Glare and Glint Analysis - Yarriambiack Shire Councilyarriambiack.vic.gov.au/media/uploads/Glare_Glint_Analysis_Report.pdf · 5.1 Summary of results for Fixed Tilt and Single Axis

Revision D – 25-Jan-2017 Prepared for – RES Australia – ABN: 55 106 637 754

Murra Warra Solar Farm RES Australia 25-Jan-2017

Glare and Glint Analysis Murra Warra Solar Farm

AECOM

Murra Warra Solar Farm Glare and Glint Analysis Commercial-in-Confidence


Glare and Glint Analysis Murra Warra Solar Farm

Client: RES Australia ABN: 55 106 637 754

Prepared by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd Level 10, Tower Two, 727 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3008, Australia T +61 3 9653 1234 F +61 3 9654 7117 www.aecom.com ABN 20 093 846 925

25-Jan-2017

Job No.: 60516612

AECOM in Australia and New Zealand is certified to ISO9001, ISO14001 AS/NZS4801 and OHSAS18001.

© AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM). All rights reserved.

AECOM has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and AECOM’s experience, having regard to assumptions that AECOM can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. AECOM may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety.

AECOM



Quality Information Document Glare and Glint Analysis

Ref 60516612

Date 25-Jan-2017

Prepared by Joep Vaessen

Reviewed by Glen Conway

Revision History

Revision Revision Date Details

Authorised

Name/Position Signature

A 06-Oct-2016

Draft for Client review Kristina Butler Project Manager

B 11-Nov-2016

Clients review notes incorporated

Kristina Butler Project Manager

C 06-Dec-2016

Final - Clients review notes incorporated


D 25-Jan-2017

Final - Clients review notes incorporated


AECOM



Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Scope 1 1.2 Glare and Glint from Solar Panels 1

2.0 Methodology 3 2.1 Glare Modelling Tool 3 2.2 Model Inputs 3 2.3 Observation Point Locations 4 2.4 Assumptions 5 2.5 Limitations 6 2.6 Glare Hazard Definitions 6 2.7 Observation Point Model Outputs 6

3.0 Results 8 3.1 Fixed Tilt Overall Summary 8 3.2 Single Axis Tracking Overall Summary 8

4.0 Air Traffic 9 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 10

5.1 Summary of results for Fixed Tilt and Single Axis Tracking 10 5.2 Conclusions 11

5.2.1 Summary of Potential Glare and Glint Impacts 11 5.2.2 Fixed tilt conclusions 11 5.2.3 Single Axis Tracking Conclusions 11 5.2.4 Minimal impact on airport due to distance 11

5.3 Recommendations / Mitigation Options 12 5.3.1 Dimboola Minyip Road (OP-1, OP-2) 12 5.3.2 Dimboola Minyip Road (OP-5) 13 5.3.3 Dimboola Minyip Road (OP-3) 14 5.3.4 Dimboola Minyip Road (OP-4) 15

Appendix A Fixed Tilt Observation Point Results A

Appendix B Single Axis Tracker Observation Point Results B

Appendix C SGHAT Model Results C

Appendix D Site Drawings D

AECOM



1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Scope RES Australia is proposing to install a photovoltaic solar farm at 2296 Dimboola-Minyip Road, Blackheath VIC 3401, approximately 32 km from Horsham, VIC. The proposed site will be called the Murra Warra Solar Farm (MWSF) and will comprise of of solar panels installed as either:

a ~235MWAC fixed tilt orientation facing north at a tilt of 25° to horizontal, or

a ~150MWAC single axis tracking system designed to track the sun from east to west .

This report has been prepared by AECOM on behalf of RES Australia to assess the potential glare and glint impact of the MWSF. The MWSF design is currently under development and while the layout of modules has yet to be finalised, this report is based on the conservative assumption that the the facility will cover an area of about 325ha as shown in the site drawings provided in Appendix D. To provide project flexibility the study has considered both fixed tilt and tracking systems for panel mounting.

