Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact

Characteristic and Mitigation

220 780 792 804 816 829 842

DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC NASARAWA
P.M.B 001 NASARAWA, NASARAWA STATE

MARCH, 2020

I
Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact
Characteristic and Mitigation

A TECHNICAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO

ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT,
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
FOR THE AWARD OF
HIGHER NATIONAL DIPLOMA (HND)
IN
ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

By

220 780 792 804 816 829 842

MARCH, 2022

II
 Declaration

We hereby declared this project is all our own work and has not been copied in part or

in whole from any other sources. All previous project work, publications, books,

journals, magazines, internet sources have been adequately referenced within the main

report.

Name: Signature: Date:

Project Supervisor: Signature: Date:

Engr. KWEMBE, B. A.

External Examiner: Signature: Date:

Engr. OBANDE Jonathan O.

Head of Department

Name: Engr. Y. S. Mohammed

Signature:

Date:

III
 Letter of Transmittal

School of Engineering Technology

Department of Electrical/Electronic

Engineering Technology

Federal Polytechnic Nasarawa

P.M.B 001

Nasarawa state.

The Head of Department

Electrical/Electronic Technology

Federal Polytechnic Nasarawa

Nasarawa.

Dear Sir,

HIGHER NATIONAL DIPLOMA PROJECT SUBMISSION

In compliance with the policy of the institution, which stipulates that every student at

the end of his//her programme in the school is expected to carry out a supervised

project on design and construction/implementation, we hereby submit our project

titled “Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation” in

partial fulfilment for the award of Higher National Diploma in Electrical/Electronic

Engineering in the Federal Polytechnic Nasarawa.

Yours faithfully

(for the group)

IV
 Acknowledgements

The proponents would like to extend their gratitude and appreciation to the Lord God

Almighty, and the following persons who have shown their support and have been an

integral part in the progress and completion of this project.

To Engr. Mohammed Y. S, our HOD and Engr. Eyigege A. I, our project supervisor,

for their patience and assistance in the preparation and completion of this project

……………………

V
 Table of Contents

Item Page

Title Page………………………………………………………………………….. i
Declaration ……………………………………………………………………….. ii
Letter of Transmittal………………………………………………………………. iii
Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………….. iv
Table of Content ………………………………………………………………….. v
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………. vi
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………... vii
Definition of Terms ………………………………………………………………. viii
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………… ix

Chapter 1 - Introduction..............................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study.................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement...........................................................................................2
1.3 Aim and Objectives of Project.........................................................................4
1.3.1 Aim...........................................................................................................4

1.3.2 Objectives.................................................................................................4

1.4 Justification of the Study.................................................................................4

1.5 Significant of the Study...................................................................................6
1.6 Scope and Limitation of project......................................................................6
1.7 Structure of the Project....................................................................................7
Chapter 2 - Literature Review....................................................................................8
2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................8
2.1 System’s theory of Operation..........................................................................8
2.2 Historical Background of the Project............................................................12
2.3 Modern trend and Remarks...........................................................................14
Chapter 3 - Methodology and Implementation.......................................................15
3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................15
3.2 Data Collection and Material.........................................................................15
3.3 Implementation Analysis...............................................................................15
3.3.1 Description of the System’s Block Diagram..........................................15

VI
 3.3.2 Description of System Circuit Diagram.................................................16

3.4 System Coding (Optional).............................................................................16

3.5 Soldering and Assembly Procedure...............................................................17
3.6 System Operational Guide.............................................................................17
3.7 Bill of Engineering Measurement and Evaluation........................................18
Chapter 4 - Test and Result Analysis.......................................................................19
4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................19
4.2 Tests...............................................................................................................19
4.2.1 System’s subunits test and measurement...............................................19

4.3 Results...........................................................................................................22
Solar One.............................................................................................................22
4.3.1 Analysis of Result..................................................................................23

Chapter 5 - Conclusion and Recommendations......................................................24

5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................24
5.2 Summary and Conclusion..............................................................................24
5.2.1 Summary................................................................................................24

5.2.2 Conclusion..............................................................................................25

5.3 Recommendations.........................................................................................25

VII
 List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 3.1 Block diagram of the Modelling Process 15
Figure 3.2 Circuit diagram of the Device 16

VIII
 List of Tables
Tables Page
Table 3.1 List of components used 16
Table 3.2 Bill of Engineering Measurement and Evaluation 18

IX
 Definitions of Terms:

