GLINT AND GLARE ASSESSMENT

GLINT AND GLARE ASSESSMENT

Petersons Solar Farm

September 2019

Glint and Glare Assessment of the Petersons Solar Farm

September 2019 i

About ITP Renewables

ITP Renewables (ITP) is part of the ITP Energised Group which, established in 1981, specialises

in renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon markets consulting. The Group has offices

and projects throughout the world.

ITP was established in Australia in 2003 and has undertaken a wide range of projects, including

designing grid-connected renewable power systems; providing advice for government policy;

feasibility studies for large, off-grid power systems; developing micro-finance models for

community-owned power systems in developing countries; and modelling large-scale power

systems.

The staff at ITP have backgrounds in renewable energy and energy efficiency, research,

development and implementation, managing and reviewing government incentive programs, high

level policy analysis and research, engineering design and project management.


ii September 2019

Document Control Record

Document prepared by:

ITP Renewables

Suite 1, Level 1,

19-23 Moore Street, Turner, ACT, 2612, Australia

PO Box 6127, O’Connor, ACT, 2602, Australia

Tel. +61 2 6257 3511

Fax. +61 2 6257 3611

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://www.itpau.com.au

Document Control Document Title Glint and Glare Assessment of the Petersons Solar Farm

ITP Project No. Armidale 1B

Rev. Date Status Author/s Reviewer

1 9 September 2019 Draft K Banks L Fox

2 13 September Final K Banks L Fox

A person or organisation choosing to use documents prepared by ITP Renewables accepts the following: a) Conclusions and figures presented in draft documents are subject to change. ITP Renewables accepts no responsibility for

their use outside of the original report.

b) The document is only to be used for purposes explicitly agreed to by ITP Renewables. c) All responsibility and risks associated with the use of this report lie with the person or organisation who chooses to use it.

mailto:[email protected]


September 2019 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Overview ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Glint and Glare ................................................................................................................ 1

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 2

3. ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Potential Receptors ......................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 6

3.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 6

4. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 8

5. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX A. FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS ................................................................... 9

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Proposed solar farm site and surrounding area .............................................................. 3

Figure 2. Map showing potential visual receptors within 2 km of the site (residential/commercial observation points and road/railway routes) .................................................................................. 5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Site information ............................................................................................................... 1

Table 2. SGHAT specification inputs ............................................................................................. 4

Table 3. Glare potential at observation points ............................................................................... 6


iv September 2019

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC Alternating current

CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority

DC Direct current

FAA Federal Aviation Administration (United States)

Ha Hectare

ITP ITP Renewables

MW Megawatt, unit of power (1 million Watts)

MWp Megawatt-peak, unit of power at standard test conditions used to indicate PV system capacity

NSW New South Wales

OP Observation point

PV Photovoltaic

SGHAT Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool


September 2019 1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Overview

ITP Development is proposing to develop a solar farm as described in Table 1. It will be located

approximately 4 km southeast of the town of Armidale, NSW (see Figure 1).

Table 1. Site information

Parameter Description

Solar farm name Petersons Solar Farm

Site reference Armidale 1B

Lot/DP(s) 494/66672, 2/569410

Street address 347 Dangarsleigh Rd, Armidale, NSW 2350

Council Armidale District Council

AC capacity 5 MW

DC capacity 6.05 MW

Project area 12.6 ha

Current land use Grazing

This report provides a desktop glint and glare assessment to support the Development

Application for the project. It provides:

• Identification of potential receptors of glint and glare from the proposed solar farm;

• Assessment of the glint and glare hazard using the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool

(SGHAT) GlareGauge analysis; and

• Recommended mitigation measures to reduce potential glint and glare impacts.

1.2. Glint and Glare

Glint is defined as a momentary flash of bright light, while glare is a continuous source of

excessive brightness relative to ambient lighting (Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2018).