The objectives of this study are as follows:

Conduct a glare and glint potential analysis of MWSF;

Identify potential glare impacts at five nominated observation points nearby the MWSF, based on both fixed tilt and single axis tracking systems and ;

Recommend improvements or mitigation options available to RES Australia to reduce glare issues identified for the local residents and public.

Given the proposed MWSF is approximately 15km from the nearest air strip at Warracknabeal Airport and 30 km to the nearest public airport at Horsham, it is considered unlikely that the MWSF will create any glint or glare issues for pilots on approach to or on departure from the nearest airstrips. Similarly, given the MWSF will be positioned beyond the visual circuit of the aerodrome (typically up to 5 km) there is expected to be no impact on air traffic controllers. CASA have advised1 that they use guidance from the US Federal Aviation Administration who recommend that any proposed solar farms that are below the direct approach paths to an airport (aligned with a runway) and within a distance of around 5 nautical miles (approximately 10kms) from a runway end should be referred for assessment. Accordingly there was no reason to perform specific assessment of aircraft flight paths in this study.

1.2 Glare and Glint from Solar Panels Glare is caused by a significant contrast between a light source and ambient/background illuminance. Glare is usually described as direct sunlight or reflected sunlight from a surface for a continuous period. Glint on the other hand is usually defined as a brief flash of light that can cause discomfort to the viewer. The concept of this study is to identify the times of day that there may be potential glare or glint from a fixed tilt or single axis tracking solar farm, at five defined observer points nearby.

Solar panels are designed to absorb as much light as possible to maximise power generation, however because of their glass front and metal frames, it is inevitable that some reflection of sunlight will occur. Nevertheless, compared to other everyday objects, solar panels reflect less light than grass, crops, forest and water as can be seen in Figure 1.

1 Email to Allison Hawke from Matthew Windebank (CASA) 14 June 2016

AECOM



2

Figure 1 Comparative reflection analysis (% reflection of light)2

The angle of incidence of the sunlight is also relevant in determining the amount of reflection. Figure 2 below shows the typical amount of sunlight reflected by different surfaces, dependent on sunlight angle. Note that solar module glass typically has anti-reflection (AR) coatings applied during the manufacturing process to further reduce reflection.

Figure 2 Analysis of typical material reflectivity with sunlight angle

2 Spaven Consulting 2011, Solar Photovoltaic Energy Facilities: Assessment of Potential for Impact on Aviation, January 2011

AECOM



3

2.0 Methodology

2.1 Glare Modelling Tool An industry standard technical modelling tool has been used to conduct the glare impact assessments for this study. The tool used is the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) developed by Sandia National Laboratories currently licensed by FORGE Solar. This tool is required by the United States Federal Aviation Administration for glare hazard analyses near airports, and is also recognised by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

If glare is found, the tool calculates the retinal irradiance and subtended angle (size/distance) of the glare source to predict potential ocular hazards ranging from temporary after-image to retinal burn. The results are presented in a simple, easy-to-interpret plot that specifies when glare will occur throughout the year, with color codes indicating the potential ocular hazard.

This study looks at glare impacts at five static observation points near ground level (at viewing height) and considers both fixed tilt and single axis tracking systems.

2.2 Model Inputs The MWSF site is located south of 2296 Dimboola-Minyip Road, Blackheath VIC 3401. The site has coordinates approximately 36°26'49.41"S and 142°20'15.15"E and has ground elevation of approximately 130m (RL). The solar glare tool employs an interactive Google Maps interface whereby the outline of the solar array can be manually drafted. The tool simulates an annual sunpath based on the chosen location, to calculate sun positions and vectors.

To obtain glare impact for any solar array the model requires a number of inputs regarding the characteristics of the solar farm including panel orientation, slope and height above ground.