GSM -- Global System for Mobile Communication

CMOS-- Complementary Metal Oxide

DC -- Direct Current
DOF --- Degree Of Freedom
DSP-- Digital Signal Processor

Quantity Unit Symbol

Voltage Volt V
Current Ampere A
0
Temperature Degree Celsius C

X
 Abstract

An examination of recent environmental assessments for proposed utility ‐scale solar

facilities suggests that stakeholders are increasingly raising the potential negative
scenic impacts of solar facilities as a concern, and some local governments are re-
stricting commercial solar energy development specifically to protect scenic re-
sources. However, relatively little is known about the visibility, visual characteristics,
and visual contrast sources associated with solar facilities that give rise to visual im-
pacts. This study was undertaken primarily to further establish baseline descriptions
of the visual contrasts from utility‐scale solar facilities. Of particular concern is the
occurrence of glinting (momentary flashes of light) and glare (excessively bright light
or high visual contrast that causes visual discomfort to viewers or interferes with the
ability to see objects clearly [CIE 2012]). A secondary goal of the study was to iden-
tify practical visual impact mitigation methods to avoid or reduce visual impacts from
the facilities. Because of the relative newness of utility ‐scale solar facilities, there is
little existing scientific literature available that accurately describes the facilities’ vis-
ual characteristics, and also little information about the effectiveness of visual impact
mitigation methods for these types of facilities.

XI
Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Introduction

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

The study also examined solar mitigation opportunities based on the field

observations, including developing mitigation for specific contrasts observed at a thin‐

film PV facility on BLM‐administered land in Nevada. Field observations revealed

several contrast sources that present mitigation opportunities. These contrast sources

include reflections from metal clips used to affix the solar panels to the support

structures directly below the panels; reflections from panel support structures without

mounted panels; the use of regular geometric forms in panel arrays, cleared areas, and

other linear features; and reflected light from light‐coloured gravel where vegetation

has been cleared around the collector array. In collaboration with the facility siting and

compliance manager, and with input from BLM and a materials contractor, potential

mitigation measures were identified for each of these contrast sources [1]. At the time

of this writing, BLM has directed that the proposed mitigation measures be

implemented in the next currently planned phase of development at this facility.

Study activities consisted primarily of field observations of parabolic trough, thin‐film

photovoltaic (PV), power tower, and concentrating PV facilities in the south-western

U.S. The field observations included photography and descriptive narratives of sources

of visual contrast from the facilities. Other study activities included the development

of visual impact mitigation measures based on the field observations. The photographs

and descriptive data were incorporated into an existing publicly available Web‐based

database of solar facility photos and associated visual data that was developed by

Argonne ES‐1 for use in various studies funded by the U.S. Department of Interior

March 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 1

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Introduction

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service. Results of the field

observations included assessments and photographic documentation of the effects of

distance, viewpoint elevation, and lighting on the visual contrasts of various types of

solar facilities, and the interaction of these variables with specific visual impact

mitigation measures [2]. Photo documentation of the cumulative visual impacts of

multiple solar facilities within a single view shed was developed. A systematic

assessment of the effects of distance on the visibility and visual contrasts of a utility‐

scale power tower (not operating) was conducted, and sources of visual contrast from

the facility were documented. A baseline contrast assessment was conducted for a

utility‐scale concentrating PV facility.

The study also examined solar mitigation opportunities based on the field

observations, including developing mitigation for specific contrasts observed at a thin‐

film PV facility on BLM‐administered land in Nevada. Field observations revealed

several contrast sources that present mitigation opportunities. These contrast sources

include reflections from metal clips used to affix the solar panels to the support

structures directly below the panels; reflections from panel support structures without

mounted panels; the use of regular geometric forms in panel arrays, cleared areas, and

other linear features; and reflected light from light‐coloured gravel where vegetation

has been cleared around the collector array. In collaboration with the facility siting and

compliance manager, and with input from BLM and a materials contractor, potential

mitigation measures were identified for each of these contrast sources. At the time of

this writing, BLM has directed that the proposed mitigation measures be implemented

in the next currently planned phase of development at this facility [3].

March 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 2

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Introduction

1.2 Problem Statement

This report summarizes the results of a study conducted by Argonne National

Laboratory’s (Argonne’s) Environmental Science Division in support of the U.S.

Department of Energy’s Soft Cost Balance of Systems Subprogram under the Sun Shot

Initiative, and funded through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Operating Plan. The study, entitled Utility‐Scale Solar

Energy Facility Visual Impact Characterization and Mitigation Study, documented the

visual characteristics of various utility‐scale solar energy facilities on the basis of field

observations, and developed and described visual impact mitigation strategies for these

types of facilities.

An examination of recent environmental assessments for proposed utility‐scale solar

facilities suggests that stakeholders are increasingly raising the potential negative

scenic impacts of solar facilities as a concern, and some local governments are

restricting commercial solar energy development specifically to protect scenic

resources. However, relatively little is known about the visibility, visual

characteristics, and visual contrast sources associated with solar facilities that give rise

to visual impacts. This study was undertaken primarily to further establish baseline

descriptions of the visual contrasts from utility‐scale solar facilities. Of particular

concern is the occurrence of glinting (momentary flashes of light) and glare

(excessively bright light or high visual contrast that causes visual discomfort to

viewers or interferes with the ability to see objects clearly [CIE 2012]). A secondary

goal of the study was to identify practical visual impact mitigation methods to avoid or

reduce visual impacts from the facilities. Because of the relative newness of utility‐

scale solar facilities, there is little existing scientific literature available that accurately

March 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 3

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Introduction

describes the facilities’ visual characteristics, and also little information about the

effectiveness of visual impact mitigation methods for these types of facilities

1.3 Aim and Objectives of Project

1.3.1 Aim
This project work is aimed at investigating the Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility

Impact Characteristic and Mitigation.

