PowerVIBES – Energy System Design and Fabrication by Marius Lazauskas

PowerVIBES Energy System Design and Fabrication Marius Lazauskas November, 2020

EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Stan Ackermans Institute SMART BUILDINGS & CITIES PowerVIBES Energy System Design and Fabrication By Marius Lazauskas A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Professional Doctorate of Engineering The design described in this thesis has been carried out in accordance with the TU/e Code of Scientific Conduct S.P.G. Moonen, university coach Hubert von Heyden, company coach Eindhoven, the Netherlands November, 2020 This thesis has been established in collaboration with

A catalogue record is available from the Eindhoven University of Technology Library SAI‐report: 2020/042

Abstract Under the PowerVIBES project a renewable electricity generation and storage system by the name of GEM Tower has been designed, fabricated and tested. The aim of the GEM Tower was to provide locally generated electricity for off‐grid events. The system contained vertical axis wind turbine, solar panels, battery storage and supporting structure. This report focuses on my GEM Tower’s energy system design and fabrication efforts. My aim was to incorporate as much solar energy into the GEM Tower as possible. The overall energy system design goal was to incorporate as much renewable energy source energy into the GEM Tower as possible. Then test the energy systems by fabricating and fielding the GEM Tower. However the testing of the GEM Tower energy systems was disrupted by the European theatre of the COVID‐19 pandemic. As a result downscaled testing of the energy systems took place. Nonetheless the gathered energy performance information indicates that:  

Vertical axis wind turbine generated 3% of the anticipated energy output. Solar panels generated 73% of the anticipated energy output.

I was able to incorporate as much solar into the GEM Tower as possible. The validation results show that solar energy 23% underperformance. The discrepancies can be attributed to the uncertainty of chaining local conditions during deployment and wear on system components, which original use case did not anticipate constant mobility. Wind energy discrepancies are not the focus of this report as the assumptions were carried out by one of the PowerVIBES partners. Additional conclusions can be drawn that:   

In order to compete with diesel generators energy storage capacity should be increased into MWh range – currently 45 kWh usable. When tackling energy demands in MWh range and mobility constrains local kWh renewable energy generation seems to be impractical. Renewable energy source awareness generation is an important task, which is hard to quantify.

In respect to further development work in the field of electrical energy supply, it is suggested to focus on large scale energy storage systems. In this case renewable source energy can be stored offsite and brought to the event. In the downtime such system can also generate revenue by balancing the grid. Alternatively the current GEM Tower should focus on niche applications (lighting, communications, health and safety) where lower local renewable energy source generation is not a hindrance as they are not aimed at general use.

Nomenclature Adsorbed Glass Material (AGM) Alternating Current (AC) Angle of Incidence (AoI) Backup Electrical Energy Source (BEES) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) Building Physics & Services (BPS) Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Copper Indium Gallium (di)Selenide (CIGS) Depth of Discharge (DoD) Direct Current (DC) Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (DFAFC) Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) Electric Vehicle (EV) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Energy Storage System (ESS) Eurosonic Noorderslag (ESNS) Fuel Cell (FC) Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) Green Energy Mill (GEM) Health and Safety (HS) Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT) Human Machine Interface (HMI) Hydrogen (H2) Hydrogen Fuel Cell (HFC) Infrared (IR) Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Lithium Polymer (LiPo) Luminescent Solar Concentrator (LSC) Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) Methane Fuel Cell (MFC) Monocrystalline silicon (Mono‐Si) Natural Gas (NG) Off Grid Energy (OGE) Passivated Emitter Rear Contact (PERC) Photovoltaic (PV) Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 10

Public Relations (PR) Recreational Vehicle (RV) Renewable Energy Source (RES) Research and Development (R&D) SC (Solar Canvas) Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Twenty‐foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) United Kingdom (UK) Valve Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT) Victron Remote Management (VRM) Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS)

Table of Contents 1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 14

Goal – Renewable Energy System for Festivals ............................................................................. 15

Design Considerations – Energy .................................................................................................... 15

3.1.1.

Nuclear fusion ............................................................................................................... 16

3.1.2.

Stellar ............................................................................................................................. 17

Energy Storage ...................................................................................................................... 24

3.2.1.

Electrochemical ............................................................................................................. 24

3.2.2.

Chemical ........................................................................................................................ 26

Energy Sources ...................................................................................................................... 15

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 29

Design Solutions – Energy System Components ........................................................................... 30

GEM Tower ............................................................................................................................ 31

4.1.1.

Energy Sources .............................................................................................................. 33

4.1.2.

Energy Storage .............................................................................................................. 42

External .................................................................................................................................. 43

4.2.1. 5.

Energy Sources .............................................................................................................. 43

Design Validation – Energy System Output ................................................................................... 49

GEM Tower ............................................................................................................................ 51

5.1.1.

Energy Sources .............................................................................................................. 52

5.1.2.

Storage .......................................................................................................................... 54

External .................................................................................................................................. 55

Discussion/Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 57

Additional Thoughts ...................................................................................................................... 60

References ..................................................................................................................................... 64

Annex ............................................................................................................................................. 69

1. Introduction It is said that energy is what makes modern society tick. Of course energy can come in many forms: Mechanical, Chemical, Thermal, and etc. The classifications can differ from one field to another, but it’s hard not to notice that without Electrical energy our current lifestyles would halt to a stop. The present 21st century human society is addicted to energy to such an extent that for most of the time we take it for granted (at least in the postindustrial societies of our globe). Nonetheless more and more attention is being drawn to the potentially negative outcomes of energy harvesting from presently widely adopted fossil fuels. Primarily socioeconomic reasons are to blame for the domination of this energy source. One distinct flaw with socioeconomic reasoning being employed, for the assumptions of energy cost, is that it is limited by what our human cognition can comprehend. Our current main energy source complex interactions with the ecosystem and long term effects are omitted in such models, as they are vague and often incomprehensible to our minds. As a result the society’s desire for cheap energy was being granted for decades – doing otherwise would have been a political suicide. Doing so meant that through lack of foresight, lobbyism, political will, and plethora of other reasons, fossil energy sources were the status quo. As certain technologies started reaching maturity, and parts of the world started raising environmental concerns caused by wide scale adoption of fossil energy, renewable energy sources started to gain recognition. We have reached such a stage in renewable energy source evolution that in some parts of the world they have become cost advantageous, when compared with conventional energy sources. It’s also a good debate what is conventional and alternative energy sources. Direct solar energy should actual be treated as conventional energy source and wind, fossil and etc. ought to be alternatives. I digress, as renewable energy sources are becoming the new norm it’s time to explore non‐conventional applications of it. One of them being the direct replacement of internal combustion engine generators in offgrid outdoor events.

2. Goal – Renewable Energy System for Festivals The goal is to develop a mobile Renewable Energy Source (RES) system that can partially satisfy outdoor event electrical energy needs. Emphasis is put not only on renewable energy generation, but also on the aesthetical/architectural appeal of the system as that makes it more attractive to summer festivals – market that the GEM Tower is targeting. Besides the RES generation the fact that such energy generation hardware is at the foreground of an event allows for an easier engagement with festival attendees. Especially when taking into consideration the fact that ICE generators and other electrical energy distribution hardware is usually placed out of sight. Visible energy generation solutions work hand in hand to both produce electrical renewable energy locally, stimulate society’s ideological shift, and speed up the adoption of renewable means of generating energy. The RES system was developed by PowerVIBES consortium [1]. The TU/e design team consisted of Faas Moonen (Structural Engineering), Patrick Lenaers (Structural Engineering), Floor van Schie (Architecture) and Marius Lazauskas (Energy Systems) with additional expertise coming from PowerVIBES partners. The following parties formed PowerVIBES consortium: ZAP Concepts (Festival Sustainability Consultancy), Flexotels (Festival Accommodation Provider), RPS Conservation Services (Festival Sustainability Consultancy), 3D asbl (Festival in Belgium), Off Grid Energy (Energy Storage Solution Provider), The Factory CVBA (Festival in Belgium), Double 2 (Public Relations), IBIS Power (Hybrid Renewable Energy Solution Provider), Eurosonic Noorderslag (Festival in the Netherlands), Eindhoven University of Technology (Main Partner; GEM Tower Design Team). I was part of the design team at Eindhoven University of Technology and my responsibility was energy systems and their integration. My primary focus was incorporation of as much Solar energy into the GEM Tower as possible and this report covers my efforts in designing, fabricating and validating the GEM Tower Solar systems. As a secondary task I coordinated the PowerVIBES partner knowledge and component integration in the field of Energy systems into the GEM Tower. IBIS Power was the PowerVIBES partner with expertise in Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) and provided full support in this area. OGE was PowerVIBES partner with expertise in Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) and provided full support in this area. ZAP Concepts and RPS Conservation Services provided consolation regarding the way electrical energy is provided and distributed in festivals.

3. Design Considerations – Energy PowerVIBES project’s objective is to locally generate and store RES energy. Therefore we shall investigate energy generation and storage technologies that could be used in PowerVIBES and the ones that can have major impact in the future.

