22R0002_Atch4-ELECTRICAL ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY.pdf

ELECTRICAL ENERGY FEASIBILITY STUDY

QUUG 16-1001

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 1

100% SUBMITTAL

ELECTRICAL ENERGY

FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX 2

Installation of a photovoltaic farm

TASK ORDER NUMBER: 18-F-0015

PROJECT NUMBER: QUUG 16-1001

AERTEC INGENIERÍA Y DESARROLLOS S.L.U.

JAN 2020

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 2

100 % Submittal. Electrical Energy Feasibility Study APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose and scope

1.2. Project background

1.3. Methodology

2. Electrical system description and current condition

2.1. General description

2.2. Consumption analysis

3. Photovoltaic installation

3.1. Assumptions and pre-sizing

3.2. Pre-sizing

3.3. Alternatives

3.4. Meteorological data

3.5. Design criteria

3.6. Typical configuration

3.7. Simulations

3.8. Shading analysis

3.9. Conclusions

3.10. Injection of energy into the existing installation

4. Economic evaluation

4.1. Economic analysis

4.2. Solar energy profitability

4.3. Incentives to the production of electricity using renewable energy

5. Assessment of different alternatives

5.1. Evaluation of the alternatives

5.2. Evaluation of solar PV module technology

5.3. Cross Analysis Current Condition Vs. Selected Alternative

6. Photovoltaic farm location

7. Solar glare analysis

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 3

8. Drawings

9. Annexes List of tables Table 1. Pre-sizing options Table 2. Studied alternatives Table 3. Geographical coordinates Table 4. Monthly meteorological values Table 5. K value depending on the latitude Table 6. Nominal power connected to a single inverter Table 7. Alternatives 1 and 2. 500 kWh PV parameters Table 8. Alternatives 1 and 2. Monthly energy injected with 5 inverters Table 9. Alternatives 3 and 4. 800 kWh PV parameters Table 10. Alternatives 3 and 4. Monthly energy injected with 8 inverters Table 11. Pricing periods Table 12. Electricity tariff Table 13. Electrical Energy Average Cost Table 14. Estimated costs of the PV plant Table 15. Maintenance service quotation Table 16. Payback period Table 17. Initial investment Table 18. Electrical energy required by the supplier in solar hours Table 19. Saved CO2 emissions Table 20. Occupied area Table 21. Payback period Table 22. Feasibility of alternatives Table 23. Evaluation of the technology alternatives

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 4

Table 24. Crossed Analysis Current Condition Vs Selected Alternative Table 25. Glare analysis ................................................................................................................................ 39 List of figures Figure 1. Hourly consumption curve during solar hours Figure 2. Monthly consumption profile in solar hours Figure 3. Solar path in Morón de la Frontera Figure 4. Distance between solar panels Figure 5. PV Schematic diagram Figure 6. Solar module technical characteristics Figure 7. Inverter technical characteristics Figure 8. Consumption vs Production curves for all months of the year. Alternatives 1 and 2 Figure 9. Consumption vs Production curves for all months of the year. Alternatives 3 and 4 Figure 10. Shadow analysis Figure 11. Financial balance. PV fixed system of 800 kWh Figure 12. Financial balance. PV tracking system of 800 kWh Figure 13. Financial balance. PV fixed system of 500 kWh Figure 14. Financial balance. PV tracking system of 500 kWh Figure 15. Location of the PV array in relation of the ATC tower and the threshold Figure 16. Hazard plot for 2-mile flight path receptor Figure 17. Location and duration of glare hazard .......................................................................................... 41 List of diagrams Diagram 1. Overview Electrical Energy System. Moron AB

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 5

1. Introduction

The present appendix is part of the works developed for the project Electrical Energy Feasibility Study of the Moron Air Base (MAB) as 100% phase submittal of the task order QUUG 16-1001 / 18-F-00015.

The study has been completed by AERTEC Solutions.

1.1. Purpose and scope

This appendix aims to study and analyze the feasibility of the installation of a photovoltaic farm in the Moron AB, to generate clean energy using an inexhaustible resource.

1.2. Project background

The Morón AB electrical infrastructure was initially designed in the late 50s, when the base was constructed and despite there have been renovation projects/upgrades from that time the concept has not significantly changed: same power plant generators and distribution transformers installed in 1957 are still in use, while frequency converters were added decades afterward to provide commercial services to the base, same radial-type electrical distribution that has been looped in some points afterward, etc.

In 1996 commercial power was incorporated as the main energy supply for the base, but electrical in-base distribution was maintained with US standards; therefore, a system to convert Spanish electricity to US standards was put in place.

The technical documentation collected was the following:

▪ Drawing R-746-02 Morón AB Electrical Distribution System

▪ Drawing R-746-03 66 kV Substation One Line Diagram

▪ Drawing R-746-4 Power Plant One Line Diagram

▪ Last invoices of Electric Energy Supply

▪ Other projects drawings and information:

− Project 01-1004 CNS Power Converters

− Project 08-1015 RPR Main Substation

− Project 09-1019 Installation of Frequency Converters

− Project 10-1001 PH1, PH2, PH3, and PH4 RPL Overhead electrical distribution system

− Project 10-1042 RPL Base Generators

− Project 11-1016 RPR Underground Feeder # 1

− Project 95-1002 RPR H Frame

− Project 95-1007 CNS Commercial Power

− Project 13-105 Planning Services for update electrical & fuel infrastructure

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 6

1.3. Methodology

The following methodology is used to perform the study of the photovoltaic farm:

▪ Initial evaluation of the electricity consumption based on the invoices from the electrical company for the year 2018 and the hourly consumption curve, both provided by MAB personnel.