1.3.2 Objectives
 To enable the detailed Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact

Characteristic and Mitigation.

 It enables calculation of voltage drops on installation cables, control of

electrical components,

 3D visualization of the designed object, shading simulation

 An economic analysis can also be carried out with this program

 Design optimization East-West Racking: Improve packing density by reducing

tilt to shade tolerance: Re-factor shade tolerance to optimize profitability

 Inverter Load Ratio: Optimize inverter sizing

1.4 Justification of the Study

The construction and operation of utility‐scale solar energy facilities create visual

contrasts with the surrounding landscape, primarily because of the introduction of

complex and visually distinctive manmade structures on a large scale into the existing

landscape. In the south-western states where most U.S. utility‐scale solar facilities are

in operation or planned, solar facility sites are relatively flat, open spaces, typically

March 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 4

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Introduction

located in visually simple and uncluttered valley landscapes that often lack screening

vegetation or structures. Because of the lack of screening elements, the open sightlines,

and relatively clean air typical of the western U.S., solar facilities may be visible for

long distances, and their large size and distinctive visual qualities can give rise to

strong visual contrasts in some circumstances (BLM and DOE 2010).

The visual contrasts caused by the addition of solar facilities to the landscape give rise

to visual impacts from the facilities. Visual impacts include both the changes to the

visual qualities and character of the landscape resulting from the visual contrasts

created by the facilities, and the emotional responses of persons who view the facilities.

While some persons may find the appearance of solar facilities visually pleasing, others

may feel that the visual contrasts caused by the facilities detract from the visual

qualities of the landscape view. When stakeholders respond negatively to the visual

contrasts of solar facilities, their negative perceptions can result in opposition to

individual proposed solar projects or to utility‐scale solar energy generally. If the

negative perceptions are sufficiently strong, such opposition could potentially result in

costly delays or even cancellations of projects.

Visual impacts were recognized as an obstacle to solar facility and associated

transmission siting in the Sun shot Vision Study (DOE 2012a). While stakeholder

opposition resulting from perceived negative visual impacts is not documented to have

led to the cancellation of any utility‐scale solar projects in the U.S. to date, local

governments, such as San Bernardino and Sonoma Counties in California, have

recently passed ordinances restricting commercial solar facilities specifically to protect

scenic resources, among other values (San Bernardino County Sentinel 2013; Sonoma

County 2013). Visual impacts have increasingly become an important concern not just
March 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 5
Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Introduction

for individuals but for organizations such as tribes, local governments, environmental

groups, and the National Park Service (NPS). Concerns over potential negative visual

impacts of solar facilities are routinely expressed by stakeholders during the

environmental impact assessment processes that are typically required for these types

of facilities (Basin and Range Watch 2010; DOE 2012b; NPCA 2012; Colorado River

Indian Tribes 2013; Kessler 2013; NPS 2013).

1.5 Significant of the Study

Significant findings of the field observations include the following:

- Colour selection for materials surface treatment as directed by BLM resulted in bet-

ter mitigation than alternative colours;

- Glare from a parabolic‐trough facility may be a relatively common occurrence;

- Effective lighting mitigation can result in near‐zero night‐sky impacts for PV facil-

ities;

-Strong glare from a single power tower heliostat was visible at distances exceeding

10 mi (16 km);

- Illuminated power towers were easily visible for distances beyond 20 mi (32 km),

and one was faintly visible for as far as 35 mi (56 km);

- Daytime aerial hazard lighting on power towers was visible for long distances and

added substantially to visual contrast in certain conditions; and

-Reflected light from a concentrating PV facility was plainly visible beyond 25 mi

(40 km).

March 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 6

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Introduction

1.6 Scope and Limitation of project

The field observations recorded visual contrasts associated with utility‐scale thin‐film

PV facilities, CPV facilities, parabolic trough facilities, and power tower facilities.

The study was limited to discussion of visual contrasts (changes in the visual

environment, i.e., changes to what is seen) rather than impacts (changes in landscape

character and human reaction to visual contrasts).

- All of the facilities observed in the study were located in the Nasarawa,

specifically in Nasarawa Main Town.

1.7 Structure of the Project

- This section will discuss the layout of the report; the chapters are;

- Chapter 2 will look at literature on Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact

Characteristic and Mitigation

- Chapter 3 this involve adopting engineering methodology, then implement

the methodology

- Chapter 4 this section will discuss test result, all measurement and analysis

that will be carrying out.

- Chapter 5 will state the conclusion, project appraisal, and recommendation.