Energy Sources The following is a generic overview of mankind’s understanding of energy and its sources. Only a fraction of the 3.1 Energy Sources contents are seriously considered for implementation within the scope of PowerVIBES project. Nonetheless I decided to include an overview of energy technologies, as some of them can form the backbone of humankind’s energy transition aspirations. And who knows, maybe commercial Fusion Reactor is not “Always 30 Years Away”[2]. With this out of the way, let’s dive into the bottomless whirlpool of “What is Energy?”. Fundamentally we still do not seem to know what energy is. What we, as mankind, colloquially refer to as energy is a form of structured energy – something that science has been able to measure and

categorize [3, p. 3]. Currently this “something” constitutes to 5% of the universe, while rest 95% is currently referred to as dark energy and dark matter [4]–[6]. “Dark” is more or less a figure of speech, which stands for “We don’t really know what’s up with that, but we have plenty of hypothesis, which we currently are unable to test.”. The small part of the universe that we currently think that we understand has been formed by nucleosynthesis [7]. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) formed the light matter – Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium [8]. Hydrogen and Helium form 98% of all the matter in observable universe [9]. The rest of the elements have been formed through other forms of nucleosynthesis, most of which happened within stars (Fig. 1.). Therefore we can state that the energy sources that have been tamed by mankind are all stellar – as to our knowledge all the forms of energy that we use are a byproduct of nucleosynthesis [10, p. 281], [11, p. 49]. This includes the matter that surrounds us, as well as the energy that current science is able to measure.

Fig. 1. Periodic table showing the currently believed origins of each element [12].

With the mindboggling origin of energy (and apparently everything else) debacle out of the way let’s zoom into planet Earth, and Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) in particular. Here the task at hand is to select energy generation and storage mediums that can be employed by PowerVIBES project to provide RES electricity to microgrids. If we take a look at the core fundamentals of energy, then currently mankind employs stellar energy as its sole energy source. Stellar energy comes in two distinct types: Direct and Indirect. Besides that for the last 7 decades humanity has been working on taming nuclear fusion. Thus we shall briefly investigate the energy sources and storage mediums available to mankind, the not yet tamed nuclear fusion and their applicability for PowerVIBES project in the following sections.

3.1.1. Nuclear fusion Since inception Earth has been receiving byproduct of nucleosynthesis processes happening within the Sun in a form of mostly sunlight (direct stellar energy): 16

Nuclear fusion reactions are universal in the most fundamental sense; they occur all over the Universe since it is fusion that allows the stars to ignite and produce energy. About 100 million years after the Big Bang the very first fusion reactions occurred in the centers of immense gaseous spheres. As the temperature of the gas inside a sphere climbed it would "ignite" marking the birth of a new star [13, p. 12]. And as we currently hypothesize light is apparently one of the ingredients of life. And this life on Planet Earth reached such a level that it decided to create its own little Suns. For the past 7 decades humanity has been trying to create its own nuclear fusion reactors. The mature fusion technology is still far away and question still remains if it can be done at all. The upcoming decades and ITER will hopefully provide us with an answer, if controlled thermonuclear reactions are feasible [13]. If humanity is able to harness thermonuclear reactions for peace it will become and exponential leap for mankind. Though it’s nowhere near commercialization and of course not a viable option for PowerVIBES. It’s impossible to predict the future and development of fusion technologies. Taking into consideration stringent festival Health and Safety (HS) requirements, even if fusion energy become reality, it can be deemed not safe enough for deployment in festivals. Nonetheless outside of festivals it can dramatically shape the future of mankind.

3.1.2. Stellar It is important to realize that everything that we see around us apparently came from within stars (Fig. 1.). To no one’s surprise NASA has the following to say about the origin of matter: The only chemical elements created at the beginning of our universe were hydrogen, helium and lithium, the three lightest atoms in the periodic table. These elements were formed throughout the universe as a hot gas. It's possible to imagine a universe where elements heavier than lithium would never form and life never develop. But that is not what happened in our universe. … Carbon and oxygen were not created in the Big Bang, but rather much later in stars. All of the carbon and oxygen in all living things are made in the nuclear fusion reactors that we call stars. The early stars are massive and short‐lived. They consume their hydrogen, helium and lithium and produce heavier elements. When these stars die with a bang they spread the elements of life, carbon and oxygen, throughout the universe. New stars condense and new planets form from these heavier elements. The stage is set for life to begin. Understanding when and how these events occur offer another window on the evolution of life in our universe [14]. It’s important to look at energy at such a macro scale as it allows us to fully comprehend the global sized problem that humanity is facing. Therefore we end up with two stellar energy sources at our disposals – Direct and Indirect.

Direct Direct form of stellar energy mostly uses Photovoltaic effect for direct sunlight conversion into electricity. Light is part of the Electromagnetic Radiation (ERM) spectrum emitted from a star and the product of nuclear fusion reactions happening within the star. We can convert this energy directly

into electricity or use intermediary steps to reach the same energy carrier level, but with greater losses. The direct path to electricity and its system efficiency is what differentiates Direct Stellar energy from Indirect.

3.1.2.1.1.

Photovoltaic

The photovoltaic (PV) effect is the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity by a p–n junction semiconductor device. In mid‐20th century It was realized that PV cells were a convenient way of generating power in remote locations e.g. for powering communications equipment or weather monitoring stations and ideal for supplying power for the satellites and vehicles being developed for the rapidly expanding space industry. Nowadays this technology has been employed in a wide range of applications including supplying power for consumer electronics, garden lights, water pumping, and street lighting [15]. Current high‐end PV cell sunlight conversion into electricity efficiency is 27% [16]. Most PV products are now deployed in the large‐scale power generation market. The cells are connected together in modules and the modules are connected to form either centralized power stations or used as part of BIPV [15]. With large enough surfaces, which are optimized for solar exposure, significant amounts of energy can be generated even to cause a threat to existing power grids [17]. Due to wide spread use, technological maturity, and commercial availability PV technology is a suitable candidate for use in PowerVIBES project. Furthermore due to PV technology maturity it does not pose serious HS concerns for festivals.

Indirect Indirect solar energy is everything else that is of stellar origin (both matter and energy) and not directly converted into electrical energy. The indirect form of stellar energy we are intimately acquainted to is fossil fuel energy. It’s the matter that’s used as fuel by Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) and powers a major part of our transportation system. Other forms of indirect stellar energy go through more convoluted processes that eventually gets converted into electricity (or heat, or other products), and finally reach our power outlets. Indirect stellar energy can be an energy source for the PowerVIBES Energy Storage System (ESS). Storage can be filled up before an event and the electrical energy could come from sources that are immobile and too cumbersome for PowerVIBES requirements [18] – thermal, utility wind, utility solar, and etc.

3.1.2.2.1.

Thermal

One of the RES thermal energy sources are solar thermal and geothermal energy. Both are products of nucleosynthesis, one is stellar, while the other terrestrial. Part of the EMR emitted by the sun is in the Infrared (IR) spectrum, which we perceive as heat. Heat is one of the first forms of energy that humanity was able to tame. Normally in order to convert thermal energy into electricity we heat water (or other medium), convert it into gaseous form, which is then used to power a mechanical interface, that in turn spins a generator, that provides us with electricity. Losses compound at each step, but there are direct thermal‐to‐electrical energy paths too. Some experimental multijunction PV cells are able to absorb EMR in IR and UV spectrum – all in laboratory conditions. The other direct conversion of Sun’s IR radiation (or other source of heat for that matter) would be via thermoelectric effect [19]. Its efficiency is in single digits and not widely used for terrestrial electrical energy generation.

Besides sunlight, geothermal is another huge thermal energy source. It too has to go through the same cumbersome processes in order to be converted into electricity. Moreover the focus of PowerVIBES is mobile RES electrical energy generation. Neither solar thermal nor geothermal technologies can fit into the dimension and mobility requirements of PowerVIBES. Additionally taking into consideration festival HS concerns even mobile thermal solar could poses too many potential hazards.

3.1.2.2.2.

Wind

Wind is caused by mowing air mases that are the product of the water cycle. Water cycle requires thermal energy to drive the evaporation of water. The heat required for this comes from terrestrial and extraterrestrial sources. Half of the thermal energy comes from the Sun in a form of EMR and the other half from radioactive decay happening in Earth’s mantle and crust [20]. As we covered in the previous section all mater that we see around us is of stellar origin, so both the radioactive decay heat flux as well as stellar EMR. This makes wind energy and indirect stellar energy source. With rapid development of wind power technologies and significant growth of wind power capacity installed worldwide, various wind turbine concepts have been developed. Therefore it becomes important to be able to conduct impartial comparisons among different Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). There are many parameters that could to be taken into consideration when evaluating a WECS. Few of the more important ones are Power Coefficient and Torque. Power Coefficient (Cp) is a measure of wind turbine efficiency often used by the wind power industry. Cp is the ratio of actual electric power produced by a wind turbine divided by the total wind power flowing into the turbine blades at specific wind speed [21]. The higher the Cp the better the WECS in question at converting wind energy into electrical energy. Depending on requirements there might be instances when Cp is of secondary importance and the torque (CM) that the WECS extracts form the wind is the primary performance indicator e.g. windpumps. In the later instance the higher the CM the more torque can be extracted from the wind by the WECS. An overview of different wind generator systems and their comparisons are presented in Fig. 2. [22].

Fig. 2. Power coefficient (Cp) and torque (CM) of windwheels varying in construction versus tip speed (λ); A, B, C=typical windwheels with a low tip speed ratio; D, E=typical windwheels with a high tip speed ratio [23].