▪ Study and analysis of different photovoltaic sizes

▪ Study and analysis of different technologies based on fixed and solar tracking systems.

▪ Evaluation of the different technologies used in the panel manufacturing

▪ Solar glare assessment of the proposed photovoltaic farm.

2. Electrical system description and current condition

In this section, a brief general overview of the electrical system and its condition is included, since it is considered helpful for the understanding of the current situation and the proposed alternatives.

2.1. General description

The MAB receives a single electrical supply from the high voltage network, a property of ENDESA DISTRIBUCIÓN. This electrical supply serves both Spanish and USAF electrical system and connects at the Electrical Main Substation, where the incoming voltage level (66 kV) is transformed to a lower voltage (20 kV for the Spanish grid and 10 kV for the USAF grid).

The USAF electrical system has a single primary high voltage line (10 kV) that connects the Electrical Main Substation with the Power Plant.

The Power Plant actually works as an electrical substation for the conversion of the electrical frequency from 50 Hz (Spanish standard frequency) to 60 Hz (USAF Standard frequency) using a Rotary Converter and Static frequency converters units, in addition there are 3 power generators (Main Power Units) that were originally designed as single prime power source, however, those serve nowadays as emergency power source.

Finally, a new transformation step converts the voltage level up to 12,47 kV for the interior high voltage distribution grid, where 4 lines (feeders) energize the different transformers that serve the buildings of the MAB. In addition, some of the buildings of the MAB have local emergency power generators, so that in case of failure in the high voltage feeder, the power supply to the critical loads is guaranteed.

A system overview with the summarized information is listed below, in addition the single line diagram represents the main items of the facility:

▪ External supply from an electrical commercial company (66 kV @ 50 Hz) coming from substation

“Arahal”

▪ Main substation, which includes both Spanish (5 MVA) and USAF (3 MVA) transformers

▪ Electric prime distribution high voltage line for the USAF system (10 kV @ 50 Hz)

▪ Power Plant facility (frequency converters, emergency power generators and voltage level final transformation)

▪ Internal high voltage feeder system (12,47 kV @ 60 Hz)

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 7

Diagram 1. Overview Electrical Energy System. Moron AB

Source: AERTEC Solutions

2.2. Consumption analysis

The analysis is based on the invoices from the electrical company and the hourly consumption curve, both provided by MAB personnel, reflecting the energy consumption values from January 2018 to December 2018 during solar hours.

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 8

Figure 1. Hourly consumption curve during solar hours

Source: Aertec Solutions

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 9

According to the hourly consumption curve, the monthly consumption curve considering only the solar hours has been generated:

Figure 2. Monthly consumption profile in solar hours

From the previous figures is concluded the following:

- The maximum consumption is corresponding to summer months

- From figure 1, the maximum value of hourly consumption in solar hours is 1.172,82 kVAh

- From figure 1, the value of hourly consumption in solar hours during almost the entire year is around

800 kVAh

3. Photovoltaic installation

An analysis and a study of a photovoltaic installation is described in this section according to the UFC 3-540- 08 and UFC 3-440-01.

3.1. Assumptions and pre-sizing

For the design of the Photovoltaic Farm, the following premises have been considered:

- The photovoltaic farm is not connected to the net of the electrical commercial company

- The facility will be designed with no energy storage devices

This involves that, in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the installation during the entire year, the sizing of the PV shall be such that the electrical power produced will be consumed and there is no excess of produced energy during the solar hours.

These assumptions will simplify the design of the facility and minimize the capital expenditures

3.2. Pre-sizing

According to data in figure 1, the following sizes of PV will be simulated and analyzed

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 13

Table 6. Nominal power connected to a single inverter

Source: Aertec Solutions

As shown in the table before, each inverter must allow a maximum nominal power over 112 kW.

A typical schematics for the connection of a 8 inverters facility is shown below

Figure 5. PV Schematic diagram

The characteristics of the solar panel and the inverter used for the calculations are shown below:

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 14

Figure 6. Solar module technical characteristics

Source: PVsyst

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 15

Figure 7. Inverter technical characteristics

As can be seen in the characteristics of the inverter used for the simulation, the maximum power allowed per inverter is 130 kW, over the 112 kW calculated before.

3.7. Simulations

3.7.1. Alternatives 1 and 2

This section includes the simulation of the PV considering a size of 500 kWp, for both fixed and 2-axis traking configuration.

In this case, the photovoltaic generator is made up of 5 inverters of 100 kW each.

Each inverter manages the power generated by 4 groups of 100 PV panels each group

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 17

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 18

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 19

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 20

Figure 8. Consumption vs Production curves for all months of the year. Alternatives 1 and 2

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 22

The following figures represent the average value for one day of each month of the following parameters:

- The hourly consumption curves of the MAB

- Hourly production of solar energy with fixed panels

- Hourly solar production with two-axis tracking

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 23

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 24

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 25

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 26

Figure 9. Consumption vs Production curves for all months of the year. Alternatives 3 and 4

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 27

3.8. Shading analysis

The shading analysis is necessary to select a proper location and distribution of the panels with the aim of minimizing the power losses due to shadows.