March 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 7

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

As noted above, visual impacts caused by utility‐scale solar facilities have been

identified as a concern by the public and other stakeholders such as the NPS for

numerous proposed projects, and certain solar projects, especially solar power tower

projects, have been identified as causing significant visual impacts and significant

impacts to cultural resources through impacts to the visual settings of the cultural

resources. Although research studies have identified visual impacts of solar facilities

as a concern with the exception of the previously mentioned studies conducted and

glint and glare analysis by Ho and colleagues, limited research is available that

formally addresses this topic [4]. This is especially true for research limited to

aesthetic impacts; much of the glint and glare research to date has focused on health

and safety hazards.

2.1 System’s theory of Operation

Until relatively recently, VIAs contained in environmental assessments for utility‐

scale solar facilities proposed on public lands in the United States have varied greatly

in terms of level of detail and accuracy, with few visual impact mitigation

requirements. An examination of various VIAs conducted over the last five years

suggests that stakeholders are increasingly raising potential negative visual impacts of

solar projects as a significant concern, and simultaneously, the level of detail in solar

VIAs has generally increased, with more extensive visual mitigation requirements and

better discussion of potential glare impacts [5]. There are several possible direct and

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 8

 Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

indirect causes for the increased level of concern about visual impacts expressed by

stakeholders and improved treatment of visual impacts in VIAs:

• Increasing visual impacts as more and larger solar facilities are built, especially power

towers, which have substantially larger potential impacts than other solar technolo-

gies;

• Increased awareness of potential visual impacts of solar projects among potentially af-

fected stakeholders, such as NPS;

• Increased awareness of potential visual impacts and better oversight of VIA prepara-

tion on the part of land management and regulatory agencies with oversight responsib-

ilities for environmental assessments, such as BLM and the California Energy Com-

mission (CEC);

• Greater awareness of the potential impacts of solar facilities on the part of VIA pre-

parers and more experience preparing VIAs; and

• The increasing availability of both visual impact‐related research and tools, such as the

studies by Sullivan et al. and Ho’s glare research and analytical tool development.

Obviously, some of these factors are closely related; e.g., increased visual impacts

from larger projects may have driven increasing levels of awareness of visual impacts

on the part of both stakeholders and regulatory agencies. It is likely that the Solar PEIS

increased awareness of potential visual impacts (and impacts of solar facilities in

general) because its large scope and regional focus led to wide distribution and more

widespread attention to the environmental impacts of solar development on the part of

both stakeholders and oversight agencies.

Dedicated Solar Visual Impact Research

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 9

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

The two largest bodies of research dedicated to visual impacts of solar facilities are the

field studies investigating the visibility, visual characteristics, and visual contrasts

associated with utility‐scale solar facilities in the southwestern United States

conducted by Sullivan and colleagues at Argonne for BLM and NPS, and extensive

studies of glinting and glare from solar facilities conducted by Ho and colleagues at

Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia). Additional studies have been conducted at

universities in Europe and the U.S.

Sullivan began field observations of utility‐scale solar facilities in Nevada and

California in 2010 to support the VIA that Argonne was preparing for the Solar PEIS.

At the time, other than short descriptions of selected technologies in EISs, there was

no information available regarding the visibility, visual characteristics, and visual

contrasts associated with utility‐scale solar facilities [6].

Accompanied by the Chief Landscape Architect for BLM, Sullivan observed Nevada

Solar One (NSO), a parabolic trough facility in southern Nevada; the nearby Copper

Mountain thin‐film PV facility, then under construction; the Solar Energy Generation

System (SEGS) parabolic trough complexes at Kramer

Junction and Harper Dry Lake in southern California; and the Sierra Suntower power

tower facility in

Lancaster, California. The observations were conducted in April 2010.

The results of the observations for NSO, SEGS, and Sierra Sun tower have been

summarized by Sullivan (2011). In the course of these field observations, the

occurrence of strong glare visible for several miles was confirmed at the NSO facility,

and was also observed at the SEGS III‐VII complex. Visibility of the NSO and Copper

Mountain facilities at long distances (14+ mi, using Global Positioning System [GPS]

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 10

 Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

measurements) was established for both daytime and night-time observations. The

reflected light from the two Sierra Sun tower 2.5‐MW power towers was determined

to be visible beyond 20 mi. The observations also revealed the extreme variability of

the appearance of the various facilities depending on the viewing geometry, lighting

angle, weather conditions, and the individual characteristics of the facilities observed.

This variability was generally not captured in EISs prepared at the time. The study

results and selected photographs were incorporated into the Solar PEIS.