For PowerVIBES considerations the two most distinct WECS are Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT) and Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine (HAWT). They are classified according to the orientation of the spin axis of the blades. VAWT, also known as Darrieus after the French engineer who invented it in the 1920s, use vertical, often slightly curved symmetrical airfoils. Darrieus turbines have the advantage that they operate independently of the wind direction and that the gearbox and generating machinery can be placed at ground level. High torque fluctuations with each revolution, no self‐starting capability as well as limited options for speed regulations in high winds are, however, major disadvantages. Vertical‐axis turbines were developed and commercially produced in the 70s until the end of the 80s. The largest vertical‐axis wind turbine was installed in Canada, the ECOLE C with 4200 kW. Since the end of the 80s, however, the research and development of vertical‐axis wind turbines has almost stopped world‐wide [22]. Nonetheless the benefits of VAWT physical and volumetric footprint should not be disregarded as they can provide promising hybrid energy innovations e.g. IBIS Power PowerNEST [24]. The HAWT, or propeller‐type, approach currently dominates the wind turbine applications. A HAWT consists of a propeller and a nacelle that is mounted on the top of a tower. The nacelle contains the generator, gearbox and the rotor. Different mechanisms exist to point the nacelle towards the wind direction or to move the nacelle out of the wind in the case of high wind speeds. On small turbines, the rotor and the nacelle are oriented into the wind with a tail vane. On large turbines, the nacelle 20

with rotor is electrically yawed into or out of the wind, in response to a signal from a wind vane [22]. HAWT outputs range from couple of W to MW, but such structures are colossal, require considerable space considerations and are considered less safe than VAWTs [25]. WECS can be made mobile and in particular VAWTs are considered safe enough to comply with festival HS requirements. Therefore wind energy is going to be utilized by PowerVIBES RES system. The WECS consultation will be provided by IBIS Power.

3.1.2.2.3.

Hydropower

Hydropower is an important part of RES portfolio, but it is immobile. We won’t be building a damn wherever we go or only go to locations that have a river nearby. It’s pretty clear that hydropower is not plausible for use in PowerVIBES directly. Indirectly however, like utility wind and solar, it can be used to provide electrical energy for the ESS. In that regard electrical energy can be transported from far away destination via the transmission network and used to charge the PowerVIBES ESS. In regards to hydropower origins, it’s part of Earth’s water cycle that is driven by water evaporation caused by Earths heat flux and solar irrational. All products of nucleosynthesis. With the help from electrical power transmission network Norwegian hydropower could be used to precharge the BESS when PowerVIBES RES system is not deployed in the field [26].

3.1.2.2.4.

Petroleum

Petroleum is the main source material in production of fossil fuels. As we are taking a look at stellar impact on mankind energy systems it’s important to understand that petroleum is an ancient store of stellar energy: Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae. Vast amounts of these remains settled to sea or lake bottoms where they were covered in stagnant water (water with no dissolved oxygen) or sediments such as mud and silt faster than they could decompose aerobically. … As further layers settled to the sea or lake bed, intense heat and pressure built up in the lower regions. This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis in a variety of mainly endothermic reactions at high temperature or pressure, or both. [27, p. 127] Some centuries ago humanity started utilizing petroleum for various uses. Initially petroleum that’s simply seeping into the surface was recovered. When the automobile was invented refined petroleum products were found to be the ultimate fuel. This kick started a new petrochemical industry. With growing demand they had to resort to extracting petroleum from more and more difficult to reach sources. Due to raising environmental concerns and production costs alternatives for petroleum have been explored in the past decades. Biodiesel being one of these alternatives. Diesel is the primary fuel used by ICE generators to power summer festivals. PowerVIBES focus is summer festival energy systems and decarbonization of power generation. It’s then important to evaluate how much diesel summer festivals consume. By

converting consumed diesel volume into generated amount of electrical energy, we can investigate what impact PowerVIBES project can make (Fig. 3.). If the potential solution’s performance is comparable or even better than ICE generators, then it can have the potential to replace diesel power in summer festivals.

Diesel, [l/audience/day] Electricity (3.33 kWh/l), [kWh/audience/day] Electricity (0.66 kWh/l), [kWh/audience/day]

Shambala Festival, Shambala Festival, Average UK 2009 Festival, 2013 2017 0.7 0.6 0.4 2.33

1.33

0.46

0.4

0.27

Fig. 3. Diesel consumption in UK festivals though the past decade [28]–[33].

Replacing diesel wit biodiesel is a temporary solution. Photosynthesis‐to‐Biomass conversion is already in the mid‐single digits [34]. After taking into account farming, logistics, refining, and associated inefficiencies, places biofuels production efficiency in low single digit area. When evaluating the overall field‐to‐electricity system efficiency we also have to realize that diesel engine efficiency is at best 35% [35]. Therefore when biodiesel is used to generate electricity the field‐to‐ electricity overall system efficiency is ~1%. For comparison PV ERM‐to‐electricity overall system efficiency is in the mid‐teens (~16%), which is orders of magnitude better [36]. Simply making use of surplus RES electricity in Power‐to‐Gas processes can yield overall system efficiency in high single digits [37]. This strongly suggests that using biodiesel as a sole source of energy for PowerVIBES is not efficient, but can be an of the shelf RES backup. Mankind is addicted to petroleum products and the inefficiencies of ICE generators do require serious addressing in the near‐term. Timewise the energy transition can take decades therefore more efficient uses of current energy sources is required. In order to address that, Carbon neutral innovations, such as PowerVIBES, ought to become the norm of the long‐term future. Petroleum will nonetheless be part of our future in the midterm as it’s the raw material not only for our fuels, but also plastics, fertilizers and etc. ICE generators is a mature technology and widely used in festivals, if ICE fuel could be replaced with carbon neutral alternatives then it can be an important energy source for PowerVIBES RES system.

3.1.2.2.5.

Nuclear Fission

Nuclear fission can be considered an indirect form of stellar energy. Nuclear fission fuels originated in stars via nucleosynthesis processes: The Earth's uranium has been thought to be produced in one or more supernovae over 6 billion years ago. More recent research suggests some uranium is formed in the merger of neutron stars [20]. After nuclear fuels are extracted from the Earth’s crust, they get processed and shipped to nuclear power stations. At the core of nuclear fission rectors, the following processes are happening: In modern nuclear fission power plants large atomic nuclei such as uranium or plutonium are split apart releasing large amounts of energy. This energy is stored in the strong bonds that 22

hold the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus; therefore, breaking the nucleus apart releases the energy. [13, p. 12] Mobile nuclear fission rector casually powering a microgrid would be quite a precedent. Nuclear fission reactors are nothing new, but one could not call them easily available. Moreover even though R&D has been carried out on Small Modular Reactors (SMR) and they are capable of providing power in the range of 10s to 100s of MW [38], they will not be coming to a festival near you anytime soon [39]. Mobile fission reactor technology is the domain of military [39]. Financially these technologies are out of reach for use in PowerVIBES. Furthermore due to the associated stigma mobile fission reactors would hardly comply with festival HS regulation. Nonetheless it’s an important energy source and can still be an important source of electrical energy in the future as well as precharging PowerVIBES BESS.

Energy Storage

Fig. 4. Classification of ESS according to their energy formations and composition materials [40, p. 773].

Energy that is generated and not used ought not to be wasted. Storing energy for use at a later time is highly desirable. In the case of PowerVIBES electrical energy is going to be generated, and if not used on the spot it has to be stored in a storage medium that satisfies the requirements of dimensions, weight, capacity and commercial availability. Electrochemical battery Energy Storage System (ESS) branch is one that can satisfies most of the requirements hence they will be investigated further (Fig. 4.). Chemical fuel cells can be an alternative for long‐term storage and backup energy.

3.2.1. Electrochemical All contemporary rechargeable batteries fall into the electrochemical storage system category. The widely known examples of contemporary electrochemical batteries include various types of lead 24

acid, nickel and lithium batteries (Fig. 4.). In electrochemical batteries energy is transformed from electrical to chemical energy and vice versa through a reversible process with high energy efficiency and low physical changes. However, chemical reaction may reduce cell life and energy. These types of batteries have the dual function of storing and releasing electrical energy by changing the charge and discharge phases with no harmful emission and little maintenance [40].

Valve Regulated Lead Acid Among the electrochemical batteries the ones with long operational history are lead acid batteries. Recent technological developments allows Valve Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) cells to be maintenance‐free. Furthermore they have high specific power, low initial cost, and quick charge capability, and have proven recyclability track record. Common VRLA batteries include Adsorbed Glass Material (AGM) and GEL batteries. AGM batteries are composed of electrolyte made of fiberglass, which is a solid material, to absorb and contain acid without leakage. These types of batteries have a compact footprint and therefore occupy minimal space. The special feature of this battery type is that it recombines hydrogen and oxygen into water inside the unit during charging, thereby limiting the loss of water – minimizing maintenance. GEL batteries are manufactured with gel‐state electrolyte, which is a gelatinous mass that is not fully solid to contain acid and has no leakage. GEL batteries need slower and controlled charging compared with other batteries [40]. Taking whole produce lifecycle into account, lead acid batteries have a long proven track record of recyclability. If spent VRLAs are brought to certified recycling facilities they are 99% recyclable [41]. Moreover VRLAs are considered to “have low fire risks” [42], which is of high importance for festival HS requirements. These features make VRLA a great candidate for PowerVIBES ESS.

