Solar-Estimate.

org

Solar & Wind Estimator Assumptions & System Sizing Result Comparisons

The goal in developing solar and wind system size estimators for Solar-Estimate.org was
to provide system performance estimates that are reasonably consistent with other
commonly-accepted industry estimating tools. For solar electric (PV) and domestic hot
water (DHW), our objective was to be within 20% of other commonly used performance
estimates. For pool/spa heating and wind estimates our objective was relaxed somewhat
(+/-30%) given that there are several significant variances that will change the actual pool
heating or wind energy scenario in practice; variables such as desired water
temperature, cover use, monthly/seasonal usage, weather (rain fall, wind, humidity, wind,
etc.), pool shading/screening, etc. This report summarizes the assumptions used in the
Solar-Estimate.org estimators, and provides results for system sizing in comparison to
other industry solar and wind calculators and methods.

General
.
Solar Irradiance:
o For all solar estimates, Solar-Estimate.org uses PVWatts analysis assuming collectors
face due south, tilted at latitude.

Wind Speed:
o For all wind speed estimates, Solar-Estimate.org uses monthly average wind speed as
per NASA Surface meteorology data adjusted for tower height and over a Rayleigh
probability distribution.

Ambient Air Temperature:

o For PV estimates a 25OC ambient air temperature is assumed in all estimates.
o For Thermal (Water heating) estimates, Solar-Estimate.org uses the mean daily air
temperature. Our weather reference is the TMY2K weather data. This air temperature is
assumed for each month modeled:

o Domestic hot water and Spa estimates: The annual mean temperature is
assumed.

Pool heating estimates: The average monthly mean temperature is assumed,

for the months selected for pool/spa heating

7/27/2009 Page 1 of 6 Energy Matters LLC

Solar-Estimate.org

Solar Electric (PV)

Solar-Electric Result Comparisons

Estimator Location Solar Rating System Size Output (kWh/Yr) Deviation

Solar-Estimate.org San Francisco, CA 5.66 kWh/M^2/Day 3.94 kW 5,862
PVWatts - V1 San Francisco, CA Weather dBase 3.96 kW 5,726 -0.2%
PVWatts - V2 San Francisco, CA Weather dBase 3.96 kW 5,603 -4.4%

Solar-Estimate.org Miami-Dade, FL 5.24 kWh/M^2/Day 3.97 kW 5,317

PVWatts - V1 Miami, Fl Weather dBase 4.0 kW 5,357 0%
PVWatts - V2 Miami, Fl Weather dBase 4.0 kW 5,322 0%

Solar-Estimate.org New York, NY 4.63 kWh/M^2/Day 4.53 kW 5,555

PVWatts - V1 New York, NY Weather dBase 4.5 kW 5,483 1.3%
PVWatts - V2 New York, NY Weather dBase 4.56 kW 5,589 0%

Solar-Estimate.org Austin, TX 5.192 kWh/M^2/Day 4.10 kW 5,570

PVWatts - V1 Austin, TX Weather dBase 4.05 kW 5518 0%
PVWatts - V2 Austin, TX Weather dBase 4.05 kW 5,425 2.6%

Assumptions used in comparison models:

PVWatts: All default values used. See: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/

Solar-Estimate.org: Monthly bill is adjusted until system size match that used for the analysis.
Annual output (kWh) is derived by assuming $0.10/kWh electricity cost. Then taking the “First
Year Savings” and adding 10% + 500 kW. This adds back in an assumed $50/year utility fee and
a 10% cost of operation deducted from the First-Year savings.

Other Solar-Estimate.org assumptions

Solar Irradiance As provided by PVWatts
Soiling or contamination of the PV panels Clean, washed frequently: 100% design sunlight
transmission
Temperature 25C, calm wind
System configuration (battery or non- Non-battery
battery)
Orientation to the sun South facing, tilted at latitude, full sun.
Shading None
PV Energy delivered as % of 95%
manufacturers rating
Wiring & power point tracking losses 9% (91% delivered)
Inverter Efficiency 90%

7/27/2009 Page 2 of 6 Energy Matters LLC

Solar-Estimate.org
Total Energy Delivered 95% x 91% x 90% = 78%
Source: "Designing and Installing Code-Compliant PV Systems", presented by Endecon
Engineering for the California Energy Commission, June 2001,

Solar Domestic Hot Water (DHW)

Solar Domestic Hot Water Result Comparisons

Deviation of
Solar- Deviation of
Location Estimate.org SRCC @ FS % from F-Chart FS % from

80-gal F-
80 gal/day
Chart
(kWh/Yr) 80 gal/day 80-gal SRCC 80 gal/day
2 Collectors

Sacramento 8%
94203 5,072 5,172 2% 4,702
Denver 2%
80290 5,063 5,272 4% 4,962
Austin 11%
78703 4,826 4,872 0% 4,356
Jacksonville 13%
32099 4,570 4,572 0% 4,054
Newark 0%
07103 3,893 4,072 4% 3,896
Madison, WI n/a
54405 4,241 4,372 3% n/a
Portland (ME) 12%
04102 3,393 3,872

Assumptions used in DHW comparison models:

Solar-Estimate.org: Equivalent electricity (kWh) produced by solar is calculated using the following
model assumptions:

• 80 gallons/day consumed.
• Water heater thermostat is set at 120°F (48.9°C)
• Solar collector type:
o Glazed flat-plate type
o Area: 3 square-meters
o FR (tau alpha) coefficient: 0.74
o UL coefficient: 4.57
• Solar collector slope: Assumed at latitude.
• Solar radiation available: Provided by PVWatts. We assume the same solar irradiance for
each month throughout the year.
• Ambient air temperature: Same temperature assumed for each month; annual mean
temperature.