The study has been performed using the solar position in the more significant dates (winter and summer solstices, spring and autumn equinox).

The distribution shall comply with UFC 3-440-01 paragraph 3-3.1, avoiding shadows between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., when the bulk of energy occurs.

This point is especially relevant for 2-axis tracking systems, since this kind of systems need of relative high structures where the projected shadows may be large in certain hours.

The following images show the shadow analysis for a distance of 45 meters between group of panels for 2-axis tracking systems proposed alternatives.

Figure 10. Shadow analysis

3.9. Conclusions

The main conclusions that may be extracted from the figures before are:

- The PV system for the 800 kWh installed can meet most of the energy demand in solar hours, producing 50 kWh of exceeding around 13 solar hours in the months of April and May

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 28

- The 500 kWh solar system supplies nearly half of the energy required in solar hours.

- The solar tracking system on the two axes considerably improves the performance of the installation at the earliest and latest solar hours.

3.10. Injection of energy into the existing installation

There are two possible injection points for the energy coming from the PV system, either in the existing 4,16 kV busbar where the three MAB generating sets are connected, or in the 12.47 kV busbar from which the MV electrical feeders come out.

The only element that would be modified by selecting one option or another is the transformer to be projected at the output of the solar installation, which in the first case must raise the voltage to 4,16 kV and in the second case to 12.47 kV.

The selection of 4,16 kV would involve:

- The solar installation would operate as an additional source of energy at the level of the existing generator sets.

- The injection of power is located upstream the existing distribution transformer of the Power Plant, thus this element would be necessary for the performance of the system.

The main characteristics of injecting at 12.47 kV result in:

- By distributing the energy at a higher voltage, there will be lower losses on the line connecting the solar installation to the 12.47 kV busbar

- In case of failure of the distribution transformer of the Power Plant, a part of the critical services could be covered directly with the energy produced by the Photovoltaic Farm.

The selection of any of the two options would not be significant in the quotation resulting in the photovoltaic plant.

4. Economic evaluation

4.1. Economic analysis

The access tariff model to the electrical energy network that currently has the MAB is the 6.2. In this tariff the consumption is categorized in different typical days as follows:

▪ Day type A: working days Monday to Friday in high season

▪ Day type B: working days Monday to Friday in medium season

▪ Day type C: working days Monday to Friday in low season, except August

▪ Day type D: Saturdays, Sundays, Public Holidays and August

And the seasons are defined according to:

- High season: January, February, November and December

- Medium season: March, April, July and October

- Low season: May, June, August and September

And the pricing period distribution is based on the next table:

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 32

Figure 12. Financial balance. PV tracking system of 800 kWh

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 33

Figure 13. Financial balance. PV fixed system of 500 kWh

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 34

Figure 14. Financial balance. PV tracking system of 500 kWh

4.3. Incentives to the production of electricity using renewable energy

The Agencia Andaluza de la Energía has been consulted about the possible subsidies related to the photovoltaic installation, being the entity Air Force of United State of America out of the scope according to the section 4 of the Order of 23 December 2016. In addition, the order sets that the maximum value of the power installation to get the subsidy is 100 KW.

5. Assessment of different alternatives

5.1. Evaluation of the alternatives

This section evaluates the different alternatives previously studied, based on the most relevant variables in a photovoltaic system. These variables have been weighted in the evaluation matrix according to their importance.

Each alternative has been scored from 1 to 3, were 1 represent the worst studied alternative and 3 the best.

Each analyzed variable has been weighted as follows:

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 40

Figure 16. Hazard plot for 2-mile flight path receptor

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 41

Figure 17. Location and duration of glare hazard

100% Submittal APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 42

8. Drawings

100% Submittal

APPENDIX 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm 43

9. Annexes

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.A Detailed results 1

FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX 2

ANNEX 2.A Detailed results

OCT 2019

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.A Detailed results 2

100 % Submittal. Electrical Energy Feasibility Study Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm Annex 2.A Detailed results Contents

1. Introduction

2. Alternative 1 PV 500 kWh fixed

3. Alternative 2 PV 500 kWh 2-axis tracking

4. Alternative 3 PV 800 kWh fixed

5. Alternative 4 PV 800 kWh 2-axis tracking

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.A Detailed results 3

1. Introduction

The present annex shows the detailed results obtained for the four alternatives previously considered in

Appendix 2 of the project Electrical Energy Feasibility Study of the Moron Air Base (MAB).

The study has been completed by AERTEC Solutions.