Lithium Polymer In the current state of affairs few commercially available battery technologies can compare with the energy density of Lithium Polymer (LiPo) batteries: Lithium SBs are promising batteries for EV energy storage applications because of their high energy density, high specific energy and power, and light weight. Moreover, lithium batteries have no memory effect and no harmful effects unlike mercury or lead. However, this battery type is costlier than other battery types; it typically costs $150 for 1300/kWh and needs protection for safe operation and cell balancing system to ensure consistent battery performance at the same voltage and charge level [40]. Regarding price the above quote is slightly out of date. Currently commercially available LiPo BESS costs have dropped to as low as 300 €/kWh [43]. Due to the LiPo performance awareness everyone wants to employ these batteries. Primary use of high storage LiPo batteries is for automotive EV applications. Afterwards automotive grade LiPo batteries are repurposed for less demanding static ESS applications. Due to high demand, availability of even the so called second life [44] LiPo batteries is limited. Furthermore due to several LiPo incidents that were widely covered by the media authorities are cautious of LiPos due to their potential fire hazard. However the current general public’s perception of LiPo batteries as being extremely hazardous will dissipate with time. In our modern lives we are constantly surrounded by flammable materials (plastics, wood, diesel, gasoline), but rarely do they spontaneously burst into flames. Manufacturers are businesses that want to sell products and bad publicity does not increase sales. There was, are and will be LiPo incidents and

manufactures will respond accordingly. The question is, if the current LiPo technology is safe enough for mass public events. This depends on the product of choice and its features. One simply has to keep in mind that nothing is 100% safe – even 100+ year Lead Acid batteries catch on fire [42]. Nonetheless if enough financial and testing resources are allocated PowerVIBES could greatly benefit from LiPo BESS – LiPo battery energy density can be as much as 5 times higher when compared to VRLA. However due to current negative LiPo public image festivals are not willing to take HS risks and PowerVIBES would have to greatly reduce its reach if LiPo would be employed in BESS. Therefore until LiPo technologies are certified to be as safe as VRLAs they won’t be used in PowerVIBES BESS.

3.2.2. Chemical The main difference between electrochemical and chemical ESS is that for the later the materials for electricity generation are supplied externally. Moreover recharging is not possible. Such batteries have to be refueled: Chemical storage systems store and release energy through chemical reactions of chemical compounds composed in the system, thereby forming other compounds. The FC is a typical chemical storage system that converts chemical energy of fuel to electrical energy continuously. The main difference between an FC and a battery is the way they supply energy source. In an FC, the fuel and oxidant are supplied externally to generate electricity, and these parts are integrated in the battery (except metal‐air batteries). The advantage of FC is its capability to generate electricity as long as the active materials are supplied to it. FCs offer 40–85% fuel efficiency. … FCs are composed of liquid or gaseous fuel as anode and oxygen, air, and chlorine as the oxidant in the cathode side. … Depending on fueling, HFCs are categorized into direct and indirect system FCs. In direct system FCs, fuel (e.g., hydrogen and methanol) reacts directly, whereas in indirect system FCs, fuel (e.g., fossil fuels and natural gas) is first converted to reform rich hydrogen gas and then supplied into the cell for the reaction [40]. Chemical ESS could make a great backup electrical energy source for PowerVIBES. Some of the technologies are commercially available and fuels have existing supply chains.

Solar Fuel Currently existing fossil fuel infrastructure can be easily adapted to make use of Solar Fuels. Solar Fuels would be carbon neutral as the carbon required to produce them would be taken from the biosphere and not ancient carbon stores buried deep underground. They could also be used in existing ICE plants. Solar fuels synthesis primarily uses artificial photosynthesis in order to generate carbohydrates: Fuels can be produced from solar energy by both indirect and direct pathways. Examples of indirect pathways include conversion of biomass to biogas, as well as hydrogen production by electrolysis of water using electricity from photovoltaics. Direct pathways produce the fuel directly in an integrated system, without intermediate energy carriers. Artificial

photosynthesis is an example of a direct pathway for producing solar energy. Natural photosynthesis in green plants, algae, and cyanobacteria use solar energy to convert carbon dioxide and water to fuel, primarily energy rich carbohydrates. The basis of artificial photosynthesis is not to copy this process but rather to learn from it and reproduce the same principles in much smaller man‐made systems [45]. For use within PowerVIBES such ESS could be used as backup electrical energy source. Producing Solar Fuels on site for later use would not be the aim. There are better suited short‐to‐medium term ESS for that among electrochemical ESS. Solar Fuels would be backup ESS and could be purchased for use in ICE electricity generators. There are already several commercially available biodiesels that can be run in ICE. ICE generators are a mature technology and common in festivals therefore Solar Fuel powered ICE generators are a viable option for PowerVIBES.

Hydrogen Hydrogen as a form of ESS that has been widely publicized in the past decades, but its adoption faces major hurdles. Hydrogen infrastructure is non‐existent, currently hydrogen is produced from mostly fossil fuels, and storage systems are not market ready due to safety and energy density concerns: One of the biggest challenges that face fuel cell commercialization is the fact that we are still producing 96% of the world's hydrogen from hydrocarbon reformation processes. Producing hydrogen from fossil fuels (mainly natural gas) and then using it in fuel cells is economically disadvantageous since the cost‐per‐kWh delivered from hydrogen generated from a fossil fuel is higher than the cost‐per‐kWh if we were to directly use the fossil fuel. … Moreover, development of hydrogen storage mechanisms that provide high energy density per mass and volume whilst maintaining a reasonable cost is the second half of the hydrogen infrastructure dilemma. Any widely‐adopted hydrogen storage technology will have to be completely safe since hydrogen is a very light and highly‐flammable fuel that could easily leak from a regular container. Metal‐ and chemical‐hydride storage technologies are proving to be safer and more efficient options than the traditional compressed gaseous and liquid hydrogen mechanisms. However, more research and development are needed to reduce the relatively high cost of the hydride storage technologies and to further improve their properties [46]. Lack of RES hydrogen and festival HS concerns mean that Hydrogen Fuel Cell (HFC) ESS currently are not a viable option for PowerVIBES. Nonetheless a lot of R&D and PR effort is being allocated for the “hydrogen is the future fuel for humanity” story. And there are plenty of examples in the past century alone, when mediocre technical solutions win over superior ones. Therefore time will show if in the next decades H2 will become a viable option for satisfying humanities insatiable needs for energy.

Methanol Inherently more attractive FC solutions are the ones that use readily available fuel sources. Methanol is an industrial commodity and readily available around the globe. Its storage is nowhere as

troublesome as hydrogen. The major Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) downside seems to be low energy conversion efficiency: Direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs) have evolved over the years as a potential candidate for application as a power source in portable electronic devices and in transportation sectors. They have certain associated advantages, including high energy and power densities, ease of fuel storage and handling, ability to be fabricated with small size, minimum emission of pollutants, low cost, ready availability of fuel and solubility of fuel in aqueous electrolytes. However, in spite of several years of active research involved in the development of DMFC technology, their chemical‐to‐electrical energy conversion efficiencies are still lower compared with other alternative power sources traditionally used. … The refueling of the DMFC is fast and the fuel can last several months. The product is cost competitive due to the large market size and economies of scale. The DMFC systems are eventually far less expensive than the alternative battery technologies in the long run. This was proven by researchers in the field of DMFC. However, methanol crossover is currently the biggest challenge faced by DMFC designers as it has the most effect on the cell performance [47], [48]. Even though DMFC seem to be a lot more attractive FC technology than hydrogen there are hardly any commercially available products. There is plenty of R&D and less hype around DMFC when compared to HFC, but no available off‐the‐shelf solutions. Therefore it might be not possible for PowerVIBES to acquire the necessary DMFC hardware for backup use. Festival HS wise methanol is a safer alternative than hydrogen, but it’s not clear if it would be treated like other fossil fuels or requirements would be stricter.

Formic Acid Formic acid can be used in a Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cells (DFAFC) to generate electrify. As was the case with methanol, formic acid is an industrial commodity. It is used in the industry primarily as a preservative and widely available in Europe. Moreover DFAFCs face far fewer technical challenges than DMFCs: Thus, direct formic acid fuel cell have higher potential for miniaturization because it has high power output compared to other liquid fuel cells like methanol. In addition, if we compared to H2‐PEMFC which require high cost of miniaturized of hydrogen containers. Direct liquid fuel cell is one of the power options since it has very high power density relatively compare to lithium battery. Consequential to this theory, direct alcohol fuel cells have been extensively investigated. Yet, methanol is toxic and permeable through Nafion membrane which leads to decreasing of the cell performance. While the ethanol oxidation process with the catalyst is a very slow process. Hence, direct formic acid fuel cell is a suitable candidate due to the nature of formic acid which is fast electro‐ oxidation, low fuel crossover through Nafion membrane, non‐flammable, non‐toxic and ease of fuel availability [49]. Major advantages of DFAFCs are that there are commercially available products and fuel that can be used in PowerVIBES as a backup ESS. Taking into consideration formic acid and DFAFC availability it is an attractive ESS solution for PowerVIBES. Festival HS wise Formic Acid is a safer alternative than 28

hydrogen, but it’s not clear if it would be treated like other fossil fuels or requirements would be stricter.