Solar analysis parameters including sun angle and irradiance were entered along with specific optical characteristics. An example of input data used for all of the modelling is shown below:

Table 1 Example of Input Data for SGHAT model

Input Data Units Value Comment

Timezone UTC +11 VIC timezone

Peak DNI kW/m2 1000 Conservative estimate based on data collected near the Site

Orientation of array degrees 0.0 North

Solar panel surface material

- Smooth glass with Anti-Reflective Coating

Typical Industry practice

Time interval mins 1 Model interval throughout the year

Fixed Tilt

Tilt of solar panels degrees [25] degrees from horizontal is expected to provide high annual generation based on the longitude of the site

Height of panel above ground

m [2.5] Average height between highest and lowest point of solar panel based on typical fixed tilt array design

Single Axis Tracking

Tilt of tracking axis degrees 0 0° = Facing upwards

Orientation of tracking axis

degrees 0 0°= North

Offset angle of panel degrees 0 Angle between tracking axis and panel

AECOM



4

Input Data Units Value Comment

Tracking Range degrees 0-[60] Maximum range of tracking angle

Height of panel above ground

m 2.0 Average height between highest and lowest point of solar panel based on typical single axis tracking design

The average height of the panels above ground was estimated to be 2.5 m (for fixed tilt) and 2.0 m (for single axis tracking) based on AECOM’s knowledge of the MWSF proposed design and conventional designs of existing solar facilities. As the height of the panels above ground may change due to system choices AECOM has re-run the model at 3 m panel height (for fixed tilt only). The results shown in Section 3.0 are based on the 2.5 m height. AECOM confirms that no material change of results has been observed on performing the analysis on 3 m compared to the 2.5 m.

The modelling was set to calculate at 1 minute intervals throughout the year and the model produced glare hazard analysis results graduated based on risk level throughout the year. The results are shown in Section 3.0.

A graphical representation of the modelled single axis tracking configuration is presented below in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Overview of single axis tracking solar farm orientation along north/south and east/west axis.

2.3 Observation Point Locations The observer locations termed Observation Points (OP’s) are described in Table 2 and shown as red markers in Figure 4. These points were chosen to represent potential areas where glint and glare could impact the public. The same observation points were used for analysis of both fixed tilt and single axis tracking systems. Glare was assessed at each of the observation points assuming the observation point was set to 1.5 m above ground which was assumed to be the typical viewing height whilst either driving or standing.

West East

No

rth

Sou

th

Panel rows

60º 60º

120º

sunpath

West East

AECOM



5

Figure 4 SGHAT Observation Points 1-5 (Red Markers) shown adjacent to proposed array area (PV1)

Table 2 Observation Points

Observation Point

Latitude Longitude Ground Elevation

Height Above Ground

Total Elevation

Description

OP-1 -36.439809 142.322091 132 1.5 133 North West of Site on Dimboola Rd

OP-2 -36.439895 142.339538 128 1.5 129 At intersection North of Site on Dimboola Rd

OP-3 -36.449101 142.355220 132 1.5 134 East of the Site at intersection

OP-4 -36.470288 142.337020 131 1.5 132 On road south of Site

OP-5 -36.455193 142.322101 130 1.5 131 On road west of Site

2.4 Assumptions The following standard assumptions have been made through the course of the analysis:

The model assumes flat reflective surfaces and that light reflected by the solar panels is specular (i.e. the angle of incidence = the angle of reflection).

The average subtended angle of the sun as viewed from earth is ~9.3 mrad or 0.5°.

The maximum Direct Normal Irradiance is 1000 W/m2 at the given location at solar noon. This is a conservative estimate to give worst case results.

The ocular transmission coefficient accounts for radiation that is absorbed in the eye before reaching the retina. A value of 0.5 is typical3.

3 Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) User’s Manual v. 2H, Clifford K. Ho, Cianan A. Sims, Julius E. Yellowhair

OP-1 OP-2

OP-3

OP-4

OP-5

AECOM



6

Diameter of the pupil – the size impacts the amount of light entering the eye and reaching the retina. The typical value is 0.002 m for daylight-adjusted eyes2.

Eye focal length: This value is used to determine the projected image size on the retina for a given subtended angle of the glare source. A typical value of 0.017 m was used2.

The time zone of the MWSF was set at [UTC/GMT +11 hours].

2.5 Limitations The model has the following limitations:

The model does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of the solar panel arrays, for example gaps between panels, detailed variations in height of the array and support structures.

