1. Proposal: Energy Project at Duke Farms, Hillsborough, NJ Trecia Ashman Paola Barry Zarina Zayasortiz Proposal ME 423 October 5, 2004

2. Objective  Generate electric power using a photovoltaic cogeneration system for Duke Farms in Hillsborough, NJ  Explore another method for the generation of electricity using a renewable resource

3. Mission of Duke Farms  Serve as a model of land stewardship and open space preservation for education and public enjoyment  Duke Farms Foundation

4. Objective of Duke Farms 1. Advance the practice of environmental planning, horticulture, landscape architecture and the stewardship of natural resources through academic and professional programs 2. Provide a beautiful place where visitors can enjoy the landscape and horticulture and learn about the environment through public programs, school activities and family recreation.

5. Reasons for Duke Farms’ Utilization of Project  Certain potentials for energy development onsite  One of the first steps towards an ongoing partnership between Stevens and Duke Farms  Always had an interest in this type of technology  Concern for the environment  Great willingness to utilize innovative technology  “Preserve the cultural and environmental legacy of Doris Duke’s properties”

6. Approach to Problem  Solar group investigated:  How PV cell works  Average amount of sunlight in NJ area  Efficiency of cells vs. amount of land needed After reading about this project, the team was divided into two groups:  Co-generation group investigated:  How cogeneration works  Benefits of co-generation  Economics of the process

7. Approach (cont.)  Weekly meetings to report findings  Case study performed using an average home in NJ for sample calculations  used as a scale for the Duke Farms Project

8. Gantt Chart

9. Solar Energy  first built in the 1950’s with an efficiency of 4%  PV cells convert sunlight to electricity  Light knocks e- loose from atoms for easy movement

10. Sunlight Distribution Estimated Solar Energy For The Contiguous United States Kilowatt Hours Per Region

11. Worst Case Scenario

12. Our Case Study  Models a typical home in NJ  Took into account the group’s research findings: NJ receives on average 4.6 hrs of sunlight per day, per year PV systems in the Northern Hemisphere should point south The system should be inclined at an angle equal to the area’s latitude 1Kw system generates 1,250Kwhr/yr Typical home uses about 8,500Kwh/yr

13. Our Case Study (cont.)  Using the information that the group gathered:  This means it would take a 6.8 Kw system to run this house for the year without any other power source.

14. Our Case Study (cont.)  By using the following chart, this would take approximately 2,040 ft 2 is using cells with 4% efficiency. PV Module Efficiency (%) PV Capacity Rating (Watts) 10025050010002000400010000100000 430751503006001200300030000 8153875150300600150015000 12102550100200400100010000 1682040801603208008000 Numbers in blue represent the amount of area (ft 2 ) needed

15. Montville, NJ Case Study  4,000 sq. ft. home in NJ.  The system included 36, 167 watt solar energy modules installed on the south roof and the west roof the garage.  A total of 6,012 watts of peak power is capable of being generated from this system.

16. Case Study (cont.)

17. Costs of the system: $45,000 $31,215 rebate received from NJ Clean Energy Program Total Cost to the homeowner was $13,785, not including the $2,000 Federal Tax Credit that is still pending

18. Case Study (cont.) PV System Savings Summary Peak Power Output (watts)Peak Power Output (watts) annualEnergy Output (Kwh/yr)annualEnergy Output (Kwh/yr) First Year Energy SavingsFirst Year Energy Savings TotalEnergy Savings (30 yr life)TotalEnergy Savings (30 yr life) Avoided C02 (tons) (30 yr life)Avoided C02 (tons) (30 yr life) Avoided Nox (pounds) (30 yr life)Avoided Nox (pounds) (30 yr life) Avoided SO2 (pounds) (30 yr life)Avoided SO2 (pounds) (30 yr life) Locked in Net Cost/Kwh (30 yr life)Locked in Net Cost/Kwh (30 yr life) Tax Free Rate of ReturnTax Free Rate of Return Net Present ValueNet Present Value Increased Home ValueIncreased Home Value Peak Power Output (watts)6,012 annual Energy Output (Kwh/yr)6,598 First Year Energy Savings$755.00 Total Energy Savings (30 yr life)$50,137.00 Avoided C02 (tons) (30 yr life)259 Avoided Nox (pounds) (30 yr life)962 Avoided SO2 (pounds) (30 yr life)1,323 Locked in Net Cost/Kwh (30 yr life)$0.07 Tax Free Rate of Return9.10% Net Present Value$4,892.00 Increased Home Value$15,093.00

19. Photovoltaic System Advantages  Environmentally-friendly  Free fuel (sunlight)  Extremely safe and reliable  Can supply onsite electrical loads or back-feed the grid  Any excess power needed can be supplied from the electric utility

20. Photovoltaic System Advantages  Can be designed for variety of applications and operational requirements  No moving parts, is modular, easily expandable, and easily transportable  Can be used either for centralized or distributed power generation  Minimal maintenance and low failure rates

21. Financial Incentives for Photovoltaic System  Mainstay Energy Program Sales of green tags  Solar Renewable Energy Certificates Renewable attributes of solar generation  Solar and Wind Energy Systems Exemption Sales tax exemption

22. Financial Incentives for Photovoltaic System  Renewable Energy Advanced Power Program Awards of up to 20% total construction costs  Renewable Energy Economic Development Program Funding for development of renewable energy businesses and technologies  New Jersey Clean Energy Rebate Program Rebates of up to 70% installed cost

23. Alternate Designs  Lease Equipment  Lease Land  Direct Contracting  Outsourcing for Design

24. Answers Needed from Duke  What is the basis for the Farms’ interest in this technology?  Are there any economic advantages?  Different uses of electricity in the facility? Pricing?  What constraints are there on potential locations?  Feasibility of self-maintained and operated facility?  Contact with any prospective energy company leasers?  Any aesthetic constraints?

25. Anticipated Problems  Cloudy days  Economic Feasibility  Communicating with Duke Farms

26. Site Visit

27. Budget/ Expenses

28. Deliverables  Feasibility study  Alternative design concepts for photovoltaic cogeneration at Duke Farms  Prioritize alternatives according to technical and economic practicality A written progress report will be submitted at the end of the Fall 2004 Semester containing the following:

29. Questions?