The SoRMS project volunteers
Project data
Authors James Robinson
James Apple
Peter Johnstone
Heidi Benzonelli
Andrea Allen
Ranjit Deshmukh
Colin Sheppard
Lucas Siegfried
ERE Professor Arne Jacobson
Kristen Radecsky
Juliette Bohn
Location Arcata, California
OKH Manifest Download
Menu
Humboldt Energy Independence Fund (HEIF)
Download all as PDF
  1. HEIF campus energy monitoring
  2. HEIF CCAT solar hot water system
  3. HEIF music building PV system a
  4. HEIF music building PV system b
  5. HEIF Redwood Bowl lighting
  6. HEIF Science D retrofit
  7. HEIF Solar Monitoring System
  8. HEIF Take Back the Tap

The Solar Radiation Monitoring Station project is one of Humboldt's Renewable Energy Student Union's responses to the need for more renewable energy. The basic idea behind this specific system is not to create power but to collect information on solar power. As demonstrated in Fig.1, the usable Solar Radiation is more complicated than simply what the sun emits. The atmosphere which the radiation travels through needs to be taken into account due to it's distorting effects on usable energy at the earth's surface.

Fig.1 A mass balance of earth's solar radiation http://www.archive.arm.gov/Carbon/dataneeds/radiation pres.jpg

Because of the localized weather in coastal zones, most solar research facilities do not deal with the thick cloud cover found there. The focus of the SoRMS project is to collect local solar radiation data and make that data available to the public. Although conducted in Arcata on the northern coast of California, the SoRMS project is producing data that will help to fill in the informational gap for other areas with similar atmospheric conditions. In this manner SoRMS is contributing to a more comprehensive idea of the energy that can be expected from solar systems. With measurements of local solar energy, people will have a better idea about solar power's productivity in areas that experience more clouds and fog. This information can be used to help determine solar array sizing, battery storage requirements, and project payback including CO2 emission offsets.[1]

How The Project Works[edit | edit source]

The amount of energy coming from the sun is measured with the use of an Eppley Precision Spectral Pyranometer (PSP) seen in Fig.2. This measurement is done by comparing the heat absorbed through radiation of an absorptive black surface with that of a reflective surface. There are two of these PSP's; one is in the open sunlight and one is covered by a shadowband. The shadowband is seen bent around the PSP on the right of Fig.3, and is only blocking the direct sun light.

The PSP that is exposed to direct sunlight measures global radiation which is a composition of direct radiation, coming straight from the sun directly to the PSP and the diffuse radiation which is other light waves that have been bounced, bent, or reflected though the earth's atmosphere. The second PSP, with the shadowband blocking the direct radiation, only receives diffuse radiation. By using the data from each of these PSP's, the diffuse radiation is subtracted from the global radiation to obtain the amount of direct radiation which is the primary source of solar energy.[2]

The diagram in Fig.4 shows what happens inside the PSP. As the solar radiation comes from the sun, it is then transmitted through the top UV glass dome. Visible light, with the exception of small amounts of red light, is filtered first using a UV transmitting black glass. The light that passes through this filter hits a UV-B sensitive phosphor. The phosphor collects the UV light and sends it back as visible light, mostly as green light. Then another glass filter, this time green, sends the light from the phosphor filter and blocks the remaining red light that may have passed through the black glass. The light's intensity is then measured by the solid state photodiode.[3]

Project Progression[edit | edit source]

The project began as the idea of two students, David Carter and Dustin Jolley. These two students realized the usefulness of reliable and local solar energy data. With help from faculty, they received a grant for the purchase of two PSPs before they graduated. Leaving behind this necessary equipment left the door open for someone to pick up where they left off. In 2006, RESU got the system running and began measuring solar radiation on California's northern coast.