As a result of the Solar PEIS and specific potential impacts posed by solar energy

development on BLMad ministered lands visible from NPS units, NPS became more

actively engaged in identifying potential impacts of solar energy facilities, and

sponsored a follow‐on study by Argonne to further characterize visual contrast sources

associated with solar facilities. This study involved field observations conducted in

April‐May 2011, September 2011, and January 2012. Objectives of this study included

identifying the source of glare at NSO, further characterizing the spatial and temporal

extent of glare at the trough facilities, and expanding the types and sizes of facilities

observed beyond those identified in the BLM study. Study observations were made at

the same facilities visited during the BLM study, but additional observations were

made at the following facilities:

• Silver State Solar Energy Project (North), a thin‐film PV facility on BLM lands near

Prime, Nevada;

• Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (Ivanpah) , a power tower facility on BLM

lands near Prime, Nevada, under construction at the time of the observations;

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 11

 Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

• Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One (Antelope Valley), a thin‐film PV facility near Lan-

caster, California, under construction at the time of the observations;

• Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, a thin‐film PV facility within the Riverside East Solar En-

ergy Zone near Desert Centre, California;

• CPV modules at the Edward W. Clark Generating Station in Las Vegas, Nevada;

• Nellis Solar Power Plant, a crystalline silicon PV facility at Nellis Air Force Base near

Las Vegas, Nevada;

• Kimberlina Solar Thermal Energy Plant (Kimberlina), a CLFR facility near

Bakersfield, California; and

• Gemasolar Thermo solar (Gemasolar) power tower facility near Seville, Spain.

2.2 Historical Background of the Project

Ho [8] provides a basic summary of the causes of glare from solar facilities,

circumstances that lead to glare occurrence, factors that determine the magnitude of

glare, and general strategies for glare mitigation. Ho summarize approaches to glint

and glare analysis from concentrating solar power plants; discuss the physiology,

optics, and damage mechanisms associated with ocular injury from glare; discuss

safety metrics; and introduce a new metric for temporary flash blindness, the loss of

clear vision due to a bright afterimage after exposure to strong glare. The paper

includes a description of the potential sources of glinting and glare from power

towers (the receiver and heliostats), parabolic troughs (the mirrors and receiver

tubes), and dish engines (the mirrors and the receiver aperture).

Further development on the metrics associated with retinal burn (permanent eye

damage) and flash blindness to determine the distance from concentrating solar

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 12

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

power facility glare sources at which retinal burn and flash blindness from specular

reflections would occur, as well as presenting a Web‐based tool for evaluating

glinting and glare hazards and comparing the irradiance to safety metrics. Ho [10]

presented a case study applying the Web‐based tool for calculating the potential for

glare from a planned thin‐film PV facility to be observed by pilots approaching a

nearby airport.

The Web‐based tool is further described, including testing results subsequently

developed a user manual for the Web‐based tool, the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis

Tool (SGHAT). SGHAT is used to predict potential ocular hazards ranging from

temporary after‐image to retinal burn resulting from glare from PV panels, on the

basis of input provided by users through a Web interface. SGHAT specifies when

glare will occur throughout the year, and can also predict relative energy production

while evaluating alternative designs, layouts, and locations to identify configurations

that maximize energy production while mitigating the impacts of glare.

The general approach to assessing the environmental impacts of solar PV facilities, in

which they point out (a) the particular importance of assessing and mitigating visual

impacts from the facilities and (b) the lack of research and other information for

assessments. They then propose a method for calculating glare from PV panels as a

quantitative approach to VIA.

Ho’s calculations to model the effects of glare from PV panels that would be

experienced by pilots in aircraft flying over a proposed solar facility. They then

compared the predicted effects to the glare effects caused by smooth water, and

suggested that the potential for hazardous glare from flat‐plate PV systems is similar

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 13

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

to that of smooth water, and would therefore not be expected to be a hazard to air

navigation [11].

2.3 Modern trend and Remarks

The results of the observations have been summarized. In the course of these

field observations, the primary source of glare at NSO was identified as the

receiver tubes; glare was observed to be visible from some location during the

course of several sunny days, and was found to be highly sensitive to viewing

geometry, lighting angle, and viewer and mirror movement. Other important

study findings included confirmation that views of solar facilities from elevated

viewpoints showed much greater contrast than ground‐level views, an issue of

particular concern to NPS, because solar facilities are often visible from

mountain ranges within NPS units; visibility of the Gemasolar receiver tower

light at distances exceeding 20 mi, and the visibility of reflected light from dust

near the receiver unit at a distance of approximately 5 mi; the documentation of

significant visual contrasts during the construction phase of both the Ivanpah

and Antelope Valley facilities; and the observation of glare at the Kimberlina

facility [12].

Another important outcome of the NPS study was the design and development of the

Solar Energy Facility Visual Characteristics Study Database, a publicly available

online database of georeferenced photographs of the facilities. The online database is

searchable on a number of parameters, such as facility name, distance between the

observer and the facility, date and time of day, lighting direction, weather, and view

direction. Querying the database returns the study observation data and associated

high‐resolution photographs of the solar facilities in the study, a useful tool for solar

visual impact research. Photos from the current study have been added to the
April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 14
Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

database, which is available at http://web.evs.anl.gov/solarvis/. Accompanying the

database is a Google Earth. KMZ file, which provides access to the study observation

data and photos via the Google Earth “map” interface.