The tool does not consider any obstacles (e.g. trees, structures or earth) between the observation points and the solar panel arrays that may obstruct observed glare. The model does not consider mitigation measures such as proposed or existing vegetation buffers.

The tool does not define directional viewpoints from each observation point. Instead it considers the cumulative impact of the entire solar panel array areas.

The tool uses a typical clear-day solar irradiance profile (worst-case for glare). The model profile has a lower irradiance level in the mornings and evenings and a maximum at solar noon. Actual irradiance levels and profile on any given day can be affected by cloud cover and other environmental factors, however is not considered in this model.

The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical and human factors, which can be uncertain. The inputs can be varied, however are not expected to have any significant effects on results.

The model does not account for any backtracking control that may be present on single axis tracking systems

2.6 Glare Hazard Definitions The SGHAT tool defines three levels of ocular (eye) hazard as a result of glare. The hazards are defined as low, moderate or high, depending on the potential to impact vision. The following definitions are provided for the glare hazards in this report:

Low Potential Hazard: Indicates there is glare present however only a low potential for a temporary after-image (a lingering image of the glare in the field of view). This hazard is shown green on the glare potential plots.

Moderate Potential Hazard: Indicates that there is glare present with the potential to leave a temporary after-image of the glare. This hazard is shown yellow on the glare potential plots.

High Potential Hazard: Indicates that there is glare present with the potential for permanent eye damage if observed. This hazard is shown red on the glare potential plots.

Glare hazard is difficult to define and is not the same for every person. It is dependent on a number of factors including optical parameters (light intensity, angle of reflectance etc.), ocular/eye parameters (pupil diameter, focal length etc.) and size/distance from the glare source.

2.7 Observation Point Model Outputs For each observation point a glare occurrence plot and a glare hazard plot were developed for both the fixed tilt and single axis tracking system. A summary of these are described as follows:

Sandia National Laboratories Updated 22/07/2015

Green

Yellow

Red

AECOM



7

Glare Occurrence Plot: A graphical depiction for each Observation Point, showing the expected glare hazard (low, medium or high) at any time throughout the day for the entire year. The plot helps to identify those times during the day, and those months throughout the year when glare hazards can be expected.

Glare Hazard Plot: A graphical depiction for each Observation Point, showing the expected glare hazard as compared to the hazard associated with viewing the unfiltered sun. This plot is developed by the Sandia SGHAT software by plotting the retinal irradiance (intensity of light hitting the eye) as a function of subtended source angle (size/distance) of the glare source.

Examples of a glare occurrence plot and glare hazard analysis plot are shown below in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Typical examples of a Glare Occurrence Plot and a Glare Hazard Plot

AECOM



8

3.0 Results

3.1 Fixed Tilt Overall Summary The fixed tilt solar panel array was modelled in SGHAT and the results are summarised in Table 3. The glare hazard results for each observation point, based on an unobstructed view, are explained further within this section. A summary of the key results for the fixed tilt system are provided in the following table. Table 3 Summary results for fixed tilt system

Observation Point

Green Glare (minutes)

Yellow Glare

(minutes) Red Glare (minutes) HazardSummary

OP: 1 56 1752 0 Yellow Glare with potential for after-image.

OP: 2 2492 0 0 Green Low potential for temporary after –image.

OP: 3 1143 0 0 Green Low potential for temporary after –image..

OP: 4 0 0 0 No glare..

OP: 5 159 0 0 Green Low potential for temporary after –image..

The summary shows that without mitigation, installation of a fixed tilt system is likely to create glare with moderate potential hazard at OP1 (Dimboola Minyip Rd – North West of Site). The fixed tilt system is also likely to create glare with low potential hazard at OP2 and OP3 and OP5. No glare is likely to be created at OP4 (Old Minyip Rd – South of the Site).

3.2 Single Axis Tracking Overall Summary The single axis tracking solar panel array was modelled in SGHAT and the results are summarised in Table 4 and the glare hazard results for each observation point, based on an unobstructed view, are explained further within this section. Table 4 Summary results for Single Axis Tracking system

Observation Point

Green Glare (minutes)

Yellow Glare

(minutes) Red Glare (minutes) HazardSummary






The summary shows that no glare will be created with installation of single axis tracking system.