In general, data on solar radiation in coastal areas is scarce and thus there was a demand to get Arcata's data into a more comprehensive system. The solution was the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). In these beginning stages, the information collected had to be collected from the site and entered by hand into a computer. This data was then emailed to NREL. Data was obtained continuously except when the PSPs were shipped out to be re-calibrated. Because of the somewhat haphazard way the information was being conveyed to NREL, and the interruption of data while recalibrating, SoRMS could not acquire the status of what NREL calls a "primary site". In order to make the most out of the project, SoRMS saw this as the next necessary step.[4]

In order to be considered a primary site, SoRMS had to have the ability to pass continuous data directly to NREL. Two improvements would make the project compliant with NREL standards. An Ethernet jack was installed and another PSP was purchased. With the Ethernet transmitting the information directly from SoRMS to NREL and a third PSP allowing recalibration to take place in rotation, the SoRMS project would now become a NREL primary solar monitoring site.[5]

How To Access Data[edit | edit source]

The data that SoRMS produces is collected by a Campbell Scientific CR510 data logger, and connected to the Internet using a NL-100 Network Link Interface. With this Network Link Interface, the information collected by the SoRMS project is now promptly accessible to the public as and in a Calendar View. It also allows NREL access to download SoRMS data remotely which also has a link to the data. The graphical interpretation of a day's data is shown in Fig.5.[1]

Fig.5 A graphical representation of one day's data from SoRMS

Making Use Of SoRMS Data[edit | edit source]

With access to information on the direct radiation in the area, one is able to make use of it in several ways. By averaging the Daily Data, one can calculate average daily solar radiation levels. This information can be of use to engineers building passive solar power in the area, as they can get an idea of energy input and determine the necessary scale of the operation. If there is not much solar radiation in the area, there would need to be more panels to produce the necessary energy. With more radiation in the area, there would not need to be as many panels for the same energy output.[6]

Local farmers and gardeners can use the data to decide what crops would be ideal to grow based on the amount of sunlight available, as well as determine the proper harvest times based on past data. With the monthly data, it would become possible to see yearly solar radiation highs and lows, and thus decide on ideal dates to plant and harvest different crops.

Having access to information about solar radiation, one can find out when a solar power project would begin to pay itself off, or in some cases if it would payoff at all. By examining graphs, one can get an idea of the local climate as well. Frequent short arcs indicate that the location is not as sunny, leading one to assume there are often clouds or other forms of weather present in the given location. The opposite would be shown by long, tall arcs on the graph where more sun could be expected.[4]

Maintaining The Project[edit | edit source]

The SoRMS project is maintained by California's Cal Poly Humboldt (HSU), Renewable Energy Student Union, which collaborates with the Schatz Energy Research Center. All the people working to keep this project running are volunteers. These volunteers keep the information as accurate as possible by maintaining the consistency of the system. Every morning one of the volunteers clears the PSPs of any dew accumulation and adjusts the shadowband. The dew accumulation, if left on the PSP, can cause short term spikes and holes in the energy absorption due to the light bending as it passes through dew droplets. The shadowband is adjusted according to the earth's rotation and position of the sun.[6] Seen below in Fig.8 are some of the people who are integral to the project's continued operation.[7]

  • Fig.6 Aaron Parker wiping off dew

    Fig.6 Aaron Parker wiping off dew

  • Fig.7 Aaron Parker adjusting the Shadowband

    Fig.7 Aaron Parker adjusting the Shadowband

Future Projects[edit | edit source]

The SoRMS project has been completed, however there are some improvements that would take care of the issues found in the system. With these issues fixed, the SoRMS project would also become able to collect data for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL). There are two problems within the operating system, one is the lack of a backup PSP. Every two years the Eppley Precision Spectral Pyranometers have to be sent back to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory for recalibration. This process takes two monthes, putting the data logging on hold for that period of time. The proposed solution is to purchase another PSP, making it possible to have a continuos data log at all times throughout the year.