The GlareGauge analysis used to assess the glint and glare hazard (see Section 3) was run with

a simulation interval of one minute, as sunlight reflection from PV modules typically lasts for at

least one minute. Glint, which lasts for less than one minute, is unlikely to occur from the sun

based on how slowly the sun and modules move, so has not been considered further in this

assessment.


2 September 2019

Solar photovoltaic (PV) modules are designed to absorb as much light as possible to maximise

efficiency (generally around 98% of the light received). To limit reflection the modules are

constructed from dark, light absorbing material and the glass is treated with an anti-reflective

coating. As a result, the glare generated from PV modules is lower than from many other

surfaces, including cropping/grassland and concrete (an albedo of 20% is typically assumed for

PV modules, compared to 25-30% for grass and up to 25% for concrete; Ramírez & Muňoz,

2012).

However, the glass modules and metal frames still have the potential to generate glare. This

needs to be assessed to ensure that visual receptors such as road users, nearby buildings, air

traffic control towers and aircraft pilots are not impacted by the development of solar farms.

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ITP Development is proposing to construct a solar farm with a DC capacity of 6.05 MWp and AC

output of 5 MW, on an approximately 100.5 ha site that is currently used for grazing.

There are to be approximately 16,000 solar modules installed on around 200 mounting structures

running north to south. Each row of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules will rotate to track the sun

across the sky from east to west each day. The hub height of each tracker will be around 1.7 m

with the peak of the modules reaching a height of approximately 2.5 m when the array is fully

tilted to 60 degrees from horizontal. The general arrangement of the solar farm is shown on

drawing ARM1B-G-210, and the array tracker details on drawing ARM1B-E-341.

The solar farm will also comprise two 2.5 MW inverter stations. These inverters are to be located

within the array and are each mounted on a 20-foot skid. Each of these inverter stations

incorporate the high voltage switchgear and transformers. The arrangement of the inverter station

skid is shown in drawing ORA2B-E-430.

The mounting system is constructed on piles that are driven in to the ground. During construction

there is expected to be 50 personnel on site working from 7 am – 4 pm Monday to Friday. The

construction is expected to take approximately 3 months. Once operational the site will be

unmanned. Maintenance is expected to be carried out quarterly by a crew of 2 – 3 people.

Solar panels and related infrastructure will be decommissioned and removed upon cessation of

operations. This is likely to occur within two years of the end of the project. The site will be

returned to the pre-development land use.

September 2019 3

Figure 1. Proposed solar farm site and surrounding area

Armidale

Site area

Armidale Airport


4 September 2019

3. ANALYSIS

3.1 Overview

In a fixed-tilt PV array the angle of incidence at which direct sunlight hits the PV modules varies

as the sun moves across the sky. It will be smallest around noon when the sun is overhead and

largest in the early morning and late afternoon when the sun is near the horizon. If the PV array is

mounted on a single-axis tracking system as proposed in this project, the variation in the angle of

incidence will be much smaller since the modules rotate to follow the sun. The main variation will

be seasonal, i.e. because the sun is higher in the sky during summer and lower during winter. A

PV array that is mounted on a tracking system therefore has less potential to cause glare.

The SGHAT was developed by Sandia National Laboratories to evaluate glare resulting from

solar farms at different viewpoints, based on the location, orientation and specifications of the PV

modules. This tool is required by the United States FAA for glare hazard analysis near airports

and is also recognised by the Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The GlareGauge analysis uses SGHAT to provide an indication of the type of glare that can be

expected at each potential receptor. Glare is indicated by three colours according to severity:

• Green glare: Low potential for temporary after-image;

• Yellow glare: Potential for temporary after-image; and

• Red glare: Retinal burn, not expected for PV.

The parameters used in the SGHAT model for the project are detailed in Table 2. GlareGauge

default settings were adopted for the analysis time interval, direct normal irradiance, observer eye

characteristics and slope error. The heights of the observation points were assumed to be 1.5 m

for a road user (i.e. sitting in a car) and 1.65 m for a person (i.e. standing).