7/27/2009 Page 3 of 6 Energy Matters LLC

Solar-Estimate.org
• Losses due to snow or dirt, piping and solar tank losses: 10%
• Cold-water temperature: Assumed to be Annual mean temperature
• Heating load characteristics: Solar used every month to supplement domestic hot water
heater

SRCC: Heliodyne GOBI408 referenced and mid-point of referenced outputs shown above. SRCC
assumes 64 gallons/day water usage. For the “80 Gallon/Day” SRCC estimate, the 336 kWh is added to
the 64 Gal/Day SRCC estimate (assumed to be 21 kWh x 16 gallons).

F-Chart Assumptions: F-Chart was used as a comparison to the Solar-Estimate.org results. The
same assumptions were made in F-Chart as noted above, except as follows. The F-Chart method uses a
monthly weather database for air temperatures, cold water supply temperatures, and solar irradiance
(using the “NREL.WEA” database within F-Chart). . Further, the F-Chart results shown in the comparison
table above were based on:
• the collector tilt angle is set to the latitude of the site,
• a thermal storage volume of 80 liters per m of collector area (2 gallons per ft ),
2 2

• storage tank insulated to achieve a UA of 4 W/ C,

o

• pipe heat loss based on a UA of 2.64 W/ C for the inlet and the outlet piping,
o

• the heat exchanger effectiveness is assumed to be 70%,

• incidence angle modifiers (IAM) were based on selecting the F-Chart option for a single-
glazed collector.

Solar Pool Heating

Solar Spa/Pool Result Comparisons

Months of Use

Pool Solar- F-
Size # of Estimate.org Chart RETSCreen Variance,
City, State (M^2) Collectors Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) %
Jacksonville, FL - 32099 3.3 Spa 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,825 2841 -- 36%
24.5 Pool 7 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2,859 -- 2800 2%
72 Pool 19 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 7,760 -- 8300 7%
Austin, TX – 78703 3286
3.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,928 -- 38%
24.5 5 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1,777 -- 2300 23%
72 14 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 4,975 -- 6800 27%
Sacramento, CA - 94203 3.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,026 2890 -- 30%
24.5 8 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4,168 -- 5700 27%
72 22 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 11,462 -- 16500 31%
Newark, NJ – 07103 3.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,555 1584 -- 0%
24.5 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6,998 -- 4300 63%
--
72 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 18,662 12400 50%

Denver, CO – 80290 3.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2,022 1888 -- 7%

24.5 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 3,395 -- 4100 17%

7/27/2009 Page 4 of 6 Energy Matters LLC

Solar-Estimate.org
72 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 8,667 -- 11700 26%
Portland, ME – 04102 3.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,573 1118 -- 41%
24.5 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2,136 -- 3500 39%
72 25 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 5,932 -- 10300 42%
Madison, WI – 54405 3.3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,694 1275 -- 33%
24.5 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2,279 -- 3500 35%
--
72 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6,078 10300 41%

Solar-Estimate.org Spa/Pool Assumptions: The following assumptions were used to build the
estimate:

• Equivalent electricity (kWh) produced by solar: Calculated using SRCC rated OG-100 output.
• Type of pool/spa: Outdoor
• Desired pool temperature: 27C (80.6F)
• Desired spa temperature: 40C (104F)
• Pool/Spa Area: as selected by user.
• Pool covered: 16 hours/day
• Spa covered: 22 hours/day
• Pool/spa shading factor: 0%
• Make-up water ratio: 0% (percent/week)
• Cold-water temperature: Average ambient for period modeled
• Solar collector type:
o Unglazed flat-plate type (see Note, below)
o Area: 3 square-meters
o FR (tau Alpha) coefficient: 0.82
o UL coefficient: 16
• Solar Collector slope: Set at Latitude of installation, south facing
• Solar Radiation available: Assumed to be constant for each month throughout the period
modeled.
• Losses due to snow or dirt, pump, piping and solar tank losses: 10%
• Average wind speed: 5 m/s
• Average relative humidity: 60%

Wind Tubine Output Estimates

Wind Turbine Result Comparisons

Scenario: Sioux Falls, Iowa (zipcode: 51101). 5.38 m/s average annual wind speed measured at
50 meters. Wind turbine 10kW rated output (50 m^2 swept area, 8 m diameter, 24 meter hub
height).

Output Results: Solar-Estimate.org RETScreen

15,157 kWh/Year 14,000 kWh/year

7/27/2009 Page 5 of 6 Energy Matters LLC

Solar-Estimate.org
Variance: (14,000 – 15,157)/15,157 = 8%

Wind Turbine Assumptions: The following assumptions were used to build the estimate:

• Wind resources: As per NASA Surface meteorology data adjusted for tower height.
• Turbine Energy Curve: As per manufacturer`s published specifications. Common turbines in
each power class were chosen for pulling this data.
• System configuration: Grid-tied, Non-battery
• Availablility: 98%
• Air foil soiling/icing, wiring & other power losses: 12% (88% delivered)
• Total Energy Delivered: 98% x 88% = 86%
• Installation Costs: $4.5 / watt (large) to $6 / watt (small). Common installation costs for all
locations. Obviously, real installations vary in complexity and accessibility, resulting in higher
installation costs in, say, rugged or remote locations.

7/27/2009 Page 6 of 6 Energy Matters LLC