Conclusion
Our analysis yielded buildings ______ to be the most suitable sites for photovoltaic
production. The payback period for installing these systems was calculated as a function of
installation expenses, panel prices, and electrical utility rates. It was determined to be _______.
The potential carbon emissions avoided through the production of electricity through these
photovoltaics instead of coal combustion was determined to be _______. This represents a
valuable ecological benefit in consideration of the global warming patterns of the past century
and projected models of future warming. Additionally, installing these panels would bring UNC
incrementally closer to achieving Chancellor Moeser’s goal of 80% carbon emission reductions
by 2050. Recent projects implemented by UNC have helped, including construction of solar
thermal arrays on Morrison, implementation of photovoltaic panels on the Bell Tower parking
deck, and installations of energy efficient lighting and occupancy sensor across campus.
This study represents a preliminary assessment of solar panel suitability on campus.
Further investigations should be undertaken to elaborate upon these findings before the
construction phase. This assessment takes
Building
Number of
Panels
Annual Potential
Output (kWhr/building)
Payback Period (years)
Craige Parking Deck
1424.99
64772949.33
0.368771
0.758992
Dogwood Deck
2233.88
164173398.1
0.228085
0.469437
Woolen Gymnasium
917.4569
27521806.31
0.558789
1.150079
Davis Library
1149.066
39463137.43
0.488081
1.004552
Hooker Research
Building
403.4889
4721795.748
1.432396
to
2.948108
Wilson Library
619.7344
2335390.848
0.905598
To
1.86387
Phillips Hall
530.9212
7991247.058
1.113664
To
2.292105
Eringhaus Dormitory
329.1915
3159167.011
1.746686
3.594969
Lenoir Dining Hall
332.8794
3365916.098
1.657763
to
3.41195
Rosenau Hall
405.804
4420148.062
1.538928
to
3.167369
Conclusion
Our analysis demonstrated the Dogwood Parking Deck, the Cardinal Parking Deck, and
Fetzer Hall to be the most productive sites for photovoltaic electricity production based on size
and annual solar radiation. The payback period for installing these systems was calculated as a
function of installation expenses, panel prices, and electrical utility rates. It was determined to
range from half of a year to fifty years, depending on the building. The total energy savings that
the panels could produce if all campus buildings were covered could produce is $51 billion,
compared to the $85 billion that UNC spent on energy in 2009-2010. The potential carbon
emissions avoided through the production of electricity through these photovoltaics instead of
coal combustion was found to be 440 kilotonnes per year. This represents a valuable
ecological benefit in consideration of the global warming patterns of the past century and
projected models of future warming. Additionally, installing these panels would bring UNC
incrementally closer to achieving Chancellor Moeser’s goal of 80% carbon emission reductions
by 2050. Recent projects implemented by UNC have helped, including construction of solar
thermal arrays on Morrison, implementation of photovoltaic panels on the Bell Tower parking
deck, and installations of energy efficient lighting and occupancy sensor across campus.
This study represents a preliminary assessment of solar panel suitability on campus.
Further investigations should be undertaken to elaborate upon these findings before the
construction phase. This assessment uses a few important assumptions. The potential
electrical outputs of the buildings are higher than previous solar panel feasibility studies
conducted by UNC have yielded. These higher values can be attributed to the large amount of
solar panels the analysis placed onto the roofs. It was assumed that 25% of each building top
would be covered in panels and that each building top was flat. In reality, factors like roof slope
and construction impediments such as eaves, windows, and other rooftop installations would
lower both the number of panels and the potential output of these panels. Additionally, the
payback periods of the solar panel constructions of each building are lower than expected.
These payback periods were calculated using average industry prices that included labor, panel
prices, and the inverter. However, additional construction supports that may be necessary for
panel installation, such as those that would be needed for parking deck installation, are not
included. These extra costs tend to drive up the price of solar panel installations, resulting in
final payback periods much longer than our analysis produced. Furthermore, the Solar
Radiation tool that we applied to our topographical analysis assumes is a model of radiation
itself. Though it factors in atmospheric effects and site latitude and longitude, actual cumulative
solar radiation values vary annually.
In general, it was found that South Campus rooftops are generally better energy
producers when energy output is normalized to rooftop area. North Campus buildings are
affected by higher tree and building density. Our analysis showed that photovoltaic arrays are a
viable option for renewable energy on campus, and can result in significant monetary and
carbon emission savings. The