The annex includes the following alternatives:

- Alternative 1 Photovoltaic farm, 500 kWp fixed

- Alternative 2 Photovoltaic farm, 500 kWp, 2-axis tracking

- Alternative 3 Photovoltaic farm, 800 kWp fixed

- Alternative 4 Photovoltaic farm, 800 kWp, 2-axis tracking

The studies have been performed with PVSys software as per UFC 3-440-01

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.A Detailed results 4

2. Alternative 1 PV 500 kWh fixed

05/11/19PVSYST V6.84

Grid-Connected System: Simulation parameters

PVsyst Evaluation mode

Project : Air Base Moron

Geographical Site Morón de la Frontera Country Spain

Situation Latitude 37.12° N Longitude -5.45° W

Time defined as Legal Time Time zone UT+1 Altitude 236 m

Albedo 0.20

Meteo data: Morón de la Frontera Meteonorm 7.2 (1996-2010), Sat=100% (Modified by user) -

Sintético

Simulation variant : Nueva variante de simulación de moron

Simulation date 05/11/19 10h07

Simulation for the 1st year of operation

Simulation parameters System type No 3D scene defined, no shadings

Collector Plane Orientation Tilt 27° Azimuth 0°

Models used Transposition Perez Diffuse Perez, Meteonorm

Horizon Free Horizon

Near Shadings No Shadings

User's needs : Unlimited load (grid)

PV Array Characteristics

PV module Si-poly Model JKM 280PP-60 (Plus)-V

Manufacturer JinkosolarOriginal PVsyst database

Number of PV modules In series 20 modules In parallel 100 strings

Total number of PV modules Nb. modules 2000 Unit Nom. Power 280 Wp

Array global power Nominal (STC) 560 kWp At operating cond. 506 kWp (50°C)

Array operating characteristics (50°C) U mpp 581 V I mpp 872 A

Total area Module area 3274 m² Cell area 2920 m²

Inverter Model Ingecon Sun 100

Manufacturer IngeteamOriginal PVsyst database

Characteristics Operating Voltage 405-750 V Unit Nom. Power 100 kWac

Inverter pack Nb. of inverters 5 units Total Power 500 kWac

Pnom ratio 1.12

PV Array loss factors

Thermal Loss factor Uc (const) 20.0 W/m²K Uv (wind) 0.0 W/m²K / m/s

Wiring Ohmic Loss Global array res. 11 mOhm Loss Fraction 1.5 % at STC

Module Quality Loss Loss Fraction -0.8 %

Module Mismatch Losses Loss Fraction 1.0 % at MPP

Strings Mismatch loss Loss Fraction 0.10 %

Module average degradation Year no 1 Loss factor 0.4 %/year

Mismatch due to degradation Imp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year Vmp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year

Incidence effect, ASHRAE parametrization IAM = 1 - bo (1/cos i - 1) bo Param. 0.05

Page 1/8

Grid-Connected System: Economic evaluation

PVsyst Evaluation mode

Project : Air Base Moron

Simulation variant : Nueva variante de simulación de moron Simulation for the 1st year of operation

Main system parameters System type No 3D scene defined, no shadings

PV Field Orientation tilt 27° azimuth 0°

PV modules Model JKM 280PP-60 (Plus)-V Pnom 280 Wp

PV Array Nb. of modules 2000 Pnom total 560 kWp

Inverter Model Ingecon Sun 100 Pnom 100 kW ac

Inverter pack Nb. of units 5.0 Pnom total 500 kW ac

User's needs Unlimited load (grid)

Investment

Direct costs

PV installation 813'379.00 EUR

813'379.00Net investment (CAPEX) EUR

Operating costs

Manten.

Salaries 1'125.00 EUR / year

Reparation 1'125.00 EUR / year

Cleaning 1'125.00 EUR / year

Security fund 1'125.00 EUR / year

Total (OPEX) 4'500.00 EUR / year

Operating costs (OPEX) incl. Inflation (3.00%) 6'376.76 EUR / year

System summary

Net investment 813'379.00 EUR

Own funds 813'379.00 EUR

Loan 0.00 EUR

Total yearly cost (inc. inflation 3.00 % / year) 6'376.76 EUR / year

Produced Energy 1031 MWh / year

Cost of produced energy 0.038 EUR / kWh

(sum of costs over lifetime / total production over lifetime)

Page 5/8

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.A Detailed results 5

3. Alternative 2 PV 500 kWh 2-axis tracking

PVsyst Evaluation mode

Project : Air Base Moron

Geographical Site Morón de la Frontera Country Spain

Situation Latitude 37.12° N Longitude -5.45° W

Time defined as Legal Time Time zone UT+1 Altitude 236 m

Albedo 0.20

Meteo data: Morón de la Frontera Meteonorm 7.2 (1996-2010), Sat=100% (Modified by user) -

Sintético

Simulation variant : Nueva variante de simulación de moron

Simulation date 04/11/19 12h03

Simulation for the 1st year of operation

Simulation parameters System type No 3D scene defined, no shadings

Tracking plane, two axis Minimum Tilt 0° Maximum Tilt 80°

Rotation Limitations Minimum Azimuth -120° Maximum Azimuth 120°

Models used Transposition Perez Diffuse Perez, Meteonorm

Horizon Free Horizon

Near Shadings No Shadings

User's needs : Unlimited load (grid)

PV Array Characteristics

PV module Si-poly Model JKM 280PP-60 (Plus)-V

Manufacturer JinkosolarOriginal PVsyst database

Number of PV modules In series 20 modules In parallel 100 strings

Total number of PV modules Nb. modules 2000 Unit Nom. Power 280 Wp

Array global power Nominal (STC) 560 kWp At operating cond. 506 kWp (50°C)