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 15

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

Chapter 3 - Methodology and Implementation

3.1 Introduction

This section presents the methodology used to conduct visual contrast characterization

work for the study, and mitigation measure testing. It also lists and briefly describes

the facilities visited during the assessments.

3.2 Data Collection and Material

The data for the research of this study were obtained both from primary and

secondary sources primary data were collected from various knowledge on the

practical application of electrical and electronics engineering lectures note and by

consulting more experienced person on the discipline and general knowledge on the

generation of electrical power and electromagnetic force. Secondary data on the other

hand were obtained by searching on the internet and text books, journals and library.

3.3 Implementation Analysis

3.3.1 Description of the System’s Block Diagram

Monitoring circuitry Arduino microcontroller

(Voltage, Current, (ADC, USB Interfacing
Temperature and Light Adapter)
Intensity Measurement

SQLite Database (RDBMS

Java Software
and Information Storage
System)

File system (Data Logging)

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 16

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

Figure 3.1 Block Diagram of the modelling Process

3.3.2 Description of System Circuit Diagram

Table 3.1 List of Components used
S/N Components Quantity

1 ADC USB converter 1

2 Solar PVC 2

3 Microcontroller 1

4 Battery 2

5 LM35 1

Figure 3.2 Complete Circuit Diagram of the Device

3.4 System Coding (Optional)

The circuit validation and functionality of the circuit implementation was done via the

following setup.

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 17

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

- Software simulation

- Hardware simulation (bread boarding).

- Software/Hardware simulation

- Hardware implementation

- System Evaluation

The software used for the simulation of this project work is Proteus, the software was

setup using Arduino Uno IDE.

3.5 Soldering and Assembly Procedure

Various required component in regard to the modelling were selected on the Proteus

environment. The component was connected based on the provided circuit diagram.

After the completion of this process the circuit was simulated to observed the working

efficiency of the circuit.

3.6 System Operational Guide

For effective simulation of the circuit the following precaution must be observed.

1. Make sure Proteus software is Installed in your PC

2. Lunch the software

3. Pick the various component in regard to the design

4. Connect the component based on the layout design

5. Simulate the circuit for result.

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 18

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Methodology and Implementation

3.7 Bill of Engineering Measurement and Evaluation

Table 3.2 Bill of Engineering Measurement and Evaluation

S/N Description Quantity Rate Amount

N/Unit (N)

1 PVC 2 20V/7,000 14,000

2 Battery 2 12V/13000 26,000

3 LM 35 1 500 500

4 ADC USB Adapter 1 3,000 3,000

5 Microcontroller/Arduino 1 5,000/3000 8,000

6 Proteus Software 3000 3000

7 Miscellaneous 10,000 10,000

Grand Total 64,500

April 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 19

 Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Test/Measurement/Analysis

Chapter 4 - Test and Result Analysis

4.1 Introduction

This chapter analyses the construction of the project based on tests carried out to

ensure proper operation of the design, the results from the tests and discussions of

liable problems that occurred during the construction were discussed.

4.2 Tests

Testing is one of the important stages in the development of any new product or repair

of existing ones. Because it is very difficult to trace a fault in a finished work,

especially when the work to be tested is too complex. For the purpose of this project

work test and measurement were carried out on all the component used for the

implementation to ensure accuracy.

4.2.1 System’s subunits test and measurement

The visibility of an object in a landscape setting, and its apparent visual characteristics

for any given view, are the result of a complex interplay between the observer, the

observed object, and various factors that affect visual perception, referred to as visibility

factors. Visibility factors also play a key role in determining the degree of visual

contrast from a solar facility, and whether glare events are possible from a facility.

There are eight major types of visibility factors that affect perception of large objects in

the landscape:

• View shed limiting factors. View shed limiting factors are variables associated with ac-

curate view shed analysis, i.e. the determination of whether there is a clear line of sight

from the observer to the observed object. View shed limiting factors include screening

by landforms, vegetation, and structures, as well as the Earth’s curvature and atmo-

March 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 20

 Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Test/Measurement/Analysis

spheric refraction. Screening can be important to the perception of glare from solar facil-

ities, as it can sometimes be used to block visibility of glare spots.

• Viewer characteristics. Viewer characteristics are properties of the persons observing

the object (the viewers) that affect their ability to distinguish the object from its back-

ground, and include visual acuity (how sharp their vision is), viewer engagement and

experience (how actively or intently they are looking at the landscape and how familiar

they are with the object, i.e., if they have seen it or similar objects before), and viewer

motion (whether the viewer is stationary or moving when viewing the object). Viewer

motion is an important factor that determines the occurrence and affects the perception

of glare from solar facilities.

• Lighting factors. Lighting factors include the angle, intensity, and distribution of sun-

light on the project, all of which change in the course of each day and also throughout

the year as the sun’s apparent path through the sky changes. The angle of sunlight is an

important factor that determines the occurrence of glare from solar facilities.