Methane Methane also known as Natural Gas (NG) is one of the staple fossil fuels. Methane is widely used all across the globe and its discovered reserves are much higher than that of petroleum [50]. Methane is considered to be the least polluting of all the fossil fuels. Therefore in some parts of the world and by some experts it is considered to be a stopgap solution before eventually moving into RES. Moreover methane can be produced in a potentially carbon neutral form from biogas in anaerobic digesters. Single dairy cow’s manure can be anaerobically digested into enough biogas to generate 3 kWh/day of electricity [51]. Even though Western Europe is trying to wean itself off NG addiction it will still form a major part of the energy mix for decades to come [52]. As a result it’s important to use this energy source as efficiency as possible. FCs can offer better efficiencies than ICEs. Moreover Methane Fuel Cell (MFC) solutions are commercially available [53]. MFC can also be fueled by Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) or Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for that matter [54]. Both LNG and CNG infrastructure is readily available and fuel logistics is simple as there are plenty of fueling stations. Furthermore biogas can also be processed into LNG and CNG. Authorities are familiar with NG products and can pose less restriction than to other less common FC technologies. Hence the increased efficiency that MFCs can provide and the fact that biogas can be carbon neutral means that it is an attractive solution for PowerVIBES backup ESS. Furthermore CNG and LNG fueled ICEs are common and would be treated similar to more common diesel ICE generators by festival HS requirements.

Conclusion In order to visualize the scope of challenges that humanity is facing it is vital to understand that our surroundings and “We are made of starstuff” – [55]. The current science knowledge explains that the origin of time as we know it started with the Big Bang. Afterwards the matter that we are made of and everything around us took billions of years to synthesize and evolve. Some could argue that looking at such RES innovations as PowerVIBES through the prism of cosmological scales is disproportionate, but I would argue that it can help us see the bigger picture. RES adoption is not a festival, city, region or continent challenge. It’s humanities global problem and therefore has to be treated at appropriate planetary scales. Especially if we take human time perception into geological or cosmological timescales. Most of the energy that drives the modern world, especially fossil energy sources, are simply ancient stores of stellar energy that are being depleted faster than they replenish. Also combustion of these materials releases GHGs into the ecosphere that have been locked away in Earth’s geological formations for millions of years. Therefore in order to reach equilibrium with these reinjected substances the ecosphere will adjust accordingly. Humanity fears that these changes will pose major threats to civilization. Therefore more direct and sustainable uses of stellar energy are required. However, when tackling such enormous issues human cognition is the limiting factor, we have to brake a large problem down into smaller pieces in order to try to solve it. That’s what PowerVIBES is, it’s a small piece of the RES transition puzzle. In the case of PowerVIBES safe, off‐the‐shelf, and mobile solutions are the ones that can satisfy the energy demands of fast passed and random festival environments. Consequently Photovoltaic, Wind, VRLA, LiPo, Hydrogen and Methane (in a form of Biogas) FCs are the technologies that could be considered as readily

available solutions. The energy sources that are deemed unacceptable for direct use in PowerVIBES can still be used for BESS charging when PowerVIBES system is not in use by utilizing the electrical power from transmission network. Some of these solutions will be integrated into the PowerVIBES design and exact applications will be covered in the following parts of this report.

4. Design Solutions – Energy System Components The method for evaluating the GEM Tower energy system performance was to generate assumptions on possible RES energy output and validate them by monitoring the system output in the field. The assumptions for Wind energy output were made by IBIS Power. The Solar energy output was calculated by me using PVWatts. The energy system performance was monitored using VRM and BeNext Energy Switches. The assumptions were compared with measurements and the overall system performance evaluated. Validated assumptions were used to predict what amount of RES energy the GEM Tower can generate.

GEM Tower Renevable Energy Generation Assumptions

Energy Generation, [kWh/day]

37.0 32.0 27.0 22.0 17.0 12.0 7.0

Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

Jan

2.0

Month 3 kW VAWT

7.2 kWp PV

Total

Fig. 5. Assumptions of what amount of RES energy could the GEM Tower’s Energy System Components generate.

The concept of hybrid solar wind energy generation systems is nothing new. The concept makes use of the constantly changing weather patterns by combining wind and solar power. Also in northern latitudes there is less sunlight, but more wind in the winter (and vice versa in the summer). Therefore by using hybrid RES the annual power generation curve can be smoothed out (Fig. 5). Wind forms the major energy output in the winter months and sunlight – summer months [56]. In the case of PowerVIBES the mobile RES energy generation system for summer festivals was developed in close collaboration with IBIS Power [24] and OGE [57]. PowerVIBES consortium contains partners that provide solutions in RES and Energy Storage fields. Their expertise and products were incorporated into the GEM Tower design. OGE experience in

energy storage was used to select and customize the most appropriate BESS. IBIS Power provided calculations that indicated that large non ducted VAWT will generate more energy than a smaller ducted VAWT. I used my Solar output calculations (Fig. 49., Fig. 50) and IBIS Power 3 kW VAWT output calculations (Fig. 39.) to create GEM Tower’s RES energy generation assumptions (Fig. 5.). The selection methodology evaluated: costs, safety, product availability, size restrictions, weight restrictions, logistics, HR availability, etc. The solar systems were developed by me and GEM Tower design team to suit the structural, time and logistics constrains. The energy system components will be explored in more detail in the following sections of this report. My design aim was to incorporate as much solar energy generation into the GEM Tower as possible. As there was not enough suitable area on the GEM Tower proper, most of the Solar energy gains came from Solar Canvases, which are deployed in the vicinity of the GEM Tower RES System (Fig. 8.).

GEM Tower The main component of PowerVIBES mobile RES energy generation system is the Green Energy Mill (GEM) Tower. At the core it is a steel structure cladded in timber elements that accommodates the BESS, VAWT and BIPV systems, and much more (Fig. 6.): In total, three hexagonal modules are stacked on top of each other. Module 1 is the foundation. This module is filled with 1m³ concrete which serves as contra weight. As the steel hexagon frame will serve as a structural element, the concrete has minimal reinforcement; it merely serves as dead weight. In addition, one ton of steel elements is stacked on top of this concrete. … Module 2 is the module which contains the BESS (Battery Energy Support System). The weight of this battery system, approximately 3000 kg, also adds to the stability of the tower. Module 3 is the final module. This module is attached to the eight deployable elements (element 1‐8). Near the top of the tower, it can be seen that element 7 and element 8 are slightly lower deployed. … The hexagon module result in six radial trusses. The trusses are made out of three elements for transport reasons. Truss element one is connected to Module 1 and Module 2. Truss element three is connected to the stay cable and concrete footing. The forces from the stay cable are transferred through the trusses and the modules. … At the end of each truss a concrete footing is attached. This footing has two purposes. First, the footing distributes the compression forces in order to stay below the maximum allowed ground load. Second, it provides extra stability as the concrete footings have a relative large arm with respect to the rotation axis. … In between the trusses, three (or two) floor beams are installed. These floor beams provide lateral stability for the truss elements. In addition, at the bottom of the tower a platform will be made. At this platform visitors from festivals are able to enter the GEM‐tower and get informed about the importance of sustainable energy. This platform will be surround by three stairs (placed in front of floor beam three), which will provide the main access to the

platform, and three benches (placed on the places were floor beam three is absent), where people can meet and great [58].

Fig. 6. Structural overview of GEM Tower components [58].

The GEM Tower primary purpose was to be an easy to deploy structure for erection of the VAWT to the maximum possible altitude. Winds are more constant and stronger at higher altitudes. The structure was designed to fit into standard truck trailer to ease the logistics burden. During the design phase I have helped to come up with a solution for fixing deployed elements in place – hingers [58]. The available spaces and surfaces were used for other energy systems and architectural aesthetics. Due to time constrains integrated design workflow was not implemented, and there were no electrical wiring provisions made in the GEM Tower’s structure. When folded the element frames touch each other, so the cables have to be routed inside of the frame in order to avoid electrical cable damage and untimely a fire (Fig. 7). As a result I spent 2019 November and December drilling holes for electrical DC wiring connections in elements 1 to 8. 32

Fig. 7. Electrical cable wiring the element frames. In the picture the electrical cable is enclosed in a black Nylon conduit for abrasion protection.

4.1.1. Energy Sources Solar and wind (or simply stellar) are the RES energy sources that will be employed by the GEM Tower. An overview and energy generation assumptions are available in Fig. 8 and monthly RES energy generation assumptions in Fig. 5. As can be seen from Fig. 5. the main GEM Tower’s RES energy sources are going to be “3 kW VAWT” and “7.2 kWp PV” systems. Depending on the time of the year the total assumed RES generation ranges from 14 to 34 kWh/day. The wind portion consists of a 3 kW VAWT that will be placed at 21 m height on top of the “Footing VAWT” (Fig. 6). WECS equipment was provided by IBIS Power. WECS specification drafting revealed that the largest power VAWT in IBIS Power disposal, would suit the GEM Tower’s needs the best. It ought to be able to generate significant amounts of energy and still satisfy handling, volumetric and weight restrains. The VAWT will be further touched upon in the Vertical Axis Wind Turbine section of the report. Due to the wind load and lack of suitable surfaces, majority of the solar energy systems had to be placed outside of the tower. These external systems were called Solar Cavasses. They consist of 12*0.6=7.2 kWp Solar Canvases (Fig. 16.) that will be placed on adjacent suitable surfaces. Part of the solar energy output is assumed to come from the BIVPs and LSCs, but due to the expected negligible output they are not included in the energy harvesting calculations (Fig. 5.). Solar Canvases will be further touched upon in the Solar Canvas Photovoltaics section of the report.