Array operating characteristics (50°C) U mpp 581 V I mpp 872 A

Total area Module area 3274 m² Cell area 2920 m²

Inverter Model Ingecon Sun 100

Manufacturer IngeteamOriginal PVsyst database

Characteristics Operating Voltage 405-750 V Unit Nom. Power 100 kWac

Inverter pack Nb. of inverters 5 units Total Power 500 kWac

Pnom ratio 1.12

PV Array loss factors

Thermal Loss factor Uc (const) 20.0 W/m²K Uv (wind) 0.0 W/m²K / m/s

Wiring Ohmic Loss Global array res. 11 mOhm Loss Fraction 1.5 % at STC

Module Quality Loss Loss Fraction -0.8 %

Module Mismatch Losses Loss Fraction 1.0 % at MPP

Strings Mismatch loss Loss Fraction 0.10 %

Module average degradation Year no 1 Loss factor 0.4 %/year

Mismatch due to degradation Imp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year Vmp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year

PVsyst Evaluation mode

Project : Air Base Moron

Simulation variant : Nueva variante de simulación de moron Simulation for the 1st year of operation

Main system parameters System type No 3D scene defined, no shadings

PV Field Orientation Tracking two axis

PV modules Model JKM 280PP-60 (Plus)-V Pnom 280 Wp

PV Array Nb. of modules 2000 Pnom total 560 kWp

Inverter Model Ingecon Sun 100 Pnom 100 kW ac

Inverter pack Nb. of units 5.0 Pnom total 500 kW ac

User's needs Unlimited load (grid)

Investment

Direct costs

PV Installation 1'069'448.00 EUR

1'069'448.00Net investment (CAPEX) EUR

Operating costs

Manten.

Salaries 4'784.40 EUR / year

Total (OPEX) 4'784.40 EUR / year

Operating costs (OPEX) incl. Inflation (3.00%) 6'779.78 EUR / year

System summary

Net investment 1'069'448.00 EUR

Own funds 1'069'448.00 EUR

Loan 0.00 EUR

Total yearly cost (inc. inflation 3.00 % / year) 6'779.78 EUR / year

Produced Energy 1441 MWh / year

Cost of produced energy 0.034 EUR / kWh

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.A Detailed results 6

4. Alternative 3 PV 800 kWh fixed

PVsyst Evaluation mode

Project : Air Base Moron

Geographical Site Morón de la Frontera Country Spain

Situation Latitude 37.12° N Longitude -5.45° W

Time defined as Legal Time Time zone UT+1 Altitude 236 m

Albedo 0.20

Meteo data: Morón de la Frontera Meteonorm 7.2 (1996-2010), Sat=100% (Modified by user) -

Sintético

Simulation variant : Nueva variante de simulación de moron

Simulation date 25/10/19 14h20

Simulation parameters System type No 3D scene defined, no shadings

Collector Plane Orientation Tilt 27° Azimuth 0°

Models used Transposition Perez Diffuse Perez, Meteonorm

Horizon Free Horizon

Near Shadings No Shadings

User's needs : Unlimited load (grid)

PV Array Characteristics

PV module Si-poly Model JKM 280PP-60 (Plus)-V

Manufacturer JinkosolarOriginal PVsyst database

Number of PV modules In series 20 modules In parallel 160 strings

Total number of PV modules Nb. modules 3200 Unit Nom. Power 280 Wp

Array global power Nominal (STC) 896 kWp At operating cond. 810 kWp (50°C)

Array operating characteristics (50°C) U mpp 581 V I mpp 1395 A

Total area Module area 5238 m² Cell area 4673 m²

Inverter Model Ingecon Sun 100

Manufacturer IngeteamOriginal PVsyst database

Characteristics Operating Voltage 405-750 V Unit Nom. Power 100 kWac

Inverter pack Nb. of inverters 8 units Total Power 800 kWac

Pnom ratio 1.12

PV Array loss factors

Thermal Loss factor Uc (const) 20.0 W/m²K Uv (wind) 0.0 W/m²K / m/s

Wiring Ohmic Loss Global array res. 7.0 mOhm Loss Fraction 1.5 % at STC

Module Quality Loss Loss Fraction -0.8 %

Module Mismatch Losses Loss Fraction 1.0 % at MPP

Strings Mismatch loss Loss Fraction 0.10 %

PVsyst Evaluation mode

Project : Air Base Moron

Simulation variant : Nueva variante de simulación de moron

Main system parameters System type No 3D scene defined, no shadings

PV Field Orientation tilt 27° azimuth 0°

PV modules Model JKM 280PP-60 (Plus)-V Pnom 280 Wp

PV Array Nb. of modules 3200 Pnom total 896 kWp

Inverter Model Ingecon Sun 100 Pnom 100 kW ac

Inverter pack Nb. of units 8.0 Pnom total 800 kW ac

User's needs Unlimited load (grid)

Investment

Direct costs

PV installation 987'209.00 EUR

987'209.00Net investment (CAPEX) EUR

Operating costs

Manten. 4'500.00 EUR / year

Total (OPEX) 4'500.00 EUR / year

Operating costs (OPEX) incl. Inflation (3.00%) 6'376.76 EUR / year

System summary

Net investment 987'209.00 EUR

Own funds 987'209.00 EUR

Loan 0.00 EUR

Total yearly cost (inc. inflation 3.00 % / year) 6'376.76 EUR / year

Produced Energy 1653 MWh / year

Cost of produced energy 0.028 EUR / kWh

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.A Detailed results 7

5. Alternative 4 PV 800 kWh 2-axis tracking

PVsyst Evaluation mode

Project : Air Base Moron

Geographical Site Morón de la Frontera Country Spain

Situation Latitude 37.12° N Longitude -5.45° W

Time defined as Legal Time Time zone UT+1 Altitude 236 m

Albedo 0.20

Meteo data: Morón de la Frontera Meteonorm 7.2 (1996-2010), Sat=100% (Modified by user) -