AECOM



9

4.0 Air Traffic The Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) provides guidance to planning authorities in relation to referring solar farm projects, for assessment to ensure that there is not likely to be any glint or glare issues for pilots on approach to, or on departure from, an airport or as any potential impact on air traffic controllers.

There are currently no regulations regarding the impact from a solar farm on aircraft operations. CASA‘s role is to provide advice for the relevant Planning Authority to consider when reviewing the Development Application. CASA have advised that they use guidance from the US Federal Aviation Administration who recommend that any proposed solar farms that are below the direct approach paths to an airport (aligned with a runway) and within a distance of around 5 nautical miles (approximately 10kms) from a runway end should be referred for assessment.

Given the proposed MWSF is approximately 15km from the nearest air strip at Warracknabeal Airport and 30km to the nearest public airport at Horsham, it is considered unlikely that the MWSF will create any glint or glare issues for pilots on approach to or on departure from the nearest airstrips. Similarly, given the MWSF will be positioned beyond the visual circuit of the aerodrome (typically up to 5 km) there is expected to be no impact on air traffic controllers. CASA have advised4 that they use guidance from the US Federal Aviation Administration who recommend that any proposed solar farms that are below the direct approach paths to an airport (aligned with a runway) and within a distance of around 5 nautical miles (approximately 10kms) from a runway end should be referred for assessment. Accordingly there was no reason to perform specific assessment of aircraft flight paths in this study.

4 Email to Allison Hawke from Matthew Windebank (CASA) 14 June 2016

AECOM



10

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Summary of results for Fixed Tilt and Single Axis Tracking A comparison of the glare modelling results for both the fixed tilt and single axis tracking systems is provided in Table 5. Table 5 Summary comparison of results for fixed tilt and single axis tracking systems

OP

Fixed Tilt Single Axis Tracking Hazard Level (worst case)

Green Glare (mins)

Yellow Glare (mins)

Red Glare (mins) Period of Hazard

Hazard Level (worst case)

Green Glare (mins)

Yellow Glare (mins)

Red Glare (mins)

Period of Hazard

OP1 Yellow Glare with potential for after-image.

56 1752 0 Morning – Time: 7:00am – 8:120am Duration: ~40 mins Period: 6.5 months

No glare. 0 0 0

OP2 Green Low potential for after image.

2492 0 0 Evening Time 1: 7:20am – 8:00am Duration: <30 mins Period: 6.5 months Time 2: 6:45pm – 8:00pm Duration: 40 mins Period: 2 months

No glare. 0 0 0


1143 0 0 Evening Time: 6:45pm – 8:00pm Duration: 40 mins Period: 6.5 months

No glare. 0 0 0

OP4 No glare 0 0 0 None No glare. 0 0 0


159 0 0 Morning Time: 7:00am – 8:15am Duration: ~20 mins Period: 6 months

No glare. 0 0 0

AECOM



11

5.2 Conclusions 5.2.1 Summary of Potential Glare and Glint Impacts

The glare model developed for this study is considered a ‘worst case’ situation, whereby it is assumed that the solar arrays are installed across the entire development site and the entire area of the solar panel arrays are considered a potential glare source. In addition the model includes conservative assumptions including a high irradiance and the model does not consider any existing vegetation, buildings or topographical features that may exist between the solar panel arrays and the observation points.

5.2.2 Fixed tilt conclusions

For the fixed tilt system, Observation Point 1 exhibits the highest glare hazard. The glare hazard reduces for Observation Points 2,3 and 5respectively and the study shows no glare impacts at Observation Point 4

For the fixed tilt system moderate potential glare hazard is present during late spring, summer and early autumn months – in worst case extending from mid-September through to mid-March. During these periods, observation points to the west of the site will be impacted between 7:00 am – 8:30 am in the mornings for periods up to 45 minutes and sites to the east of the site will be impacted between 6:30 pm – 8:00 pm in the evenings for periods up to 45 minutes. The worst glare hazard is reported at Observation Point 1 (Northwest of site on Dimboola Road) and is rated as a moderate potential hazard which indicates that there is glare present with the potential to leave a temporary after-image of the glare. Observation Points 2, 3 and 5 are expected to exhibit a low potential hazard. Observation Point 4 is not expected to produce any glare.