The next issue with the SoRMS project is its lack of direct access by the NREL. With a direct link to NREL, the SoRMS project would be able to become a primary solar monitoring site. A "primary site" is what the NREL calls the various locations from where they get their national data. The SoRMS project provide data for California's North Coast, an area that the NREL does not have any measured data. There are two proposed solutions for this problem. The first solution is to set up a radio transceiver/receiver and antenna to transmit the data to another location with internet access. From the receiving location, the data would be sent to NREL. The alternative to this is to install an ethernet jack on the library roof, and transmit the information directly from SoRMS. This solution is the preferred solution, as it involves less variables to slow down relaying data.

Funding Required[edit | edit source]

Because this project is maintained by volunteers, and the continuous operation is powered by solar panels, the only funding required is to cover the costs of shipping the PSPs to NREL for recalibration, which is done about every two years. However, the system exists today only because of the initial support of the HSU Sponsored Programs Foundation, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Redwood Alliance, Schatz Energy Research Center, HSU's Environmental Resources Engineering department, HSU Plant Operations, Marty Reed - HSU Equipment Technician, and the HSU library staff.[1]

Fig.8 The SoRMS project volunteers from left to right, (Top row) James Robinson, James Apple, Peter Johnstone, Heidi Benzonelli, Andrea Allen, Ranjit Deshmukh, Colin Sheppard, Lucas Siegfried, ERE Professor Arne Jacobson (Bottom row) Kristen Radecsky, Juliette Bohn

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 *Renewable Energy Student Union. Accessed online Oct. 2009.
  2. ↑ *Eppley Precision Spectral Pyranometer. Accessed online Nov. 2009. http://solardat.uoregon.edu/EppleyPSP.html
  3. ↑ *UVB-1/UVA-1 Ultraviolet Pyanometer. Accessed online Nov. 2009. http://web.archive.org/web/20181112134626/http://yesinc.com:80/products/data/uvb1/
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 *Apple, James and Bohn, Juliette (2008). Solar Radiation Monitoring Station (SoRMS) Operation and Maintenance Manual.
  5. ↑ *National Renewable Energy Laboratory: HSU Data. Accessed online Nov. 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/midc/hsu/
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 *Parker, Aaron of RESU, Personal Communication, Nov. 2009
  7. ↑ *Apple, James of RESU, Personal Communication, Oct.-Dec. 09
Page data
Part of Engr115 Intro to Engineering, Humboldt Energy Independence Fund (HEIF)
Keywords energy, renewable energy, solar power
SDG SDG07 Affordable and clean energy
Authors Taylor Erb, Ccs31, Beth Eschenbach
License CC-BY-SA-3.0
Affiliations Cal Poly Humboldt
Language English (en)
What links here 18 pages
Aliases The Solar Radiation Monitoring Station
Translations Chinese
Impact 1,383
Created October 16, 2009 by Anonymous1
Modified July 14, 2023 by Pedro Kracht
Cite as Taylor Erb, Ccs31, Beth Eschenbach (2009–2023). "HEIF Solar Monitoring System". Appropedia. Retrieved September 29, 2023.
API queries basic, semantic, html, files, more
Retrieved from "https://www.appropedia.org/w/index.php?title=HEIF_Solar_Monitoring_System&oldid=890324"

Discussion[View | Edit]

Name of Editor:Enrique Diaz Contact Information:Eid4@humboldt.edu Names of Writes:Colin Stewart and Taylor Erb

• Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.

i feel the target audience of this document are people that do not have any background information on the solar radiation monitoring station and the writing is appropriate for the audience because this page has explanations of the project

• Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

the information presented is easy to navigate. To improve the layout i would put in some headings such as "What is PSP" or "Amount of Radiation collected on x day", i would also place some images on the location of the project on campus because i am visual learner and i like to see what is happening.

• Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.

The heading used are successful in conveying the information to a reader but there are not enough headers to explain throughly what the project is actually doing to benefit mankind. The page needs helpful links and a links header. Another possible header could be "How to use PSP."

• Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.