Sintético

Simulation variant : Nueva variante de simulación de moron

Simulation date 30/10/19 17h46

Simulation for the 1st year of operation

Simulation parameters System type No 3D scene defined, no shadings

Tracking plane, two axis Minimum Tilt 0° Maximum Tilt 80°

Rotation Limitations Minimum Azimuth -120° Maximum Azimuth 120°

Models used Transposition Perez Diffuse Perez, Meteonorm

Horizon Free Horizon

Near Shadings No Shadings

User's needs : Unlimited load (grid)

PV Array Characteristics

PV module Si-poly Model JKM 280PP-60 (Plus)-V

Manufacturer JinkosolarOriginal PVsyst database

Number of PV modules In series 20 modules In parallel 160 strings

Total number of PV modules Nb. modules 3200 Unit Nom. Power 280 Wp

Array global power Nominal (STC) 896 kWp At operating cond. 810 kWp (50°C)

Array operating characteristics (50°C) U mpp 581 V I mpp 1395 A

Total area Module area 5238 m² Cell area 4673 m²

Inverter Model Ingecon Sun 100

Manufacturer IngeteamOriginal PVsyst database

Characteristics Operating Voltage 405-750 V Unit Nom. Power 100 kWac

Inverter pack Nb. of inverters 8 units Total Power 800 kWac

Pnom ratio 1.12

PV Array loss factors

Thermal Loss factor Uc (const) 20.0 W/m²K Uv (wind) 0.0 W/m²K / m/s

Wiring Ohmic Loss Global array res. 7.0 mOhm Loss Fraction 1.5 % at STC

Module Quality Loss Loss Fraction -0.8 %

Module Mismatch Losses Loss Fraction 1.0 % at MPP

Strings Mismatch loss Loss Fraction 0.10 %

Module average degradation Year no 1 Loss factor 0.4 %/year

Mismatch due to degradation Imp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year Vmp RMS dispersion 0.4 %/year

PVsyst Evaluation mode

Project : Air Base Moron

Simulation variant : Nueva variante de simulación de moron Simulation for the 1st year of operation

Main system parameters System type No 3D scene defined, no shadings

PV Field Orientation Tracking two axis

PV modules Model JKM 280PP-60 (Plus)-V Pnom 280 Wp

PV Array Nb. of modules 3200 Pnom total 896 kWp

Inverter Model Ingecon Sun 100 Pnom 100 kW ac

Inverter pack Nb. of units 8.0 Pnom total 800 kW ac

User's needs Unlimited load (grid)

Investment

Direct costs

PV Installation 1'603'068.00 EUR

1'603'068.00Net investment (CAPEX) EUR

Operating costs

Manten.

Salaries 4'784.40 EUR / year

Total (OPEX) 4'784.40 EUR / year

Operating costs (OPEX) incl. Inflation (3.00%) 6'779.78 EUR / year

System summary

Net investment 1'603'068.00 EUR

Own funds 1'603'068.00 EUR

Loan 0.00 EUR

Total yearly cost (inc. inflation 3.00 % / year) 6'779.78 EUR / year

Produced Energy 2306 MWh / year

Cost of produced energy 0.031 EUR / kWh

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis 1

FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX 2

ANNEX 2.B BLCC Analysis

JAN 2019

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis 2

100 % Submittal. Electrical Energy Feasibility Study Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis Contents

1. Introduction

2. Alternative 1 PV 500 kWh fixed

3. Alternative 2 PV 500 kWh 2-axis tracking

4. Alternative 3 PV 800 kWh fixed

5. Alternative 4 PV 800 kWh 2-axis tracking

6. Crossed Analysis Current Condition Vs. Alternative 3 PV 800 kWh 2-Fixed

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis 3

1. Introduction

The present annex shows the BLCC Analysis results obtained for the four alternatives previously considered in Appendix 2 of the project Electrical Energy Feasibility Study of the Moron Air Base (MAB).

The study has been completed by AERTEC Solutions.

The annex includes the following alternatives:

- Alternative 1 Photovoltaic farm, 500 kWp fixed

- Alternative 2 Photovoltaic farm, 500 kWp, 2-axis tracking

- Alternative 3 Photovoltaic farm, 800 kWp fixed

- Alternative 4 Photovoltaic farm, 800 kWp, 2-axis tracking

The studies have been performed with BLCC5.3.19, selecting ECIP analysis

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis 4

2. Alternative 1 PV 500 kWh fixed

NIST BLCC 5.3-19: ECIP Report Consistent with Federal Life Cycle Cost Methodology and Procedures, 10 CFR, Part 436, Subpart A The LCC calculations are based on the FEMP discount rates and energy price escalation rates updated on April 1, 2019.