5.2.3 Single Axis Tracking Conclusions

For the single axis tracking system there was no predicted glare at any of the 5 Observation Points.

5.2.4 Minimal impact on airport due to distance

Given the proposed MWSF is approximately 15km from the nearest air strip at Warracknabeal Airport and 30km to the nearest public airport at Horsham, it is considered unlikely that the MWSF will create any glint or glare issues for pilots on approach to or on departure from the nearest airstrips. Similarly, given the MWSF will be positioned beyond the visual circuit of the aerodrome (typically up to 5 km) there is expected to be no impact on air traffic controllers. This aligns with the CASA advice which recommends that any proposed solar farms that are below the direct approach paths to an airport (aligned with a runway) and within a distance of around 5 nautical miles (approximately 10kms) from a runway end should be referred for assessment. Accordingly there was no reason to perform specific assessment of aircraft flight paths in this study.

AECOM



12

5.3 Recommendations / Mitigation Options The recommendations below should be considered during detailed design.

5.3.1 Dimboola Minyip Road (OP-1, OP-2)

The modelling shows that, for all observation points along this road glare is anticipated with a moderate potential hazard for OP1. Given these observation points are situated along the trafficable Dimboola Minyip Road and the solar array will potentially be built adjacent to this road with scarce existing vegetation between the road and proposed solar array, some glare mitigation may be required in this area. The existing Google Map street view views from Dimboola Minyip Road around OP1 and OP2 are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7

Figure 6 View from Dimboola Minyip Road – Looking south over the site

AECOM



13

Figure 7 View from Dimboola Minyip Road (OP-1) – Looking south/east over the site

RES Australia has advised that a 2m high wire grid mesh fence may be installed around the perimeter of the solar farm which may partly assist breaking up the glare impact.

AECOM recommends that RES Australia assess the risk at specific locations prior to further mitigations being implemented.

AECOM



14

5.3.2 Dimboola Minyip Road (OP-3)

Given the lower duration of low glare hazard predicted along the east of Dimboola Minyip Road, combined with the existing vegetation adjacent to the road, there appears less risk of hazard impacting road users in this area. The existing Google Map street view shown in Figure 8 shows typical vegetation along Dimboola Minyip Road looking south/west towards the site. This shows existing vegetation to the east of the site which would appear to significantly mitigate glare from the solar array on Dimboola Minyip Road driving west, provided the vegetation is maintained. Accordingly there is not expected to be a requirement for mitigation in this area.

Figure 8 View from Dimboola Minyip Road (OP-3) – Looking south/west towards the site

AECOM



15

5.3.3 Old Minyip Road (OP-4)

The road south of the site (Old Minyip Road) is not expected to show any glare due to its position to the solar farm.

Figure 9 View from Old Minyip Road (OP-4) – Looking north towards the site

AECOM



16

5.3.4 Kings Road (OP-5)

OP-5 is situated on an unsealed road (Kings Road). RES has indicated Kings Road is currently a crown road and not open to the public. Exells Quarry Road (perpendicular to Kings Road) is also an unsealed road mainly used by local farmers. The existing Google Map street view looking east from Exells Quarry Road towards King Road (OP-5) is shown in Figure 10. While unlikely to cause hazards, some screening on the east of the site will mitigate any glare on this side.

Figure 10 View from Exells Quarry Road looking East into Kings Road

AECOM



Appendix A Fixed Tilt Observation

Point Results

AECOM



A-1

Appendix A Fixed Tilt Observation Point Results

AECOM



A-2

OP1 - North West of Site on Dimboola Rd Glare Occurrence

The glare occurrence plot for Observation Point 1 is provided below in Figure 5.