Table 2. SGHAT specification inputs

Parameters Input

Time zone UTC+10:00

Module tracking Single axis

Module surface material Smooth glass with ARC (anti-reflective coating)

Tracking axis tilt 0°

Tracking axis orientation 0°

Module offset angle (angle between module and tracking axis)

0°

Maximum tracking angle 60°

Resting angle 60°

Height of modules above ground 1.7 m


September 2019 5

3.2 Potential Receptors

For this project, visual receptors within 2 km of the site were considered including residences,

commercial properties and road users. A 2-km radius from the site was considered appropriate

based on it being highly unlikely for glint and glare impacts at distances greater than this. As

shown in Figure 2, 67 residential/commercial observation points were identified as potential visual

receptors of the site. The potential for glare was also assessed along six different road routes.

While there were a greater number of residential/commercial properties considered, many were

discounted based on large stands of trees and other structures which will act as visual barriers

between the site and receptor. Some of those included in the analysis are also surrounded by

stands of trees which will obstruct view of the solar farm.

The Armidale Airport is located approximately 5.5 km northwest of the site. There are no air traffic

control towers at the airport thus it was not considered a potential visual receptor of the site. A

GlareGauge analysis was run on the flight paths to the runway, and there is not expected to be

any glare visible from aircraft approaching or taking off.

Figure 2. Map showing potential visual receptors within 2 km of the site (residential/commercial observation

points and road/railway routes)

Site area

Lucas Ln

Dangarsleigh Rd

Long Swamp Rd

Railway

Roseneath Ln

Seaton St


6 September 2019

3.3 Assumptions

The visual impact of solar farm development depends on the scale and type of infrastructure, the

prominence and topography of the site relative to the surrounding environment, and any proposed

screening measures to reduce visibility of the site. Some potential viewpoints were discounted

because of significant existing features such as trees or buildings, however minor screening such

as roadside vegetation was not assessed in detail. The GlareGauge analysis results are therefore

considered conservative as the model assumes there is no screening. It is noted that the site is

almost entirely cleared with only a few trees within the property.

Atmospheric conditions such as cloud cover will also influence light reflection and the resulting

impact on visual receptors. Varying atmospheric conditions have not been accounted for in the

GlareGauge analysis. The GlareGauge analysis assumes clear sky conditions, with a peak direct

normal irradiance (DNI) of 1,000 W/m2 which varies throughout the day.

3.4 Results

The results of the GlareGauge analysis (attached in Appendix A) at each of the observation

points are summarised in Table 3. None of the residences/commercial properties or road users

are expected to experience any glare from the solar farm. Many residences will also not have

direct view of the solar farm due to visual obstruction from trees and other structures.

Table 3. Glare potential at observation points

Type of receptor

Location relative to solar farm

Green glare (minutes)

Yellow glare (minutes)

