Along with this letter, the church should request a cost breakdown. This should detail what

Along with this letter, the church should request a cost breakdown. This should detail what portion of the cost is for labor, panels, mounting equipment, etc. Having costs broken down in this way will help determine which installer is the best choice and it helps clarify their overall cost. Step four is to receive the quotes from the contractors. Generally speaking, any quotes received after the given deadline should be disregarded. If the contractor doesn’t meet the requested deadline for the quote, then they probably can’t be counted on to be reliable when it comes to the installation. Simply put, a company that can’t meet the deadline for a quote is probably not professional enough for a system of this size. The fifth step is to begin the down selecting process. In this part, the church needs to generate several factors that are the most important to them. Generally, cost is one of these. Other important factors to consider are the type and quality of the panels and mounting hardware, expected completion date, or use of local labor. Once the church establishes their important criteria, they can begin to rank the different installers. It is important to keep in mind the two factors of cost and quality of materials and find the best compromise between the two. The sixth and final step is to send letters to all the contractors who submitted quotes. Inform the one the church chose and clarify a payment schedule. It’s also important to inform the contractors that didn’t win and inform them as to why they were not selected. These are the steps involved in requesting a bit from a contractor and are designed to streamline the process for both the contractor and the customer. Following these steps should put the church in the best position to select the installer that they determine to have the greatest value.
Appendix C: Site Dimensions
Appendix D: Morning Shade
Appendix E: Afternoon Shade