Fig. 8. Schematics of the main GEM Tower Energy System Components: BESS, WAVT, BIPV, Solar Canvas PV, and Backup. Solar Canvases are external GEM Towers RES System components and are deployed in the vicinity of the GEM Tower and suitable surfaces. Backup power is external from the GEM Tower and comes in the form of the electric grid connection or ICE generator fueled with biodiesel. Sketch by Floor van Schie

Once energy generation hardware selection was done the BESS specifications got drafted with the help from Off Grid Energy (OGE). The most suitable BESS product from OGE’s existing product lineup was selected. The OGE BESS was later adapted to fit specific volumetric constrains of the GEM Tower. Moreover due to cost and time constrains, low fire hazard, and the need for extra structural ballast, VRLA cells were chosen to be used in the BESS of the GEM Tower. Information available in Fig. 8 was incorporated from the following sources: Estimates for 30 kVA ICE backup power (Fig. 31.); VAWT output estimates by IBIS Power (Fig. 39), Solar Canvas output estimates by me (Fig. 49., Fig. 50.); BESS size was determined by the amount of VLRA cells that could fit inside of Module 2 (Fig. 41., Fig. 42., Fig. 43.); I used PVWatts for rough output estimates.

Building Integrated Photovoltaics

Fig. 9. PowerVIBES concept by IBIS Power [59]. The WECS‐BIPV concept that was analyzed for use in GEM Tower, was 1/3 of the size lengthwise (Fig. 10.).

During initial phases of GEM Tower development, I have evaluated BIPV potential of the PowerVIBES concept from IBIS Power (Fig. 9.). IBIS Power did the calculations and provided WECS energy output estimates for the louvered single 0.75 kW VAWT. In the meantime I ran Ladybug [60] simulations in order to get an assessment on of the amount of energy one can expect from BIPV installed on the louvres (Fig. 10.). Information on how to use Ladybug Tools to performs Solar Radiation studies can be found in Ladybug Tools Documentation and online tutorials [61]–[63]. The amount of solar energy from the 23 m2 louvre area that could be harvested was 5 kWh/day. The WECS output calculated by IBIS Power was 1 kWh/day. The low overall energy output from ducted WECS forced me and PowerVIBES partners to look for alternatives. After taking into account structural design, logistics and aspirations for largest possible energy output, decision was made to select the ductless Hi‐VAWT DS 3000 as GEM Tower’s WECS. The ductless VAWT dimensions are less limiting. For each deployment the VAWT will be assembled and disassembled afterwards for transportation. The VAWT will be broken down into major components for transportation – 3 blades and vertical axis (Fig. 14). This way the VAWT is not constrained by the max 2.4 m width dimension of a TEU container, as would have been the case with the louvered VAWT. Though the VAWT manufacturer did not design the turbine with constant assembly and disassembly in mind.

Fig. 10. Ladybug Radiation Analysis of the initial ducted WECS concept revealed, that a ducted WECS that could fit inside of a TEU would be outputting negligible amounts of wind and solar energy.

Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) use the same Passivated Emitter Rear Contact (PERC) Monocrystalline Silicon (Mono‐Si) PV cell technology as Solar Canvases [64]. There is not much suitable surface area available on the GEM Tower, hence the BIPVs are going to be small PERC Mono‐ Si PV modules wired in series and parallel to reach the required DC voltage and current levels by the Enphase IQ7X Microinverters [65]. There is 1 string of BIVPs mounted on each side of the GEM Tower Elements 3 to 8 (Fig. 6), which in total is 3 strings. GEM Tower Elements populated with LSC panels and BIPVs can be visible in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. GEM Tower Elements populated with LSC panels. Downward facing LSC panels contain CIGS modules installed on the edges of the LSC panel with cumulative 4.2 Wp power. Upward facing LSC panels contain the same CIGS modules, and two Mono‐Si panels with cumulative 25 Wp power.

The BIPVs are mounted on top of the upwards facing LSC panels. When GEM Tower is erected their tilt is fixed at 60˚ for modules 3 to 7 and at 50˚ for module 8. The intention was to make the GEM Tower deployment automatic with “a push of a button”. Such a deployment system would have allowed to dynamically adjust the angle of the BIPVs and optimize their energy production on demand. It would have also taken into account the VAWT performance, and if the potential for wind energy was greater, the BIPVs would stay put. Otherwise control logic would automatically decide the optimum BIPV tilt, which does not penalize the VAWT output. The automatic deployment of the GEM Tower was not implemented and it is erected as a static installation – the BIPV tilt is fixed. Main reason for GEM Tower manual erection is the size of the VAWT (Fig. 13.) and GEM Tower modules (Fig. 6.). They cannot be manhandled and heavy equipment is required. Furthermore for loading, unloading, positioning of TUEs (Fig. 54.) and pallets (Fig. 55) a heavy piece of equipment is also needed.

Luminescent Solar Concentrator Photovoltaics Luminescent Solar Concentrator (LSC) is an optical device that, in the GEM Tower’s case, primarily serves an aesthetical function, energy generation is secondary. LSCs are not commercial products and currently the R&D test batches provide low system efficiencies: The overall absolute performance of the LSC panels are naturally inferior to the output of conventional PV, as one would expect. However, one can compensate for this difference in 37

output with the dramatically enhanced aesthetics, robustness, transparency and reduced investment costs afforded by these panels [66] Furthermore in direct sunlight LSC performance degrades very fast, and the concentrating effect can be diminished to close to a zero in a matter of years. Therefore since the very inception LSC use in the GEM Tower was envisioned to serve mostly an aesthetical function. Its appearance is seemingly appealing and generates an attractive integrated design PR narrative. Energy wise in the current state LSC does not have much potential (Fig. 8.). The custom order for LSC panel fabrication was executed by Limacryl, a company that specializes in Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) manufacturing [67]. Limacryl also arranged the purchasing of LSC pigments that were used for PMMA sheet dyeing. The LSC pigments to be used were recommended by Michel Debije as he previously used them in his own R&D projects [66]. Later Limacryl arranged the ready LSC sheet machining into required LSC panel shapes (Fig. 12. LSC panel with 3 mm PMMA spacers on both sides and CIGS PV modules installed around the edges. Ready upward facing LSC panel shape ca be seen in Fig. 12, the downward facing LSC panels simply lack the BIPV wiring holes (Fig. 11).

Fig. 12. LSC panel with 3 mm PMMA spacers on both sides and CIGS PV modules installed around the edges.

Due to time constraints the integrated design workflow was not put into practice. The priority was to rush the GEM Tower into production to meet the 2019 August official unveiling deadline. As a result the electrical system was not incorporated into the design. The chosen LSC panel thickness was based on the cost, dead weight, and structural considerations. After all considerations 12 mm thick LSC panel thickness was selected. This thickness did not take into account the to be installed CIGS module widths. Lusoco’s Copper Indium Gallium (di)Selenide (CIGS) PV modules were found to be the best fit around LSC edges[68]. Major hurdle was that these CIGS were 18 mm wide. The LSC panels had to be

thickened around its edges in order to be able to accommodate the 18 mm wide CIGS PV modules. This was accomplished by gluing 3 mm thick PMMA spacers on both sides of the LSC panels (Fig. 12). At the final stage of LSC panel development the CIGS PV modules were added around the edges of the LSC panel (Fig. 12.). The CIGS PV modules that were applied around the edges of the LSC panels are referred to as LSC PV in the rest of this report. The LSC PV and BIPV wiring is integral (Fig. 51.) and both of these systems are to be connected to the same Enphase IQ7X solar microinverters [65]. With standalone VAWT the louvre surfaces were no longer available for BIPV installation, and alternative surfaces had to be found for PV system deployment. Therefore I had to look for alternatives regarding the placement of PV systems. LSC field testing information [66] indicated that LSC BIPV would generate 10s of Wh/day, which is negligible. Moreover there were no other suitable surfaces for PV application on the GEM Tower. Therefore Ladybug was used for LSC panel surface evaluation for direct PV system placement. Information on how to use Ladybug Tools to perform Solar Radiation studies can be found in Ladybug Tools Documentation and online tutorials [61]–[63]. Ladybug Solar Radiation simulation revealed that placing PV panels on top of LSC panels that are facing upwards (Fig. 11) would increase the GEM Tower BIPV energy output to 100s Wh/day (Fig. 24.). Afterwards I shifted the focus to LSC BIVP design, component acquisition, prototyping, initial testing and final assembly. In order the install LSC BIPVs the LSC panels had to be removed and installed into the GEM Tower multiple times. I have spent whole December removing LSCs and drilling out holes in the Element frames for cable routing. As the GEM Tower was being scheduled for deployments the LSC BIPV prototyping and installation could not be done in one go. I had to resort to doing it in several stages. First I tested if the PV modules that will be applied on top of the LSC work together with CIGS that are installed on LSC edges. Wiring them together proved that with the right series and parallel wiring connections I am able to combine these two different PV technologies together. This was necessary as specific voltages and currents are required by the solar microinverters [65]. Due to lack of initial GEM Tower design integration there were no provisions made for CIGS module installation. I have spent many hours looking for a solution and then testing it on the GEM tower. The simplest solution I came up with was applying spacers to increase LSC edge thickness to the one required by the CIGS. This allowed to safely install and wire CIGS elements onto the LSC panels. Then I have designed, prototyped and installed one LSC BIPV string on the GEM Tower (Fig. 51). The GEM Tower cannot be unfolded in TU/e’s Structural Laboratory dues to its height. In order to test the LSC BIPV all the elements have to be unfolded. This was done in during the GEM Tower deployment in Ede Driesprong. The single LSC BIPV string functioned as intended, which meant that the other two strings can be installed (Fig. 51). I have installed the last two GEM Tower LSC BIPV strings before the next deployment to Hoge Veluwe. It took me in total 3 months to install the LSC BIPV system into the GEM Tower.