Glare potential

OP1 Residential 520 m north 0 0 No glare

OP2 Commercial 890 m north 0 0 No glare



OP5 Residential 1.6 km north 0 0 No glare

OP6 Residential 1.8 km northwest 0 0 No glare



OP9 Residential 880 m northwest 0 0 No glare

OP10 Residential 750 m northwest 0 0 No glare

OP11 Residential 510 m north 0 0 No glare

OP12 Residential 2 km northwest 0 0 No glare


September 2019 7

Type of receptor




Glare potential




OP16 Residential 1.2 km west 0 0 No glare



OP19 Residential 1 km west 0 0 No glare





OP24 Residential 960 m west 0 0 No glare

OP25 Residential 830 m west 0 0 No glare

OP26 Residential 710 m southwest 0 0 No glare

OP27 Residential 1.1 km southwest 0 0 No glare

OP28 Residential 960 m southwest 0 0 No glare

OP29 Residential 1.2 km southwest 0 0 No glare

OP30 Residential 720 m south 0 0 No glare

OP31 Residential 850 m south 0 0 No glare

OP32 Residential 1 km south 0 0 No glare

OP33 Residential 900 m southeast 0 0 No glare

OP34 Residential/ commercial

1.2 km east 0 0 No glare

OP35 Residential 1.5 km south 0 0 No glare

OP36 Residential 1.5 km south 0 0 No glare

OP37 Residential 1.5 km east 0 0 No glare




OP41 Commercial 1.2 km northeast 0 0 No glare

Dangarsleigh Rd Road route West 0 0 No glare

Long Swamp Rd Road route East 0 0 No glare


8 September 2019

Type of receptor




Glare potential

Railway Train route West 0 0 No glare

Roseneath Ln Road route North 0 0 No glare

Seaton St Road route Northeast 0 0 No glare

Lucas Ln Road route East 0 0 No glare

4. SUMMARY

The results of the GlareGauge analysis indicated that the selected observation points are unlikely

to receive glare from to the proposed solar farm. Road users approaching the solar farm along

Dangarsleigh Rd, or using the railway line, Long Swamp Rd, Roseneath Ln, Seaton St or

Lucas Ln are also not expected to experience any glare.

5. REFERENCES

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2018). Solar Guide: Technical Guidance for Evaluating

Selected Solar Technologies on Airports. Retrieved from the FAA website:

https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/

Ramírez, A. Z., & Muňoz, C. B. (2012). Albedo effect and energy efficiency of cities. Sustainable

Development – Energy, Engineering and Technologies – Manufacturing and Environment.

Retrieved from https://www.intechopen.com/books/sustainable-development-energy-

engineering-and-technologies-manufacturing-and-environment/albedo-effect-and-energy-

efficiency-of-cities


September 2019 9

APPENDIX A. FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS

FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS

Project: Petersons Solar FarmArmidale 1B solar farm

Site configuration: All receptors 2Analysis conducted by ITP Engineering ([email protected]) at 03:56 on 09 Sep, 2019.

U.S. FAA 2013 Policy Adherence

The following table summarizes the policy adherence of the glare analysis based on the 2013 U.S. Federal Aviation AdministrationInterim Policy 78 FR 63276. This policy requires the following criteria be met for solar energy systems on airport property:

• No "yellow" glare (potential for after-image) for any flight path from threshold to 2 miles• No glare of any kind for Air Traffic Control Tower(s) ("ATCT") at cab height.• Default analysis and observer characteristics (see list below)

ForgeSolar does not represent or speak officially for the FAA and cannot approve or deny projects. Results are informational only.

COMPONENT STATUS DESCRIPTION

Analysis parameters PASS Analysis time interval and eye characteristics used are acceptableFlight path(s) N/A No flight paths analyzedATCT(s) N/A No ATCT receptors designated

Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only):

• Analysis time interval: 1 minute• Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5• Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters• Eye focal length: 0.017 meters• Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians

FAA Policy 78 FR 63276 can be read at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-24729

SITE CONFIGURATION

Analysis Parameters

DNI: peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2 Time interval: 1 minOcular transmissioncoefficient: 0.5Pupil diameter: 0.002 mEye focal length: 0.017 mSun subtended angle: 9.3mrad Site Config ID: 30950.5638

PV Array(s)

Name: PV array 1 Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Tracking axis orientation: 0.0° Tracking axis tilt: 0.0° Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0° Max tracking angle: 60.0° Resting angle: 60.0° Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun Slope error: correlate with material

Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (m) Height above ground (m) Total elevation (m)