Appendix F: Shading with Raised Panels

Appendix G: Meetings and Correspondence
Meeting with Tom Sikina on December 5, 2008:
After introducing ourselves and our project, the first topic of discussion was regarding irradiation data. Mr. Sikina made the point that different sites and organizations that offer irradiation data may not take the same factors into account. For example, some sources do not consider cloud cover. The inclusion or exclusion of such factors in a model could have substantial impacts on a final result. Next, we discussed third party financing. Mr. Sikina told us to think of having a third party finance a solar panel system analogous buying a bond. The third party would own the system for a given period of time (25 years, for example) and the buyer would get electricity at a discounted rate. After the contract is over, the buyer usually has the option to buy the solar panel system from the third party for a small price. Another issue that was brought up was the level of confidence in our model. This level of confidence refers to how sure we are that our model would be an accurate predictor of feasibility. Mr. Sikina urged us to compare our model to similar projects that have been found to be feasible, and run them through our model. After showing Mr. Sikina our economic model, he had a number of comments. One was that we pay particular consideration to the percentage increase in electricity costs per year. Overall, he said that our current estimates were fairly conservative.
The next topic of discussion concerned the accuracy of the ratings that solar panel companies give their panels. On Mr. Sikina’s installation, the solar panels only operate at 85% of the rating on their data sheet. However, Mr. Sinkina knows of another installation using a different brand of panels that operate at 5% over their specifications. It was suggested that the accuracy of solar panel production
data should verified before making a final choice. Furthermore, Mr. Sikina suggested that WPI may be able to act as a third party that rates solar panels against their factory specifications. On the topic of installing solar panels, we discussed the feasibility of changing the angle of solar panels throughout the year to produce more energy. One of the simplest and most effective methods would be a two-pin system, where the panels can be locked into one of two different tilts. At different time during the year, the tilts could be manually adjusted. Mr. Sikina encouraged that we calculate the net energy change from employing such a system. Expanding on the topic of installation and optimum panel placement, we discussed the idea of creating a small scale model to test different panel placements and orientations. A model may give insight to how spacing the panels affect net energy production as well as how shadows are cast in a more complex system. The final topic of the discussion was about the bid process for finding an installer. Mr. Sikina outlined the following steps:
1. Find the system you want to buy 2. Select the bidders 3. Write a bid proposal (RFQ letter) and send to bidders 4. Receive quotes 5. Prepare a justification of the bid (known as a down select) based on your lists of criteria 6. Award the winning bidder
Mr. Sikina suggested that since we may not be involved in the church’s actual installation process that we give the church a recommended bidding process to follow if they decide to go forward with installing a solar panel system.
Meeting with York-Ogunquit United Methodist Church
Research for similar case studies discovered that the York-Ogunquit United Methodist Church in York, Maine, installed a system of solar panels approximately 6 months before our project began. A meeting was set up with this church to find specific information, since both churches are in a similar region, less than 2 hours apart. The meeting began with explaining the project and the specific situation of the Wesley United Methodist Church to Rev. Shook. After detailing the project goals and the needs of the church, Rev. Shook began to share all the information he had available on the solar installation for the his church. On this particular day, it was snowing so taking pictures of the system was difficult. The system the church decided on is rated for 7,700 W, however the maximum output that has been achieved to date has peaked at 6000 W. The system consists of 42 panels that are mounted directly to the raised seams of the steel roof. The installation was completed by Solar Market of Arundel, Maine, in two days for a total system cost of $58,000. Of this overall cost, $11,220 was the cost of 2 days of installation. In this case, the installation cost is about 20% of the total, which led us to reevaluate our previous information stating that installation accounted for nearly half of the total cost. This system produces enough extra electricity in the summer months to provide the church with renewable energy credits with Central Maine Power. These credits cover about half of the winter electricity use. This means that the church only needs to pay for using electricity for about 4 months a year. The other bills are only to cover various other charges, and are usually around 25 dollars. In this way, the church is not only reducing its environmental impact, but it is saving a considerable amount of money in its monthly operating expenses.
The money for the system came from a trust fund set up by the church after selling one of their two buildings several years ago. In addition, the proponents of the system held information sessions for about a year to help the congregation understand the options and benefits of the investment. By holding these sessions, most of the questions people had were answered; leaving very little opposition
by the time a decision was made. Rev. Shook said that the members of the church are glad to be better environmental stewards that set the example for their community just as much as they enjoy the economic benefits.
Correspondence with the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative:
In order to understand the nature and stipulations of the rebate offered through Commonwealth Solar, we contacted a member of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC), the parent organization of Commonwealth solar. Through email conversations, we learned two important factors in regards to the rebate:
1. The church was not considered a public building for the sake of the rebate. This meant it did not qualify for the extra $1.00 per watt entitled to public buildings. 2. Installation had to be done though an installer certified through Commonwealth Solar. This meant that a volunteer installation could not be done without a special agreement through the installer chosen to do the installation.
Correspondence with solar panel installers:
In order to get an estimate of cost breakdowns for the overall price per watt figure given by solar panel installers, we sent an email to seven major installers in the area asking them for estimates. Of the seven companies asked, three responded, and the results can be seen below: Company 1: Solar Panel Components: 75% Mounting Materials 10% Installation Labor Costs 15% Company 2:
Solar panels: 55% Inverter, electrical wiring, disconnects: 15% Mounting hardware: 15%
Installation: 13% Permits: 2% Company 3: Solar Modules: 60% Racking and Inverters: 20% Labor: 20%
Appendix H: Solar panel installers
Below is a list of recommended solar panel installers. These installers have been chosen on their overall system cost per watt, the size of the systems they have previously installed, and recommendations from our sources. New England Breeze, LLC President: Mark Durrenberger Phone: 978-212-2665
Email: Info@NewEnglandBreeze.com
Web: www.newenglandbreeze.com Solar Works, Inc. Regional Project Director: Terry Dupuis, P.E. Phone: 508-360-4907
Email: tdupuid@solarworksinc.com
Web: www.solarwaorksinc.com Berkshire Photovoltaic Services Phone: 413-743-0152
Email: info@bpvs.com
Web: http://www.bpvs.com/ Borrego Solar Systems, Inc. Phone: 978-513-2600
Web: www.borregosolar.com/ Nexamp, Inc. Phone: 978-688-2700
Email: info@nexamp.com
Web: www.nexamp.com SolarFlair, Inc. Phone: 508-293-4293
Email: info@solarflair.com
Web: www.solarflair.com SolarWrights, Inc. Phone: 401-396-9901
Email: info@solarwrights.com
Web: www.solarwrights.com/
Appendix I: Future Solar Panel Costs
It is the widely held expectation that solar panel costs will continue to fall over the coming years, naturally increasing the likelihood that solar panel projects will become feasible. Many cite economics of scale and the experience of other industries: as the demand rises and the supply increases to meet it, larger, more efficient factories are set up. It is difficult to predict with much accuracy what the cost of solar panels will be in the future, but many companies and researchers in field of solar panel pricing expect that the price of solar panels will come down.
Nanosolar, a startup company that has opened a manufacturing facility in Silicon Valley, is claiming that they have found a way to reduce the cost of solar panel production by 80% by “printing” thin film solar panels onto Aluminum and saving significant amounts of silicon. Martin Roscheisen, CEO of Nanosolar, says that they will be the first company to profitably sell solar panels for under $1.00 per watt, and that “with a $1-per-watt panel, it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.”46 These are certainly bold, and if they prove to be true, would make solar panel systems instantly feasible. The company has orders for their first 18 months of production.
46 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/technology/18solar.html?ex=1355634000&en=091b06819623f9d0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss 47 http://dvice.com/archives/2008/03/solar_cell_effi.php
Another small company, 1366 Technologies from Massachusetts, says they have found a breakthrough technology that makes there solar panels 27% more efficient. This will allow them to start selling solar panels soon for $1.30 per watt, and they expect that by 2012 they will also be selling solar panels for $1.00 per watt.47
In a study done by Travis Bradford, president of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development in Cambridge, MA, even with the traditional production methods, solar panel costs could fall by as much as 1/3rd over the next couple years. His research shows that solar panel demand is