Figure 11 Fixed tilt glare occurrence for OP1

The glare occurrence plot for OP1 shows that there is a potential hazard from the fixed tilt solar array at Observation Point 1 between the months of September – March, between the hours of 7:10am and 8:20am for up to approximately 40 minutes per day.

AECOM



A-3

Glare Hazard Plot

The glare hazard plot for Observation Point 1 is provided below in Figure 6.

Figure 12 Fixed tilt glare hazard plot for OP1

AECOM



A-4

OP2 - At intersection North of Site on Dimboola Rd Glare Occurrence



The glare occurrence plot for OP2 shows that there is low potential hazard from the fixed tilt solar array at Observation Point 2 between the months of September – March, between the hours of 6:40pm and 8:00pm for up to approximately 40 minutes per day. There is also potential between the months of November – January, between the hours of 7:20am and 8:00am for up to approximately 40 minutes per day.

AECOM



A-5

Glare Hazard Plot



AECOM



A-6

OP3 - East of the Site at intersection Glare Occurrence



The glare occurrence plot for OP3 shows that there is low potential hazard from the fixed tilt solar array at Observation Point 3 between the months of September – March, between the hours of 6:40pm and 8:00pm for up to approximately 40 minutes per day.

AECOM



A-7

Glare Hazard Plot



AECOM



A-8

OP4 - On road south of Site No glare found at Observation Point 4

AECOM



A-9

OP5 - On road south of Site Glare Occurrence

The glare occurrence plot for Observation Point 5 is provided below in Figure .


The glare occurrence plot for OP5 shows that there is low potential hazard from the fixed tilt solar array at Observation Point 5 between the months of September – March, between the hours of 7:00am and 8:00am for up to approximately 40 minutes per day. It should be noted that the results show the hazard is only semi regular during the intervals outlined above and hence the actual hazard is very low.

AECOM



A-10

Glare Hazard Plot



AECOM



Appendix B Single Axis Tracker

Observation Point Results

AECOM



B-1

Appendix B Single Axis Tracker Observation Point Results

No glare predicted

AECOM



Appendix C SGHAT Model Results

AECOM



C-1

Appendix C SGHAT Model Results

Site config: Fixed Tilt System

Summary of Results Glare with potential for temporary after-image predicted

PV name Tilt Orientation"Green"

Glare"Yellow"

Glare"Red"Glare

EnergyProduced

No site config description provided.Created Oct. 18, 2016 1:08 a.m.

DNI varies and peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2Analyze every 1 minute(s)

0.5 ocular transmission coefficient

0.002 m pupil diameter

0.017 m eye focal length

9.3 mrad sun subtended angle

(/)

Page 1 of 4Fixed Tilt System Site Config | ForgeSolar

27-Oct-16https://www.forgesolar.com/projects/707/configs/3338/

deg deg min min min kWh

PV array -Murra WurraSolar Farm

25.0 0.0 3850 1752 0 -

Observation Points

Number Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total Elevation

deg deg m m m

1 -36.439809 142.322091 132 1 133

2 -36.439895 142.339538 128 1 129

3 -36.449101 142.355220 132 1 134

4 -36.470288 142.337020 131 1 132

5 -36.455193 142.322101 130 1 131

PV array - Murra Wurra Solar Farm potential temporary after-image

Fixed System

Axis tracking: Fixed (no

rotation)

Tilt: 25.0 deg

Orientation: 0.0 deg

Rated power: -

Panel material: Smooth glass

with AR coating

Vary reflectivity with sunposition? Yes

Correlate slope error withsurface type? No

Slope error: 8.43 mrad

Vertex Latitude LongitudeGround

elevation

Heightabove

groundTotal

elevation

deg deg m m m

1 -36.440840 142.327648 129 2 131

2 -36.440969 142.342649 130 2 132

3 -36.448842 142.342890 129 2 132

4 -36.456713 142.342969 132 2 135

5 -36.456648 142.340884 129 2 131

6 -36.458907 142.340884 130 2 133

7 -36.458842 142.343692 131 2 134

8 -36.462584 142.343772 131 2 133

9 -36.462455 142.327648 132 2 135

Summary of component results

Component Green glare (min) Yellow glare (min) Red glare (min)

OP: 1 56 1752 0

OP: 2 2492 0 0

OP: 3 1143 0 0

OP: 4 0 0 0



OP: 5 159 0 0

Observation point: 1





2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved.


