
We
could
not
be
sure
that
the
area
we
traced
was
the
viable
area
on
each
building.
The
last
source
was
a
website
called
Energysage.
On
their
program
we
selected
each
building
on
a
map
by
pinning
the
roof
and
were
provided
with
an
estimate
of
cost
and
savings.
Personnel
at
the
company
were
kind
enough
to
give
us
the
system
size
they
calculated
using
their
own
tools.
Because
you
pin
the
building
on
EnergySage,
it
is
hard
to
tell
whether
it
will
calculate
the
right
parts
of
the
roof.
For
example,
Cadigan
Alumni
Center
has
skylights
that
we
did
not
want
included
as
part
of
the
panel
area.
Since
the
three
sources
we
used
had
some
measure
of
error
involved,
we
took
the
average
of
all
three
in
order
to
provide
the
BC
administration
with
the
best
estimate
possible.
Additionally,
while
the
two
websites
take
into
consideration
several
factors
that
we
were
not
able
to
-
such
as
factoring
in
the
amount
of
shading
on
each
roof
as
well
as
accounting
for
the
tilt
of
the
panels
when
placed
on
the
roof
-
they
have
their
faults.
These
programs
spat
out
numbers
without
us
being
able
to
see
their
calculations,
and
as
mentioned
above,
we
had
different
concerns
with
each.
We
took
an
average
system
size
from
our
three
estimates
to
see
how
much
energy
a
system
on
each
of
these
roofs
would
produce
and
how
much
of
that
buildings
energy
use
would
be
able
to
be
offset
by
that
particular
system
size.
b.
Pro
forma
Calculations
Our
mentors
at
the
green
energy
company
First
Wind
gave
us
a
pro
forma
model
for
excel.
This
model
provided
us
with
a
basic
outline
of
how
much
energy
a
solar
system
could
possibly
produce
on
main
campus
and
the
potential
savings
for
BC.
We
wanted
to
compare
the
costs
and
savings
between
private
(BC)
ownership
and
3rd
party
ownership
of
the
system
in
order
to
deduce
the
most
financially
sound
conclusion.
In
order
to
come
to
this
conclusion
we
had
to
tailor
the
pro
forma
by
creating
four
different
proformas
-
one
for
each
of
the
four
final
buildings.
We
input
data
we
received
from
the
Boston
College
energy
manager,
John
MacDonald,
in
order
to
calculate
the
financial
aspects
of
installing
solar
panel
systems
on
each
of
the
four
buildings.
This
analysis
was
based
on
the
buildings
annual
energy
uses,
annual
energy
costs,
and
the
campus
energy
rates
from
NSTAR.
Results
Building
and
System
Estimates
Table
1:
The
annual
electrical
use
and
bill
for
each
building
chosen.
Annual
electrical
use
(kWh) Annual
Bill
Cadigan
Alumni
Center 12,432 19.25 646 161.5 $403,750.00
Beacon
St.
Garage 39,406 19.25 2047 511.75 $1,279,375.00
St.
Clements
Hall 17,965 19.25 933 233.25 $583,125.00
Table
3:
The
number
of
panels,
the
size
of
those
panels
in
kWh,
and
the
net
cost
of
that
system
as
calculated
by
the
PV
Watts
website
energy
system
calculator.
Cadigan
Alumni
Center 713 178.2 $445,500.00
Table
4:
The
number
of
panels,
the
size
of
those
panels
in
kWh,
and
the
net
cost
of
that
system
as
calculated
by
the
Energy
Sage
website
instant
solar
estimator.
System
Energy
Sage
#
of
size
Net
cost
of
system
Calculations Panels (kWh) ($2.50
per
panel)
Cadigan
Alumni
Center 473.6 118.4 $296,000
Table
5:
List
of
the
system
sizes
of
each
of
the
four
buildings
in
kWh,
averaged
from
the
results
listed
in
Tables
2,
3,
and
4,
along
with
the
cost
of
that
averaged
system
size.
Cost
Average
System
size
(kWh) (private
ownership)
Cadigan
Alumni
Center 152.7 $381,750.00
Table
7:
The
estimated
pro
forma
model
for
129
Lake
St.
Table
8.
The
estimated
pro
forma
model
for
Beacon
St.
Garage
Table
9.
The
estimate
pro
forma
model
for
St.
Clements
Hall
Discussion/Analysis
Mention
some
errors
in
analysis
to
be
rectified
in
the
future
There
are
some
imperfections
in
the
pro
forma
financial
estimates
that
need
to
be
addressed
for
future
analysis
on
such
a
case
study.
Many
of
the
values
used
on
the
pro
forma
were
based
on
generalizations
of
data
that
we
had
been
given
or
research
done
online
and
may
not
be
specific
to
the
buildings
we
studied.
For
example,
we
used
two
different
system
sizes
to
compare
3rd
party
ownership
and
private
ownership.
The
system
size
used
in
the
pro
forma
for
3rd
party
ownership
(1
MWh)
was
provided
to
us
by
First
Wind
and
based
on
the
net
metering
cap
for
non
municipal
and
public
customers.
We
also
assumed
that
the
solar
energy
company
would
only
provide
15%
of
the
energy
produced
by
each
building,
but
this
value
could
change
between
solar
companies
and
the
different
sizes
of
the
system.