• Atmospheric conditions. Atmospheric conditions refer to the presence of gases, dust,

and other particles in the air between the viewer and the viewed object that affect its vis-

ibility. High humidity levels and high particulate matter concentration affect visibility

by diminishing contrast and subduing colors. Cloudiness and poor atmospheric clarity

will preclude occurrence of glare or diminish its intensity

• Distance. The distance between the viewer and the viewed object affects the apparent

size of the object. Distance is an important visibility factor that affects the perceived in-

tensity of glare from solar facilities.

• Viewing geometry. Viewing geometry refers to the spatial relationship between the

viewer and the viewed object, i.e., looking up or down at an object (observer position)

March 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 21

 Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Test/Measurement/Analysis

and the horizontal direction of the view (bearing). An elevated observer position makes

solar facilities much more visible because the large expanse of the collector/reflector ar-

ray becomes visible, as well as the (generally) contrasting form of the array; these as-

pects of the facility are much less visible from ground level views because of the gener-

ally low profile of solar facilities. Viewing geometry is an important factor that determ-

ines the occurrence of glare from solar facilities.

• Backdrop. The backdrop is the visual background against which the viewed object is

seen. The color, lightness or darkness, and texture of the backdrop affect the visibility of

the objects seen against the backdrop.

• Object visual characteristics. Object visual characteristics refer to the inherent visual

characteristics of the project, such as its size; its scale relative to other objects in view;

its form, line, surface colors and textures; its luminance (both from reflected light and

from lighting sources) and any visible motion of its components. The size, shape, orient-

ation, and surface properties of solar facility components determine whether or not glare

occurs, and its intensity.

In real landscapes, interactions between these visibility factors are extremely important

in determining the actual visibility of an object such as a solar facility (Benson 2005;

BLM 2013a). For example, distance interacts strongly with atmospheric conditions as a

determinant of visibility; a distant facility that is visible on clear days may be

completely invisible on hazy days, or appear grayer and less distinct. Lighting, viewing

geometry, and object visual characteristics interact to determine the presence and length

of both shadows and glare, which strongly affect the dynamic range of visual contrast

the facility creates. Furthermore, some of the factors are highly variable, and the effects

are sensitive to even slight changes in one of the contributing factors; for example, the

March 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 22

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Test/Measurement/Analysis

occurrence and intensity of glare spots on a facility may change rapidly and dramatically

as the viewer moves over very short distances, or as the sun angle changes over a few

minutes..

4.3 Results

This section summarizes results of the field observations of the seven solar facilities

observed in the course of the study. Results are reported for each facility in the

chronological order of visitation. Because the SSN facility is the subject of the

mitigation case study, observations for that facility are discussed in Section 6.2,

Mitigation Case Study: Silver State North.

Solar One

The NSO Facility is a fully operational, 400‐acre (161‐ha), 64‐MW parabolic trough

facility located on private lands approximately 12.5 mi (20 km) south‐southwest of

Boulder City, Nevada, and 1.5 mi (2.4 km) west of US 95, immediately north of El

Dorado Valley Road. The facility ranges in elevation from approximately 1,770 ft to

1,820 ft (540 m to 555 m) above mean sea level.

The facility is situated in the El Dorado Valley and is surrounded by other industrial

development, including the CM 1 and 2 facilities, a gas plant, a substation, numerous

transmission lines, and US 95.

A total of 12 formal observations were made of the NSO facility during the January

2013 and the first May 2013 field trips, at distances ranging from 0.5 mi to11.5 mi

(805 m to 19 km). The majority of NSO observations were conducted to the east or

northeast of the facility in the early morning. Two observations were conducted in the

afternoon and one observation was conducted at night. One of the afternoon

observations was made from the summit of Black Mountain, approximately 9 miles

north northwest of the NSO facility. Observation elevations ranged from 1,765 ft to

March 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 23

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Test/Measurement/Analysis

5,098 ft (538 m to 1,554 m) above mean sea level. Observations were mostly made

under clear weather conditions, with occasional partly cloudy skies or cirrus cloud

cover. Visibility ranged from good to fair.

4.3.1 Analysis of Result

The correlation between the results attained via Simulink and LabVIEW for the

performance simulation of the grid connected integrated PV system can be

synoptically evaluated in terms of the coefficient of determination (𝑅2). For this

reason 𝑅2 was computed for both the low load and high load cases by taking into

consideration the values of all current amplitudes which were calculated.

Specifically, in the 1.5 KW case 𝑅2 was found to be equal to 0.999.

March 2022 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 24

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Conclusion and Recommendations

Chapter 5 - Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction

This study more fully characterized the visual characteristics and visual contrasts

associated with several types of utility‐scale solar facilities operating or under

construction in the Nigeria, based on field observations conducted in 2013. The field

observations were also used to identify particularly effective visual impact mitigation

measures for solar facilities, and to identify and collaboratively develop new

mitigation strategies for use at a particular facility, but with potential application to

other projects.