Vertical Axis Wind Turbine The main advisor and supplier for the Wind Energy Conversion System (WECS) was one of the PowerVIBES partners – IBIS Power. IBIS Power provided estimations for energy generation from wind for various locations around Benelux (Fig. 15.) and acquired the VAWT that was used on the GEM Tower.

Fig. 13. VAWT being positioned above the VAWT footing (Fig. 6. Structural overview of GEM Tower components [58].Fig. 6) at Hoge Veluwe.

Due to logistics constraints and complexity HAWT was not considered as an option for the GEM Tower. From available WECS types (Fig. 2) VAWTs seem to be better suited for mobile applications and built up areas than HAWTs. Even though both types of WECS require heavy machinery for assembly and their blades could be designed to fold for transportation, due simpler design VAWT is considered as safer option [25]. Also PowerVIBES wind experts – IBIS Power, primarily work with VAWT WECS and their knowledge in this field was incorporated into PowerVIBES decision making process [59]. IBIS Power uses VAWTs for their PowerNEST innovation, which uses ducted VAWTs in combination with PV panels installed on the roof that is erected above the VAWTs [24].

Fig. 14. Hi‐VAWT DS 3000 components : Three VAWT blades – A; Vertical Axis – B [69].

IBIS Power calculations revealed that ducted VAWT 0.75 kW would not generate significant amounts of energy. Also it could not comply with logistics constrains – fit into a TEU without disassembly. Theoretical calculations indicated that the largest unducted VAWT at IBIS Power’s disposal could generate greater amounts of energy and when broken down would fit the size constrains. Therefore the unducted Hi‐VAWT DS 3000 [69] 3 kW VAWT unit was selected as the WECS of the GEM Tower RES energy system.

Energy Generation, [kWh/day]

GEM Tower Wind Energy Generation Assumptions 37.0 32.0 27.0 22.0 17.0 12.0 7.0 Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

Jan

2.0

Month Mysteryland

Bospop

Defcon

Dour

DDW

Noorderslag

North Sea Jazz

Paaspop

Pinkpop

Pukkelpop

Tomorrowland

3 kW VAWT

Fig. 15. 3 kW VAWT annual energy generation assumptions for different Benelux locations. The “3 kW VAWT” series is the average. Calculations performed and provided by IBIS Power.

I have placed the VAWT cables in a protective conduit and installed weatherproof connectors. These improvements made the VAWT cable easier to handle. I designed and fabricated the plywood mounting panels that were used for WAVT equipment installation in the Module 2. I designed and fabricated an improved version of the support stands for VAWT assembly and disassembly (Fig. 40.). I started being vocal about VAWT underperformance when after 14 days of cumulative deployment (Pukkelpop 2019, DDW 2019 and ESNS 2020) the VAWT was able to generate 1.8 kWh of energy (Fig. 34), 0.13 kWh/day.

4.1.2. Energy Storage Battery cell availability, size, perceived safety, and weight were the main factors that were used when selecting the type of battery to be used GEM Tower’s ESS. Cumulative PowerVIBES partner knowledge made the ESS selection and procurement relatively straightforward. OGE has decades worth experience in manufacturing and fielding BESS. Therefore their expertise resulted in a rapid BESS design, fabrication and delivery. I moderated a technical workshop session with OGE energy that allowed us to fit OGE BESS into the Module 2 (Fig. 6). I designed the VAWT‐to‐BESS connection to use AC Coupling. Due to miscommunication the acquired VAWT equipment was not correct. As a result the VAWT was connected via DC bus to the BESS via BESS’s VRLA battery bank. Main disadvantage of this was that VAWT energy output could not be monitored by tracking AC Output Power phases on the VRM. As recommended by OGE I fabricated and installed BESS PMMA safety screens. During GEM Tower operation I troubleshot and fixed BESS communication issues by resetting the GSM Router when the online VRM was not displaying data. I safely secured the BESS to the I‐beams of the Module 2. 42

Valve Regulated Lead Acid The main consultant and supplier for the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) was one of the PowerVIBES partners – Off Grid Energy (OGE). OGE experience in purely BESS, and BESS and ICE generator hybrid solutions allowed selection of the most optimal solution for the GEM Tower to be made. LiPo was briefly considered as a battery technology that can provide great energy storage capacity. However their potential fire hazard and cost was an obstacle. Finally due to the LiPo battery shortage in the market other alternatives had to be found. The time, dimension, weight, and availability constrains resulted in VLRA cells [70] being selected for the GEM Tower ESS. Time was limited, hence OGE adapted one of their off‐the‐shelf solutions ([57], Fig. 41.) to fit inside of the limited space available inside of the GEM Tower’s Module 3 (Fig. 6). Extra weight from the 25 VRLA cells (3000 kg) was structurally advantageous as it provided extra ballast for the GEM Tower’s base. Safety authorities also consider VRLA an inherently safe battery chemistry, which pose little to no constrains for their deployment (when compare to LiPo). Moreover OGE experience in BESS rental business helped to size the appropriate Victron Energy DC/AC inverters – 3*10=30 kW [71]. The BESS resulted being able to deliver 3 hours’ worth of energy at max storage capacity and power output. However in order to increase the lifespan of the VRLA cells, their Depth of Discharge (DoD) was limited to half of the capacity. Hence the GEM Tower’s BESS utilizes 45 kWh worth of electrical energy storage, which is enough energy for 1.5 hours of operation at maximum power output (30 kW).

External External energy sources are the ones, which are not mounted on the GEM Tower. External systems supply energy from either the electricity grid or other RES electricity generators. Some of the external systems have been already mentioned in the GEM Tower Energy Sources section of this report.

4.2.1. Energy Sources The main external energy sources are Solar Canvases and backup energy. Solar Canvases contain PV panels and solar microinverters mounted on a man portable repurposed advertisement banner. Backup energy comes from either the electricity grid or ICE generator. FAFC has been considered, but due to various constrains not implemented.

Solar Canvas Photovoltaics Solar Canvases are designed to be man portable rollout plug and play solar systems. Solar Canvas (SC) substrates are repurposed PVC advertisement banners. The ex‐banners house the PV equipment: wiring, two Enphase IQ7X solar microinverters [65] and six Raygleam PERC Mono‐Si PV panels [64]. The banners were cut and stitched to the right size at TU/e student workshop. Robert van Hoof expertise in fabrication of outdoor textile structures was vital in coming up PV panel fastening to the banners. The LOXX fastener installation and additional banner modifications were performed by Robert van Hoof [72]. With the help from Robert van Hoof an optimal mirrored SC PV component layout was integrated into the final design (Fig. 46). The final mirrored component configuration allowed the SCs to fold flat and be stacked. The microinverter pouch openings were rotated 180 degrees, so in case of a LOXX fastener failure the microinverter will fall inwards. Plywood stiffening

element was added in transverse direction to stiffen the SC, so the chance of damage to Mono‐Si PV panels is minimized when handling the folded SCs. Initially SCs were planned to be single TEU container roof size. Feedback from TU/e design team members allowed to avoid this mistake. Such SCs would have been too cumbersome to handle. The final unfolded SC design is 2.2 m by 2.8 m (Fig. 44.) and weighs approximately 25 kg. When folded (Fig. 47.) they are 2.2 m by 0.46 m by 0.15 m, which is about the limit of what a single person can handle. Single SC peak power is rated at 0.6 kWp. In order to start generating electricity a Solar Canvas needs to be plugged into a standard Schuko CEE 7/3 socket supplying 230 VAC and after 5 minutes it starts generating electricity. 12 pcs SC were fabricated and were initially planned to be used on top of Flexotels (TEU sized mobile accommodation units). SC assumed performance was calculated using PVWatts (Fig. 49., Fig. 50.). The monthly assumed production chart is available in Fig. 17.

Fig. 16. Solar Canvas final fabrication happening outdoors at TU/e campus due to the Lockdown (20 March 2020). In total there are 12 pcs Solar Canvases with total 7.2 kWp Power.

There are weight, handling, and environmental benefits that arise from using microinverters for SC. AC voltage 230 V is higher than the typical solar DC string voltages. At the same power levels higher voltage utilization lowers the current. High currents are responsible for the need of higher cross‐ section cables otherwise the conductor can overheat and pose a fire hazard. Solar Canvas feature overview:     

Single AC cable – simple plug and play setup. Compact dimension when in stowed position. Can be handled by a single person. Optimized output – each 3 PERC Mono‐Si PV panels have their own Enphase IQ7X Solar Microinverter (shading effects diminished). Dedicated BESS charger not required – surplus solar AC power is absorbed by the BESS DC to AC inverter ([71]), which chargers the VRLA cells.

  

AC connection is used for power modulation – when BESS is fully charged it increases AC frequency above 50 Hz, which switches off the SC microinverters for 5 minutes. Point of use generation. Up to 4 SCs can be daisy chained in a single string – the output power can reach 2.4 kWp. Adding more SCs in a string can damage the wiring and Schuko connectors.