1 -30.547178 151.671344 1013.94 1.70 1015.642 -30.548827 151.682443 1000.96 1.70 1002.663 -30.549751 151.682411 1006.27 1.70 1007.974 -30.549396 151.680179 1004.64 1.70 1006.345 -30.549996 151.680147 1007.88 1.70 1009.586 -30.549761 151.678538 1005.63 1.70 1007.337 -30.549179 151.678565 1004.03 1.70 1005.738 -30.548906 151.676961 1006.11 1.70 1007.819 -30.549460 151.676928 1007.28 1.70 1008.9810 -30.549280 151.675679 1008.63 1.70 1010.3311 -30.548795 151.675695 1007.84 1.70 1009.5412 -30.548772 151.675544 1008.46 1.70 1010.1613 -30.548587 151.675555 1008.40 1.70 1010.1014 -30.548301 151.673876 1011.09 1.70 1012.7915 -30.548472 151.673865 1011.35 1.70 1013.0516 -30.548014 151.671307 1015.05 1.70 1016.75

Discrete Observation Receptors

Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Elevation (m) Height (m)

OP 1 1 -30.544768 151.679874 1001.92 1.65OP 2 2 -30.541462 151.680999 1013.83 1.65OP 3 3 -30.540833 151.679277 1015.54 1.65OP 4 4 -30.539900 151.676562 1027.86 1.65OP 5 5 -30.534272 151.673873 1022.12 1.65OP 6 6 -30.535418 151.665952 1007.62 1.65OP 7 7 -30.537044 151.667743 1011.81 1.65OP 8 8 -30.539915 151.668852 1027.73 1.65OP 9 9 -30.543274 151.669823 1026.89 1.65OP 10 10 -30.543556 151.671556 1022.58 1.65OP 11 11 -30.544614 151.674184 1016.48 1.65OP 12 12 -30.534699 151.663538 1011.10 1.65OP 13 13 -30.540592 151.665459 1020.24 1.65OP 14 14 -30.543091 151.665657 1023.52 1.65OP 15 15 -30.541382 151.662353 1036.65 1.65OP 16 16 -30.544466 151.665064 1027.04 1.65OP 17 17 -30.545355 151.665008 1027.55 1.65OP 18 18 -30.546607 151.665392 1026.53 1.65OP 19 19 -30.546321 151.666357 1023.91 1.65OP 20 20 -30.544611 151.662758 1040.92 1.65OP 21 21 -30.542904 151.660757 1049.69 1.65OP 22 22 -30.549058 151.662532 1049.34 1.65OP 23 23 -30.550194 151.661931 1055.28 1.65OP 24 24 -30.548880 151.666716 1024.65 1.65OP 25 25 -30.549254 151.668089 1021.57 1.65OP 26 26 -30.550162 151.669535 1021.32 1.65OP 27 27 -30.552449 151.666585 1040.97 1.65OP 28 28 -30.553075 151.668017 1041.88 1.65OP 29 29 -30.554904 151.665994 1054.83 1.65OP 30 30 -30.553107 151.671203 1027.31 1.65OP 31 31 -30.554904 151.671573 1041.09 1.65OP 32 32 -30.557491 151.673113 1032.05 1.65OP 33 33 -30.555094 151.682447 1037.13 1.65OP 34 34 -30.553532 151.688631 1013.88 1.65OP 35 35 -30.562393 151.676360 1015.29 1.65OP 36 36 -30.561667 151.677572 1013.32 1.65OP 37 37 -30.554466 151.691289 997.41 1.65OP 38 38 -30.552627 151.692984 996.30 1.65OP 39 39 -30.549153 151.692330 996.28 1.65OP 40 40 -30.547231 151.690248 1004.75 1.65OP 41 41 -30.540785 151.685480 1028.25 1.65

Route Receptor(s)