No glare found




Site config: Murra Wurra - Single Axis Tracking

Summary of Results No glare predicted!

PV name Tilt Orientation"Green"

Glare"Yellow"

Glare"Red"Glare

EnergyProduced

No site config description provided.Created Oct. 24, 2016 1:16 a.m.

DNI varies and peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2Analyze every 1 minute(s)

0.5 ocular transmission coefficient

0.002 m pupil diameter

0.017 m eye focal length

9.3 mrad sun subtended angle

(/)

Page 1 of 2Murra Wurra - Single Axis Tracking Site Config | ForgeSolar


deg deg min min min kWh

PV array 1 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 470,400,000.0

Observation Points

Number Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total Elevation

deg deg m m m

1 -36.439928 142.322216 132 1 134

2 -36.439790 142.339468 128 1 129

3 -36.449042 142.351227 130 1 132

4 -36.470304 142.334919 130 1 131

5 -36.455255 142.318954 132 1 134

PV array 1Predicted energy output (assuming sunny, clear skies all year): 470,400,000.0 kWh

2015 © Sims Industries, All Rights Reserved.

Axis tracking: Single-axis

rotation

Tracking axis orientation: 0.0

deg

Tracking axis tilt: 0.0 deg

Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0

deg

Limit tracking rotation? Yes

Maximum tracking angle: 60.0

deg

Rated power: 150000.0 kW

Panel material: Smooth glass

without AR coating

Vary reflectivity with sunposition? Yes

Correlate slope error withsurface type? No

Slope error: 10.0 mrad

Vertex Latitude LongitudeGround

elevation

Heightabove

groundTotal

elevation

deg deg m m m

1 -36.440480 142.327366 129 2 131

2 -36.440480 142.342815 129 2 131

3 -36.442966 142.344875 131 2 133

4 -36.456774 142.344532 132 2 134

5 -36.456774 142.340412 129 2 131

6 -36.459259 142.340412 130 2 132

7 -36.459259 142.344532 131 2 133

8 -36.462849 142.344532 130 2 132

9 -36.462849 142.327366 132 2 134

No glare predicted!

Page 2 of 2Murra Wurra - Single Axis Tracking Site Config | ForgeSolar


AECOM



Appendix D Site Drawings

AECOM



D-1

Appendix D Site Drawings

HEN

TY H

IGH

WAY

DIMBOOLA-MINYIP RD

SOLAR FARM SITE BOUNDARY

F̄IRST ISSUE240816HC110816NT1

N/AN/A

03679D2201-01

GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

PRELIMINARY

1:20,000 A3

MURRA WARRA SOLAR FARM

CONTAINS VICMAP INFORMATION © THE STATE OFVICTORIA, DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND

ENVIRONMENT.

DRAWING NUMBER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A

G

E

F

C

B

D

A

G

E

F

C

B

D

03679D2201-01

ISSUE DRAWN DATE APPD DATE REVISION NOTES

DRAWING TITLE

PROJECT TITLE

ORIGINAL PLOT SIZESCALE

PURPOSE

COORDS

DRAWING NUMBER

LAYOUT NO.LAYOUT DWG

SUITE 4, LEVEL 1760 PACIFIC HIGHWAYCHATSWOOD, NSW 2067TEL +61 (0)2 8440 7400EMAIL: [email protected]

THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF RES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD AND NO REPRODUCTION MAY BE MADE

IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSIONSources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap,increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, OrdnanceSurvey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong),swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User Community

LEGENDSITE BOUNDARY (20160810)

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 20.2KM

120KM

Documents

Glare and Glint Analysis - Yarriambiack Shire Councilyarriambiack.vic.gov.au/media/uploads/Glare_Glint_Analysis_Report.pdf · 5.1 Summary of results for Fixed Tilt and Single Axis