Latest Design Options: Solar Canopy

April 21, 2010 in Uncategorized by Matt Hutchins | 3 comments

We took in all the feedback from the prior meeting, the steering committee, the blog, and comments from other neighborhood blogs and put together two variations on the theme.  As much as possible, we combined the three prior schemes, since each had fairly strong support, and tried to eliminate the negatives that came out in the comments.

The first underlying theme of the redesign was to increase the solar power potential.  In the new schemes we have the same canopy design.  It is made up of 188 panels and should produce about 35,000 kWh per year.  In terms of household use, the average US consumption is 11040 kWh per year (U.S.Dept of Energy), meaning our canopy would generate enough power for 3.2 households.

In the prior schemes, we had 117, 131, and 160 panels, so we’ve added 17 percent of over the largest solar array we’ve seen in the design thus far (and the array covers 2981 sq. ft.  of the 6300 sq.ft. lot–less than half).

The second main theme was to keep the dramatic form of the Wedge, but eliminate the blind spots for public safety, and overall reduce the amount of structure (no need for an indoor community space with the Association building a block away).  To accomplish this,  we’ve changed the canopy so that it is independent of the parkscape.  The canopy steps east as it slopes up.

Aerial view from 65th Street

The result is that the panels aren’t shaded by the apartment building to the east, and we maintain the dramatic view from 65th to help attract visitors to the park.

  1. Armand MacMurray’s avatar

    Armand MacMurray on April 29, 2010 at 4:29 am

    Since other areas of the country use natural gas and oil energy much more than do we in Seattle, a better number for annual household electricity use is about 18,500 kWh per year, as shown in this document: http://your.kingcounty.gov/ddes/lusd/gb/DEIS_Files/Chapter3/3-6Energy.pdf
    Given that number, the canopy would produce just under 2 households’ worth of electricity per year.

  2. Matt Hutchins’s avatar

    Matt Hutchins on April 30, 2010 at 1:24 am

    Armand–

    Whether it is 2 or 3 households, the takeaway is that the array is not going to be powering the entire neighborhood. It would indeed be a nice symmetry if the substation that used to distribute power to the neighborhood could be used to generate the neighborhood’s equivalent energy use. Sadly the technology is not there yet.

    In any case, I was curious about the assertion about oil/gas or electrical usage, so I looked up some stats from the Department of Energy:

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/detailed_tables2005c&e.html

    (see Space Heating, Total Households by Space Heating Fuels, page 2 of the pdf, under Pacific region) and it seems that primarily in the South does electric space heating get used more that other sources. Anecdotally, most of the houses I’ve visited in Seattle in talking with people about remodels etc, were gas or oil (only a couple had electric heat), because electric heat is generally more expensive:

    http://www.seattle.gov/light/conserve/resident/homeheating/cv5_fcc.asp

    I feel it is reasonable to use the DoE’s stats but I should follow up with City Light–they don’t have anything I could find published about the average use, outside of the reference you quoted above. They do mention above the average heating load as 12000 kWh or 41 mil Btus but not a total use including houses with or without electric space heating.

  3. Armand MacMurray’s avatar

    Armand MacMurray on May 27, 2010 at 2:45 am

    I tend to be a nitpicker at times; since others looking at local solar power might easily run across this site, I thought more local info would be helpful. I suspect that non-electrical heating may be more popular in Seattle these days, now that we’ve had a decade or more of substantial electricity rate increases; electrical heating is also likely to be more popular in multi-dwelling-unit buildings than in single-family buildings, because of the low capital and maintenance costs.