Name: Dangarsleigh Rd Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0°


1 -30.535648 151.668813 1016.64 1.50 1018.142 -30.543742 151.665820 1024.34 1.50 1025.843 -30.544038 151.665755 1025.16 1.50 1026.664 -30.545757 151.665841 1025.02 1.50 1026.525 -30.546112 151.665911 1025.02 1.50 1026.526 -30.546417 151.666083 1024.85 1.50 1026.357 -30.547775 151.667499 1022.25 1.50 1023.758 -30.549512 151.669537 1020.16 1.50 1021.669 -30.553642 151.672895 1027.27 1.50 1028.7710 -30.554012 151.673078 1027.84 1.50 1029.3411 -30.554714 151.673292 1029.36 1.50 1030.8612 -30.556553 151.673754 1029.71 1.50 1031.2113 -30.559186 151.674580 1024.59 1.50 1026.0914 -30.567066 151.677359 1019.59 1.50 1021.0915 -30.567537 151.677563 1019.71 1.50 1021.2116 -30.569837 151.678936 1020.93 1.50 1022.4317 -30.572886 151.680835 1031.68 1.50 1033.1818 -30.573320 151.681017 1030.97 1.50 1032.4719 -30.574077 151.681253 1032.78 1.50 1034.2820 -30.577846 151.681790 1016.19 1.50 1017.69

Name: Long Swamp Rd Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0°


1 -30.533536 151.683378 1021.52 1.50 1023.022 -30.537297 151.685674 1027.11 1.50 1028.613 -30.540475 151.687691 1028.90 1.50 1030.404 -30.540956 151.688013 1028.69 1.50 1030.195 -30.541464 151.688217 1028.72 1.50 1030.226 -30.541852 151.688292 1028.31 1.50 1029.817 -30.542176 151.688314 1027.84 1.50 1029.348 -30.544347 151.688174 1017.73 1.50 1019.239 -30.544689 151.688185 1015.34 1.50 1016.8410 -30.545086 151.688282 1012.88 1.50 1014.3811 -30.545465 151.688507 1010.36 1.50 1011.8612 -30.545770 151.688797 1008.58 1.50 1010.0813 -30.545964 151.689054 1007.86 1.50 1009.3614 -30.546685 151.690631 1009.59 1.50 1011.0915 -30.546943 151.691017 1009.09 1.50 1010.5916 -30.551258 151.694719 987.77 1.50 989.2717 -30.551471 151.694955 987.85 1.50 989.3518 -30.554594 151.699933 983.28 1.50 984.7819 -30.554880 151.700233 982.82 1.50 984.3220 -30.555231 151.700545 982.67 1.50 984.1721 -30.564156 151.706338 996.14 1.50 997.6422 -30.564581 151.706488 997.84 1.50 999.3423 -30.565218 151.706649 999.41 1.50 1000.9124 -30.569033 151.707701 1012.30 1.50 1013.8025 -30.571139 151.708280 1011.11 1.50 1012.6126 -30.571795 151.708548 1011.58 1.50 1013.08

Name: Lucas Ln Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0°


1 -30.549177 151.692903 995.75 1.50 997.252 -30.553335 151.692109 1000.01 1.50 1001.513 -30.553751 151.691905 999.44 1.50 1000.944 -30.553797 151.691701 1000.06 1.50 1001.565 -30.553169 151.687775 1016.72 1.50 1018.22

Name: Railway Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0°


1 -30.535084 151.664500 1009.13 1.50 1010.632 -30.554201 151.664693 1048.01 1.50 1049.513 -30.554987 151.664715 1052.04 1.50 1053.544 -30.555726 151.664640 1053.48 1.50 1054.985 -30.556493 151.664489 1051.06 1.50 1052.566 -30.557250 151.664307 1048.94 1.50 1050.447 -30.558424 151.663846 1049.00 1.50 1050.508 -30.559431 151.663309 1046.21 1.50 1047.719 -30.560151 151.662826 1045.00 1.50 1046.5010 -30.560826 151.662322 1045.74 1.50 1047.2411 -30.561565 151.661646 1045.50 1.50 1047.0012 -30.562147 151.661003 1043.86 1.50 1045.3613 -30.562581 151.660466 1043.02 1.50 1044.5214 -30.563034 151.659833 1041.32 1.50 1042.8215 -30.563468 151.659125 1040.55 1.50 1042.0516 -30.563893 151.658310 1039.97 1.50 1041.4717 -30.564179 151.657773 1040.10 1.50 1041.6018 -30.564456 151.657033 1041.44 1.50 1042.9419 -30.564770 151.656078 1042.48 1.50 1043.9820 -30.564946 151.655456 1042.86 1.50 1044.3621 -30.565907 151.651894 1047.30 1.50 1048.80