There are topic sentences for each paragraph and the following sentences do relate to the topic sentences. There is a topic sentence near the bottom that with "Because" which could be changed to "Due to."

• Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)

the writing is objective and it communicates the facts and i could not find opinions in sentences

• Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

there are no photographs or graph in this page yet, but as mentioned above i would include pictures of the solar panels and location of the project. Graphs could show the amount of the radiation collected by the diffuse radiation vs the global radiation.

• Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.

the writer does not refer tot the figures in the text using figure numbers due to the lack of pictures/figures. No pictures no text description or citations, captions

• If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.

Not an RCEA page HEIF project

• Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

yes , what is the yearly cost of the project? How can i get involved with the Solar monitoring station? the sources are clearly presented under "references" but the page is not using the reference tool in appropedia which makes the citation process much easier and gives it more professionalism.

• Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?

the author provides a link to a related sites that is relevant and i believe the link is technical enough for the audience of the document. there are not enough links and the link present is in url format on the page and it would look cleaner if it was edited to just show the name of the site and not the url. There is a summary of references at the end. one quick suggestion here would be to use (*) to bullet the references. there is a summary of resources at the end of the page

• Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?

▪ According to the recommended length of the page, this page is too short. I recommend the following:

graphs photographs, a picture of the both of you by the solar panels( if possible) More headers to make the page user friendly

• Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?

▪ Not applicable to this page

[edit] the strengths of the documents are: page is informative easy to read the writing is objective and shows facts [edit] areas for improvement labeled graphs Tables photographs use reference tool it helped me.


===Overall comments===

The both of you need to communicate to get page up to a standard length and quality in the few week left in the semester. Dustin and Beth are always willing to help and if you guys need help. [edit] Comments _Elisabeth Johnson Name of Editor: Elisabeth Johnson Contact Information: ej22@humboldt.edu Names of Writers: Colin Stewart and Taylor Erb

1.Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. 

   It seems like the target audience is people that know a little about solar power, and want to know what HSU is doing with solar. It seems to address this audience well.

2.Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? 

   The first two paragraphs are well written, but the short paragraphs toward the end need some work. The use of  headings would be nice to help navigate, tell what the paragraph is addressing.

3.Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. 

   As mention previously headings would make the information easier to navigate through. It would also make the page more aesthetically pleasing. You could break you page up into “How SoRMS works”

“Who maintains SoRMS” “What is SoRMS”

4.Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. 

   The first two paragraphs are well written, both have clear topic sentences and all the information following relates to the topic. The last three paragraphs are a little harder to follow, I feel like they could almost be combined into one paragraph about who runs the program, the part about the need for clearing of dew could be included in the second paragraph while talking about the pyranomter.

5.Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) Sound objective.


6.Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? 

   Some photos would really make a difference to the overall look of the page. A pic. of  a pyranometer, a pic. of some of the people that volunteer, as well as a pic. of the actual SoRMS station would be nice.

7.Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. 

   No figures, but don't forget captions when you do add pictures.

8.If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.


9.Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? 

   Where is the monitoring facility located? Is it open for students/public to view/tour? Is this monitoring the radiation to use for theoretical productivity calculations or are there PV panels at the site of data collection?

I suggest a more clear presentation of your references.

10.Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? 

   It doesn't look like here are links to related sites, they all are under references, that is why I suggest you present more clearly.

11.Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? 

   The page has lots of good information, I think that if you added a couple of pictures and addressed the questions posed in question nine (above) your page would be complete.

12.Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? 

   This page was harder to find because it wasn't in the ENGR 115 category. Also it should be under the HEIF category.

13.List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) The information is there, the objective of SoRMS is clearly states, as well as defining what takes place during the monitoring.



14.List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Adding some pictures, and headings would make the page look better. A little more organization I think is needed.



15.Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good start. I think that with a little more organization, some pictures, and some details filled in here and there all areas will be covered.

User:ElisabethJ

Retrieved from "https://www.appropedia.org/Talk:The_Solar_Radiation_Monitoring_Station"

Add topic
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.