Location: U.S. Average Discount Rate: 3% Project Title:

Electrical Energy Feasibility Study Analyst: AERTEC Solutions

Base Date:

February 1, 2020 Preparation Date:

Thu Feb 06 10:32:51

CET 2020

BOD: August 1, 2021 Economic Life: 25 years 0 months

File Name:

C:\Users\SOL\BLCC

5.3-19\projects\EEFS_BLCC_Alternative_1.xml

1. Investment Construction Cost $613,871

SIOH $153,468

Design Cost $46,040 Total Cost $813,380 Salvage Value of Existing Equipment $6,139 Public Utility Company $0 Total Investment $807,241

2. Energy and Water Savings (+) or Cost (-) Base Date Savings, unit costs, & discounted savings

Item Unit Cost Usage Savings Annual Savings Discount Factor Discounted Savings

Electricity $18.68035 3,519.3 MBtu $65,741 16.133 $1,060,596 Energy Subtotal 3,519.3 MBtu $65,741 $1,060,596

Water Subtotal 0.0 Mgal $0 $0

Total $65,741 $1,060,596

3. Non-Energy Savings (+) or Cost (-) Item Savings/Cost Occurrence Discount Factor Discounted Savings/Cost

Annually Recurring $5,000 Annual 16.447 $82,236

Non-Annually Recurring

Non-Annually Recurring Subtotal $0 $0

Total $5,000 $82,236

4. First year savings $70,741

5. Simple Payback Period (in years) 11.41 (total investment/first-year savings)

6. Total Discounted Operational Savings $1,142,832

(total discounted operational savings/total

7. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) 1.42 ( p g / investment)

8. Adjusted Internal Rate of Return (AIRR) 4.44% (1+d)*SIR^(1/n)-1; d=discount rate, n=years in study period

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis 5

3. Alternative 2 PV 500 kWh 2-axis tracking

The LCC calculations are based on the FEMP discount rates and energy price escalation rates updated on April 1, 2019.

Location: U.S. Average Discount Rate: 3% Project Title:

Electrical Energy Feasibility Study Analyst: AERTEC Solutions

Base Date:

February 1, 2020 Preparation Date:

Thu Feb 06 10:34:36

CET 2020

BOD: August 1, 2021 Economic Life: 25 years 0 months

File Name:

C:\Users\SOL\BLCC

5.3-19\projects\EEFS_BLCC_Alternative_2.xml

1. Investment Construction Cost $807,131

SIOH $201,783

Design Cost $60,535 Total Cost $1,069,449 Salvage Value of Existing Equipment $8,071 Public Utility Company $0 Total Investment $1,061,378

2. Energy and Water Savings (+) or Cost (-) Base Date Savings, unit costs, & discounted savings

Item Unit Cost Usage Savings Annual Savings Discount Factor Discounted Savings

Electricity $18.68035 4,917.2 MBtu $91,856 16.133 $1,481,894 Energy Subtotal 4,917.2 MBtu $91,856 $1,481,894

Water Subtotal 0.0 Mgal $0 $0

Total $91,856 $1,481,894

3. Non-Energy Savings (+) or Cost (-) Item Savings/Cost Occurrence Discount Factor Discounted Savings/Cost

Annually Recurring $10,000 Annual 16.447 $164,472

Non-Annually Recurring

Non-Annually Recurring Subtotal $0 $0

Total $10,000 $164,472

4. First year savings $101,856

5. Simple Payback Period (in years) 10.42 (total investment/first-year savings)

6. Total Discounted Operational Savings $1,646,366

7. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) 1.55 ( p g /

8. Adjusted Internal Rate of Return (AIRR) 4.82% (1+d)*SIR^(1/n)-1; d=discount rate, n=years in

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis 6

4. Alternative 3 PV 800 kWh fixed

The LCC calculations are based on the FEMP discount rates and energy price escalation rates updated on April 1, 2019.

Location: U.S. Average Discount Rate: 3% Project Title:

Electrical Energy Feasibility Study Analyst: AERTEC Solutions

Base Date:

February 1, 2020 Preparation Date:

Thu Feb 06 10:37:34

CET 2020

BOD: August 1, 2021 Economic Life: 25 years 0 months

File Name:

C:\Users\SOL\BLCC

5.3-19\projects\EEFS_BLCC_Alternative_3.xml

1. Investment Construction Cost $745,064

SIOH $186,266

Design Cost $55,880 Total Cost $987,210 Salvage Value of Existing Equipment $7,451 Public Utility Company $0 Total Investment $979,759

2. Energy and Water Savings (+) or Cost (-) Base Date Savings, unit costs, & discounted savings

Item Unit Cost Usage Savings Annual Savings Discount Factor Discounted Savings

Electricity $18.68035 5,639.9 MBtu $105,356 16.133 $1,699,690 Energy Subtotal 5,639.9 MBtu $105,356 $1,699,690

Water Subtotal 0.0 Mgal $0 $0

Total $105,356 $1,699,690

3. Non-Energy Savings (+) or Cost (-) Item Savings/Cost Occurrence Discount Factor Discounted Savings/Cost

Annually Recurring $6,000 Annual 16.447 $98,683

Non-Annually Recurring

Non-Annually Recurring Subtotal $0 $0

Total $6,000 $98,683

4. First year savings $111,356

5. Simple Payback Period (in years) 8.80 (total investment/first-year savings)

6. Total Discounted Operational Savings $1,798,373

7. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) 1.84 ( p g /

8. Adjusted Internal Rate of Return (AIRR) 5.53% (1+d)*SIR^(1/n)-1; d=discount rate, n=years in

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis 7

5. Alternative 4 PV 800 kWh 2-axis tracking

The LCC calculations are based on the FEMP discount rates and energy price escalation rates updated on April 1, 2019.