GLARE ANALYSIS RESULTS

Summary of Glare

PV Array Name Tilt Orient "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare Energy

(°) (°) min min kWhPV array 1 SA

trackingSA

tracking0 0 -

Name: Roseneath Ln Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0°


1 -30.542451 151.666328 1022.27 1.50 1023.772 -30.544410 151.679771 1003.28 1.50 1004.783 -30.544983 151.679664 1001.47 1.50 1002.97

Name: Seaton St Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 50.0°


1 -30.534254 151.683794 1021.04 1.50 1022.542 -30.535687 151.681648 1033.90 1.50 1035.403 -30.535973 151.681520 1033.32 1.50 1034.824 -30.541601 151.680458 1012.03 1.50 1013.53

Total annual glare received by each receptor

Receptor Annual Green Glare (min) Annual Yellow Glare (min)

OP 1 0 0OP 2 0 0OP 3 0 0OP 4 0 0OP 5 0 0OP 6 0 0OP 7 0 0OP 8 0 0OP 9 0 0OP 10 0 0OP 11 0 0OP 12 0 0OP 13 0 0OP 14 0 0OP 15 0 0OP 16 0 0OP 17 0 0OP 18 0 0OP 19 0 0OP 20 0 0OP 21 0 0OP 22 0 0OP 23 0 0OP 24 0 0OP 25 0 0OP 26 0 0OP 27 0 0OP 28 0 0OP 29 0 0OP 30 0 0OP 31 0 0OP 32 0 0OP 33 0 0OP 34 0 0OP 35 0 0OP 36 0 0OP 37 0 0OP 38 0 0OP 39 0 0OP 40 0 0

Receptor Annual Green Glare (min) Annual Yellow Glare (min)

OP 41 0 0Dangarsleigh Rd 0 0Long Swamp Rd 0 0Lucas Ln 0 0Railway 0 0Roseneath Ln 0 0Seaton St 0 0

Results for: PV array 1

Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min)

OP 1 0 0OP 2 0 0OP 3 0 0OP 4 0 0OP 5 0 0OP 6 0 0OP 7 0 0OP 8 0 0OP 9 0 0OP 10 0 0OP 11 0 0OP 12 0 0OP 13 0 0OP 14 0 0OP 15 0 0OP 16 0 0OP 17 0 0OP 18 0 0OP 19 0 0OP 20 0 0OP 21 0 0OP 22 0 0OP 23 0 0OP 24 0 0OP 25 0 0OP 26 0 0OP 27 0 0OP 28 0 0OP 29 0 0

Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min)

OP 30 0 0OP 31 0 0OP 32 0 0OP 33 0 0OP 34 0 0OP 35 0 0OP 36 0 0OP 37 0 0OP 38 0 0OP 39 0 0OP 40 0 0OP 41 0 0Dangarsleigh Rd 0 0Long Swamp Rd 0 0Lucas Ln 0 0Railway 0 0Roseneath Ln 0 0Seaton St 0 0

Point Receptor: OP 1

0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare




























0 minutes of yellow glare

0 minutes of green glare






































0 minutes of yellow glare

0 minutes of green glare















Route: Dangarsleigh Rd


Route: Long Swamp Rd


Route: Lucas Ln


Route: Railway


Route: Roseneath Ln


Route: Seaton St


Assumptions

2016-2019 © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved.

"Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after-image (flash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings, tree cover andgeographic obstructions. Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affectresults for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sectionswill reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size.Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previouspoint on related limitations.) Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ.Glare vector plots are simplified representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may differ.The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of view, and typical blinkresponse time. Actual results and glare occurrence may differ. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actualocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum.

Documents

GLINT AND GLARE ASSESSMENT