4/24/2007Iowa State University Program to Evaluate Alternative Energy Sources EE / CprE 492 May Team Members Christina Erickson Daniel Harkness Matt Kuker Parker Lohrenz Joe Moeller Faculty Advisors Mr. Tom Baird Dr. John Lamont Prof. Ralph Patterson III Dr. Greg Smith Client Senior Design

4/24/2007Iowa State University Project Overview

4/24/2007Iowa State University Outline  Introductory material  Problem statement  Intended users and uses  Assumptions and limitations  Project activity description  Present accomplishments  Approaches considered  Research and design  Implementation and testing  Resources and schedules  Closing materials  Project evaluation  Future work  Lessons learned

4/24/2007Iowa State University Purpose  An economic comparison is currently unavailable for use  Educate users about alternative energy sources  Website to evaluate economics of alternative energy sources  Educate users about process of economic evaluation

4/24/2007Iowa State University Definitions  Alternative energy source: A source of energy which supplements or replaces natural gas, propane, or utility-provided electricity.  Availability: The desired output of an alternative energy source.  Criticality: The amount of reliability that is required by the user’s load.

4/24/2007Iowa State University Acknowledgements  Dr. John Lamont  Professor Ralph Patterson III  Mr. Tom Baird  Dr. Greg Smith

4/24/2007Iowa State University Problem Statement  General problem statement  Lack of centralized locations to find alternative energy source information  No easy way to evaluate the economic effectiveness of sources for a given situation  Need a unified location to research and evaluate alternative energy sources

4/24/2007Iowa State University Problem Solution  General solution-approach statement  Publicly accessible website  Research was completed for a set of alternative energy sources  A web-based program was designed to input electrical needs and output possible alternatives sources and their cost effectiveness

4/24/2007Iowa State University Operating Environment  The website resides on a server that is not owned or operated by the project team.  It is understood that the server is in a controlled environment.  The operating environment of users is unknown.

4/24/2007Iowa State University Intended Users and Uses  Intended users  Property owners  Use alternative as a primary source  Use alternative as a supplemental source  Hobbyists  Dissatisfied utility customers  Intended uses  Obtain the most cost effective recommendations  Allow user to research alternative sources  Offer other suggestions for energy-conscious improvements.

4/24/2007Iowa State University Assumptions  Web user can read English  Electric rates will not change after implementation of the recommendation  User will have access to all necessary information  The user will have basic computer skills

4/24/2007Iowa State University Limitations  Multiple energy sources will not be evaluated together  No special software will be required for the user  Biomass is not being considered as an alternative energy source  The weather databases will only be considering a small amount of cities to be evaluated.

4/24/2007Iowa State University End Product  Allows users to input specific energy needs and information about their environment.  Return a set of recommendations  List of possible sources  Installation cost  Alternative source power rating  Expected annual output  Expected payback time  Online help system to assist users through the process.

4/24/2007Iowa State University Present Accomplishments  Publicly available website  Educational component  Example scenario  Economic calculator  Online help  Databases  Weather data for 205 cities  Equipment data for complete implementation  Framework for future refinement

4/24/2007Iowa State University Approach  Considered  Straight HTML  Java Applets  ASP.Net  Used  PHP  Economic calculator  Plain HTML  All other pages

4/24/2007Iowa State University Project Definition  Alternative sources considered  Inputs  Outputs  Limitations and assumptions

4/24/2007Iowa State University Research  Sources  Wind, solar, fuel cell, hydro, microturbines, biomass  Setup  Installation cost  Power rating  Modes of operation  Stand-alone or grid-tied  Setup  Equipment cost  Weather data  205 cities in 50 states  Wind speed, temperature, solar absorption  Monthly and annual averages

4/24/2007Iowa State University Design  Data processing flow  Economic analysis  Website  Site map  Page layout  Calculator design

4/24/2007Iowa State University Design

4/24/2007Iowa State University Testing  Testing  Developed 5 test scenarios  Checked design with 3  Checked implementation with 1  Results  Design was solid  Implementation minimally functional  Associated modification activities  None

4/24/2007Iowa State University Implementation  None

4/24/2007Iowa State University Other Activities  Attended alternative energy conference at University of Minnesota  Toured MidAmerican Energy wind farm in Blairsburg, Iowa

4/24/2007Iowa State University Estimated Resources - Personnel

4/24/2007Iowa State University Estimated Resources - Financial

4/24/2007Iowa State University Estimated Resources - Other  Server space  PHP  mySQL  Apache  Survey volunteers  Multiple lined up  PHP books

4/24/2007Iowa State University Schedules

4/24/2007Iowa State University Evaluation

4/24/2007Iowa State University Commercialization  Defeats purpose of project

4/24/2007Iowa State University Future Work Recommendations  Web browser compatibility repairs  Input verification  More robust online help  Load definition  Site layout definition  Combination of new and existing loads  Increased modes of operation

4/24/2007Iowa State University Future Work Recommendations  Multiple alternative sources  Expand beyond electrical energy  Mixture of fuel sources  Financial considerations  Labor and maintenance costs  Loans and grants  Utility rate changes  Utility rate structures  Distribution line costs

4/24/2007Iowa State University Lessons Learned  What went well  Web design  Research  Identification of future work  What did not go well  Scope management  Team cohesiveness  Task distribution and reporting  What technical knowledge was gained  Web design  Site power system layout  mySQL

4/24/2007Iowa State University Lessons Learned  What non-technical knowledge was gained  Time management  Communication skills  Teamwork  What would be done differently if the project was to be done again  Narrow scope sooner  Deal with intra-team conflicts sooner

4/24/2007Iowa State University Risk and Risk Management  Anticipated risks  Incomplete data  Incorrect approach  Anticipated risks encountered  None encountered  Unanticipated risks encountered  Vague project scope  Team participation  Resultant changes  Assumptions and limitations expanded  Specific tasks were assigned and deadlines given

4/24/2007Iowa State University 34 Summary  There was a lack of websites to find information on a variety of alternative energy sources  This project began to remedy the problem  The scope is very broad  Continuation projects have been created  These projects will complete the work began here

4/24/2007Iowa State University Demonstration

4/24/2007Iowa State University Questions