Location: U.S. Average Discount Rate: 3% Project Title:

Electrical Energy Feasibility Study Analyst: AERTEC Solutions

Base Date:

February 1, 2020 Preparation Date:

Thu Feb 06 10:39:36

CET 2020

BOD: August 1, 2021 Economic Life: 25 years 0 months

File Name:

C:\Users\SOL\BLCC

5.3-19\projects\EEFS_BLCC_Alternative_4.xml

1. Investment Construction Cost $1,209,863

SIOH $302,466

Design Cost $90,740 Total Cost $1,603,068 Salvage Value of Existing Equipment $12,000 Public Utility Company $0 Total Investment $1,591,068

2. Energy and Water Savings (+) or Cost (-) Base Date Savings, unit costs, & discounted savings

Item Unit Cost Usage Savings Annual Savings Discount Factor Discounted Savings

Electricity $18.68035 7,880.7 MBtu $147,214 16.133 $2,374,979 Energy Subtotal 7,880.7 MBtu $147,214 $2,374,979

Water Subtotal 0.0 Mgal $0 $0

Total $147,214 $2,374,979

3. Non-Energy Savings (+) or Cost (-) Item Savings/Cost Occurrence Discount Factor Discounted Savings/Cost

Annually Recurring $12,000 Annual 16.447 $197,366

Non-Annually Recurring

Non-Annually Recurring Subtotal $0 $0

Total $12,000 $197,366

4. First year savings $159,214

5. Simple Payback Period (in years) 9.99 (total investment/first-year savings)

6. Total Discounted Operational Savings $2,572,345

7. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) 1.62 ( p g /

8. Adjusted Internal Rate of Return (AIRR) 5.00% (1+d)*SIR^(1/n)-1; d=discount rate, n=years in

100% Submittal Appendix 2 Installation of a photovoltaic farm

Annex 2.B BLCC Analysis 8

6. Crossed Analysis Current Condition Vs. Alternative 3 PV 800 kWh 2-Fixed

NIST BLCC 5.3-19: Comparative Analysis

Base Case: Current Condition Alternative: Alternative 3, 800 kWp Fixed General Information File Name: C:\Users\SOL\BLCC 5.3-19\projects\EEFS_BLCC_Crossed_Analysis.xml Date of Study: Thu Feb 06 12:27:22 CET 2020 Project Name: Electrical Energy Feasibility Study MAB Project Location: U.S. Average Analysis Type: MILCON Analysis, Energy Project Analyst: AERTEC Solutions Comment Crossed analysis Current Version Vs. Alternative 3 Base Date: February 1, 2020 Beneficial Occupancy Date: August 1, 2021 Study Period: 25 years 0 months(February 1, 2020 through January 31, 2045) Discount Rate: 3% Discounting Convention: Mid-Year

Comparison of Present-Value Costs PV Life-Cycle Cost

Base Case Alternative Savings from Alternative

Initial Investment Costs:

Capital Requirements as of Base Date $0 $987,210 -$987,210 Future Costs:

Energy Consumption Costs $6,428,520 $4,616,745 $1,811,775 Energy Demand Charges $1,320,217 $1,320,217 $0 Energy Utility Rebates $0 $0 $0 Water Costs $0 $0 $0 Routine Recurring and Non-Recurring OM&R Costs $0 $98,683 -$98,683 Major Repair and Replacements $0 $0 $0 Residual Value at End of Study Period $0 -$4,715 $4,715

Subtotal (for Future Cost Items) $7,748,737 $6,030,931 $1,717,807

Total PV Life-Cycle Cost $7,748,737 $7,018,141 $730,597

Net Savings from Alternative Compared with Base Case PV of Non-Investment Savings $1,713,092

- Increased Total Investment $982,495

Net Savings $730,597

Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR)

SIR = 1 74

SIR = 1.74

Adjusted Internal Rate of Return

AIRR = 5.32%

Payback Period Estimated Years to Payback (from beginning of Beneficial Occupancy Period) Simple Payback occurs in year 10 Discounted Payback occurs in year 12

Energy Savings Summary Energy Savings Summary (in stated units) Energy -----Average Annual Consumption----- Life-Cycle

Type Base Case Alternative Savings Savings

Electricity 5,864,802.0 kWh 4,211,902.0 kWh 1,652,900.0 kWh 38,846,166.9 kWh

Energy Savings Summary (in MBtu) Energy -----Average Annual Consumption----- Life-Cycle

Type Base Case Alternative Savings Savings

Electricity 20,011.5 MBtu 14,371.6 MBtu 5,639.9 MBtu 132,548.6 MBtu

Emissions Reduction Summary Energy -----Average Annual Emissions----- Life-Cycle

Type Base Case Alternative Reduction Reduction

Electricity

CO2 3,915,123.58 kg 2,811,709.05 kg 1,103,414.53 kg 25,932,255.54 kg SO2 19,728.16 kg 14,168.10 kg 5,560.06 kg 130,671.66 kg NOx 5,842.99 kg 4,196.23 kg 1,646.75 kg 38,701.66 kg

Total:

CO2 3,915,123.58 kg 2,811,709.05 kg 1,103,414.53 kg 25,932,255.54 kg SO2 19,728.16 kg 14,168.10 kg 5,560.06 kg 130,671.66 kg NOx 5,842.99 kg 4,196.23 kg 1,646.75 kg 38,701.66 kg