We
also
estimated
that
the
solar
energy
company
would
provide
BC
energy
at
a
discounted
rate
of
$0.12
per
kWh,
but
this
could
also
vary
amongst
different
energy
companies.
These
factors
could
alter
the
value
of
the
savings
calculated
for
3rd
party
ownership
per
year
and
over
the
life
of
the
system.
The
pro
forma
also
analyzes
private
ownership
but
only
provides
basic
costs
and
savings
associated
with
owning
a
system.
We
stated
the
cost
of
the
overall
system
for
BC
and
the
annual
savings
on
utility
bills
and
over
the
20
year
life
span
of
the
system.
These
basic
statistics,
however,
are
oversimplified.
The
annual
savings
under
private
ownership
would
only
be
experienced
by
BC
once
the
entire
system
had
been
paid
off,
which
usually
varies
between
five
to
seven
years
depending
on
the
size
and
capacity
of
the
system.
Therefore,
the
gross
savings
presented
in
the
current
pro
formas
could
vary
for
each
building.
Further
analysis
of
private
ownership
could
be
done
through
an
economic
cost
benefit
analysis
to
produce
more
accurate
values
on
the
net
present
value
of
each
project.
Such
an
analysis
would
provide
a
clearer
picture
on
the
investment
in
private
ownership.
Conclusions
Based
on
our
findings,
the
most
optimal
location
for
solar
panels
at
Boston
College
is
St.
Clements
Hall.
Even
though
these
panels
will
only
produce
5%
of
the
buildings
annual
energy,
this
significantly
lowers
the
energy
bill,
and
means
more
savings
over
time.
In
addition,
the
carbon
offset
is
~521,702lbs
per
year.
This
is
the
equivalent
to
the
amount
of
carbon
10,869
trees
can
absorb
in
a
year
or
is
the
same
as
taking
46
cars
off
the
road
for
the
year
(Tree
Facts,
2014;
Greenhouse
Gas,
2011).
Third
party
ownership
makes
the
most
sense
for
Boston
College
because
it
means
immediate
savings
rather
than
an
initial
deficit.
The
annual
savings
for
private
ownership
are
much
higher
but
because
a
system
is
expensive
to
own,
it
would
take
years
to
pay
off
the
initial
deficit.
By
putting
a
solar
PV
system
on
St.
Clements,
BC
will
save
almost
10,000
dollars
on
energy
each
year.
Because
BC
would
not
own
the
panels,
it
would
not
be
responsible
for
maintenance
or
other
costs
the
panels
might
require.
Solar
is
the
perfect
way
for
BC
to
improve
sustainability
while
saving
quite
a
bit
of
money!
Acknowledgements
We
would
like
to
thank
our
many
mentors
who
have
supported
us
throughout
our
projects
duration:
Vikram
Aggarwal
for
aiding
us
with
solar
statistics
and
mathematical
configurations,
Peter
Sullivan
and
Matt
Marino
for
a
pro
forma
that
assisted
us
in
calculating
the
cost
of
solar
at
different
locations,
and
John
MacDonald
and
Bob
Pion
for
their
advice
on
BCs
energy
use
and
policy.
We
must
also
thank
Professor
David
who
gave
valuable
feedback
and
guided
us
through
the
process.
References
Aggarwal,
Vikram.
Solar
Panel
Statistics.
E-mail
Interview.
26
April.
2014.
"Campus
Sustainability
Initiative."
Solar
Electricity.
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
01
May
2014.
<http://www.brandeis.edu/campussustainability/energy/solar.html>.
Digital
image.
Perth
Solar
Panels.
Solar
Panels
Perth
|
Affordable
&
High
Quality
Solar
Power
Systems,
2014.
Web.
27
Apr.
2014.
MacDonald, John. "BC Energy Use Discussion." Personal interview. 10 Mar. 2014.
Marino,
Matt,
and
Peter
Sullivan.
"Pro
Forma
Specifics."
E-mail
interview.
14
Mar.
2014.
"One
of
Nation's
Largest
College
Campus
Solar
Fields
Being
Built
at
Stonehill."
News
&
Media
Stonehill
College.
N.p.,
6
Jan.
2014.
Web.
01
May
2014.
<http://www.stonehill.edu/news-media/news/details/one-of-nations-largest-
college-campus-solar-fields-being-built-at-stonehill/>.
Shahan,
Zachary.
"Which
Solar
Panels
Are
Most
Efficient?"CleanTechnica.
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
01
May
2014.
<http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/02/which-solar-
panels-most-efficient/>.
"Solar
Panel
Array."
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
26
Apr.
2014.
<"St.
Clement's
Hall."
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
26
Apr.
2014.
.>.
"SOLAR
RESOURCE
DATA."
PVWatts
Calculator.
Web.
01
May
2014.
<http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php>.
"Stacking
the
Deck."
The
Economist.
The
Economist
Newspaper,
22
Feb.
2014.
Web.
01
May
2014.
<http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-
technology/21596924-way-double-efficiency-solar-cells-about-go-mainstream-
stacking>.
"Stonehill
College."
U.S.
News
&
World
Report.
N.p.,
n.d.
Web.
01
May
2014.
<http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/stonehill-
college-2217>.