5.2 Summary and Conclusion

5.2.1 Summary
Project appraisal
Looking into the aim and objectives of this project work we were able to achieved our

main aim of embarking on the project without any shortcoming.

Problems encountered
The problem encounter at the cause of this project work is the software usage which

was latter rectify by consulting a programmer who put us through in the software

usage.

Areas of Application
This study identifies visual contrasts associated with utility‐scale solar energy

facilities and identifies potential visual mitigation strategies to avoid or reduce

the visual impacts. The study results can be used to

March, 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 25

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Conclusion and Recommendations

1) Better understand the nature of visual contrasts associated with utility‐scale

solar facilities, and the mechanisms by which solar facilities cause visual con-

trasts that generate visual impacts;

2) Better assess potential visual impacts of solar facilities; and

3) Select and apply effective mitigation measures.

The intended users of the document and the study results it contains include

• Professionals conducting visual impact assessments (VIAs) for solar en-

ergy facilities and specifying visual impact mitigation measures;

• Agency staff who regulate or approve VIAs and associated mitigation

measures;

• Solar industry professionals who must implement mitigation measures;

and

• Other stakeholders who may be affected by the visual impacts of solar fa-

cilities.

5.2.2 Conclusion
Results of the field observations included assessments and photographic

documentation of the effects of distance, viewpoint elevation, and lighting on the

visual contrasts of various types of solar facilities, including three thin‐film PV

facilities, two power tower facilities, a parabolic trough facility, and a CPV facility.

The interaction of these visibility factors with specific visual impact mitigation

measures was also observed and documented. Photo‐documentation of the cumulative

visual impacts of multiple solar facilities within a single viewshed was developed. A

systematic assessment of the effects of distance on the visibility and visual contrasts of

a utility‐scale power tower (not operating) was conducted, and sources of visual
March, 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 26
Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Conclusion and Recommendations

contrast from the facility were documented. A baseline contrast assessment was

conducted for a utility‐scale CPV.

5.3 Recommendations

For anyone who might want to improve on this project work we strongly recommend

that orders simulation software should be considered too, it shouldn’t be limited to

Nasarawa Main Town Alone.

March, 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 27

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Conclusion and Recommendations

References
[1] Barrett, S. 2013. Glare Factor: Solar Installations and Airports. Solar Industry, vol.

6(5). June. Available at

http://solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1306/FEAT_02_Glare_Factor.html.

Accessed Dec. 7, 2013.

[2] Basin and Range Watch. 2010. Rebuttal Brief, Basin and Range Watch. TN

#: 200075. California Energy Commission Docket for Ivanpah Solar Electric

Generating System. Docket No. 07‐AFC‐5. April. Available at

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/Regulatory/Non

%20Active%20AFC's/07‐AFC‐

[3] 5%20Ivanpah%20Solar%20Electric/2010/Apr/TN%2056281%2004‐15‐

[4] 10%20Rebuttal%20Brief%20from%20Basin%20‐%20Range%20Watch.pdf.

Accessed Dec. 6, 2013.

[5] Benson, J.F. 2005. “Visualization of Windfarms,” in Visualization in

Landscape and Environmental

[6] Planning: Technology and Applications. I. Bishop and E. Lange (editors).

New York: Taylor & Francis.

[7] BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008. Standard Environmental Color

Chart CC‐001. June.

[8] BLM. 2010a. California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment/Final

Environmental Impact Statement for Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating

System FEIS‐10‐31. July. Available at

[9] http://lpo.energy.gov/wp‐content/uploads/2010/10/Final‐EIS‐Appendix‐A‐

Summary‐of‐Comments.pdf. Accessed Dec. 5, 2013.

March, 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 28

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Conclusion and Recommendations

[10] BLM. 2010b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Silver State

Solar Energy Project. DOI No. FES

[11] 10‐50.September. Available at:

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/field_offices/las_vegas_field

_office/energy/nextlight_other/FEIS_FedReg_NOA.Par.21644.File.dat/Silver

%20State%20Solar%20FEIS%20Volume%20I.pdf. Accessed Dec. 6, 2013.

[12] BLM. 2013a. Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of

Renewable Energy Facilities. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 342 pp. April. Available

athttp://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY_

_AND_RESOURCE_

[13] PROTECTION_/energy/renewable_references.Par.1568.File.dat/

RenewableEnergyVisualImpacts_BMPs.p df. Accessed Dec. 5, 2013.

[14] BLM. 2013b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for

the Silver State Solar South

[15] Project and Proposed Las Vegas Field Office Resource Management Plan

Amendment. DOI‐BLM‐NVS010‐2012‐0067‐EIS. September. Available at

[16] http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/

Silver_State_Solar_South/final_seis.html. Accessed Dec. 6, 2013.

March, 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 29

Utility-Scale Solar Energy Facility Impact Characteristic and Mitigation Conclusion and Recommendations

APENDIX A

March, 2022, 220, 780, 792, 804, 816,829, 842 30