32.0 27.0 22.0 17.0 12.0 7.0 Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Mar

Feb

2.0 Jan

Energy Generation, [kWh/day]

GEM Tower Solar Energy Generation Assumptions

Month Eindhoven

Amsterdam

7.2 kWp PV

Fig. 17. Solar Canvas 7.2 kWp PV system annual energy generation assumptions while lying on flat surfaces in the Netherlands. The “7.2 kWp PV” series is the average.

The Solar Canvas PV component procurement was a long and tedious process. Few manufactures had required dimension PV panels. The PV panel dimensions were dictated by the decision to place Solar Canvases on Flexotels, which are TEU sized. Therefore the PV panels had to be up to 2.2. m long and up to 0.4 m wide. The 0.4 meter width was determined by the amount of space left in GEM Tower TUE transportation containers. The PV panels were supposed to be long and narrow, so when applied on a substrate they could be folded on top of each other (Fig. 19.). The required aspect ratio was not standard even for semi‐rigid PERC Mono‐Si PV panels, which are usually marketed for RV applications. The suppliers were also sold out for the year of 2019 and lead times were half a year long. Other suppliers simply did not deal with such small orders. Finally Raygleam’s PV panels were the right size, cost and were available directly. Another setback was the time it took TU/e to clear the PV panel procurement – six weeks. The delayed payment also meant that the PV panel shipment got caught in a typhoon. When the PV panels did finally arrive in Rotterdam, they were held up in customs for more than a month. Finally the panels were in TU/e and after initial mockup (Fig. 45.) showed good results the rest of the PV equipment could be ordered. It took TU/e 10 weeks to clear Enphase IQ7X Solar Microinverter order from ESTG. When all PV components were finally in, it took a couple of weeks to adapt the wiring, install the PV panels and microinverters, and the Solar Canvas fabrication was complete in March 2020 (Fig. 16).

Fig. 18. Advertisement banners reused as frame covers for composting toilets and personal hygiene stands [73].

There were no other suitable surfaces available for PV system integration on the GEM Tower and I focused my attention into finding solutions that could be used externally. GEM Tower is targeted at summer festivals that contain plenty of structures with surfaces that could be suitable for temporary PV system placement. The PV system had to be lightweight in order to make it mobile and easy to manhandle. Moreover it had to have flexible use case in order for it to be able to be deployed on various surfaces available in festivals. During the search for suitable PV systems I have come across Renovagen FAST FOLD Solar Mat (Fig. 19). The Solar Mat met the mobility and flexibility criteria and I used it as an inspiration for developing Solar Canvas. Solar Mats were deemed too expensive and they would have required modification anyways. Therefore the general concept for Solar Canvases was clear and the next step was designing them. Initially the aim was to make us of Flexotel roofs for Solar Canvas installation. Flexotels are designed with efficient logistics in mind hence their footprint is the same as a TEU container. By placing Solar Canvases on six Flexotel roof the assumed 7.2 kWp power output could be achieved. The 7.2 kWp output was determined by taking into consideration that Solar Canvases would have to be relocated together with the GEM Tower every 3‐4 days during peak festival season. This amounts to 12 Solar Canvases which would require 6 Flexotels or TEU sized container roofs for deployment. As the goal was to assemble and dissemble GEM Tower in one day this amount of Solar Canvases seemed to be optimal for manhandling. Furthermore the space available for transportation ended up being just enough to fit 12 Solar Canvases (Fig. 54.). In the case that additional amount of Solar Canvases would have been deemed necessary more could be made as the design is modular. Moreover Solar Canvases were AC coupled and equally distributed on three phases to the BESS and OGE advised not 46

to connect more than 10 kWp worth of PV panels to the BESS as this could overpower the DC to AC inverters. The Solar Canvas energy output calculations were done with PVWatts [74]. Information on how to use PVWatts to perform calculations can be found in PVWatts documentation [36]. As a result any other TEU container roof can be used for Solar Canvas installation. I have made the design decision for Solar Canvass to use AC Coupling in order to minimize the cabling and make use of other AC Coupling advantages [75]. I have made this decision after consulting microinverter and semi rigid PV panel manufactures during Solar Solutions International 2019 tradeshow. I have spent countless hours contacting PV suppliers that would be able to supply us with PV panels that would suit our TEU sized Solar Canvas dimensions. I have spent a lot of time redrawing the Solar Canvas design, as various different size PV panels had to be evaluated for fitment within TEU container footprint. Due to the relatively small order and also specific voltages and currents required by Enphase IQ7X microinverter the semi‐rigid PV panels aimed at automotive market were able to meet these requirements. The general bill of materials was clear and the next step was sourcing the all the components.

Fig. 19. Renovagen FAST FOLD Solar Mat being deployed by two people [76].

Solar Canvas electrical components are mounted on a substrate made from repurposed advertisement banners. In order to upcycle as much materials as possible I have put extra effort into coming up with a suitable substrate for Solar Canvases. During Pukkelpop 2019 festival presentation old banners were shown to be used for toilets (Fig. 18.). This example of upcycling was used as an inspiration for reusing old SummerLabb advertisement banners as a Solar Canvas substrate. Once the fabrication work on the substrate that could be carried out using TU/e facilities was finished I started looking for a company that could help with advanced fabrication. Robert van Hooff sailmaker proved to have a great insight and solutions for inserting banner grommets and fastening the PV to the

substrate with marine grade LOXX fasteners. After that the proof of concept Solar Canvas was complete I realized that all the components should be mirrored (Fig. 47) in order for the Solar Canvas to fold flat. These improvements got incorporated into the design and I ordered the rest of the equipment. Thanks to TU/e’s inflexible acquisition procedures it took the equipment months to arrive. When eventually all the equipment was delivered I spent a couple of weeks assembling and fabricating the PV panels, cables, microinverts, stiffening elements and substrates into 12 Solar Canvases.

Backup Electrical Energy Source As can be seen from Fig. 8 when compared to a 30 kVA ICE generators GEM Tower energy output is limited. GEM Tower aim was to be an alternative to ICE generators. At full 30 kW BESS output the BESS storage would be drained in 1.5 h. In such a use case, when GEM Tower is used as a direct replacement for a 30 kVA ICE generator a Backup Electrical Energy Source (BEES) is required as RES generation is not sufficient to meet the demand. If the loads are low they can be met by the BESS and RES without any backup required. Furthermore even in hybrid mode the BESS can allow an backup ICE generator to run at optimal efficiency [77]. Moreover the run times of an ICE BEES can be shifted in order to avoid noise or fumes nuisances in e.g. nighttime camping site. Therefore either biodiesel generator or electricity grid is to be used as a BEES. The aim is to use BEES to charge the BESS in times when RES generation is not sufficient. When the BESS is fully charged by the BEES, the BESS can satisfy the electricity demands. BESS supply can be supplemented by RES electricity until BESS storage drops below a predefined threshold and BEES is again used to charge the BESS, and etc. Even when ICE generator is used the ICE BESS hybrid allows the ICE to run at a more efficient level than standalone – same as in ICE hybrid vehicles [77]. In case an ICE generator is going to be used as a BEES, the fuel of choice is biodiesel. Biodiesel is produced by utilizing organic plant or animal matter, while diesel is petroleum based. If the stock from which biodiesel is ought to be manufactured, is carefully selected, it can be carbon neutral [78] – a RES. Most commercially available biodiesels use food and non‐food crops as stock – which currently is not a RES (the whole supply chain is mostly powered by fossil fuels). The overall system efficiency of photosynthesis‐to‐refined‐biodiesel is not the greatest, but if RES would be used in all stages of production its carbon emission could be neutral. Direct conversion Solar Fuels would be desirable, but no such commercial products are available. GEM Tower’s BEES will come from either the grid or biodiesel powered ICE generators.

Formic Acid Fuel Cell DFAFC uses a readily available industrial stock – formic acid, to generate electricity. The fuel is widely available, does not require exotic high pressure containment vessels (e.g. as with H2), and DFAFCs are being commercialized as we speak. It is considered to be a safer alternative for festivals with an existing fuel supply chain. Commercially available “DENS X2” FC has been considered as a backup energy source, but due to time, financial and availability constrains was not impended as external energy source [79]. At least in the current stage GEM Tower will not be using a DFAFC as an energy source for the BEES.

Fig. 20. DFAFC being used to charge the battery of an electrical earth moving machinery [79].

5. Design Validation – Energy System Output An important factor to consider is that PowerVIBES project timeline was overly optimistic. As a result limited testing/prototyping was done before deploying the GEM Tower. Due to facility limitations testing of certain GEM Tower energy systems was not possible in a controlled environment – testing happened in the field. This was less of an issue for testing of the energy systems that were external (Solar Canvases). SCs were prototyped and tested independently. Energy systems that were integrated in the GEM Tower (VAWT, BIPV, LSC PV) could only be tested and troubleshot when the GEM Tower was deployed in the field. Therefore the exact reasons for integrated energy system underperformance is not clear. Nonetheless the GEM Tower correction factor adjusted RES outputs are available in Fig. 21. More in‐depth performance overview of various GEM Tower energy systems will be covered in the following 5.1.1 and 5.2 sections. Initially it was planned to validate GEM Tower RES systems during 2020 festival season. GEM Tower Tour was arranged by PowerVIBES Public relations partner – Double 2. The goal of the tour was to educate the public and gather measurements of RES system performance. In total 16 events were planned for 2020 summer, more or less for three months straight each weekend the GEM Tower would be standing in a new event. This would have allowed not only to shakedown the GEM Tower systems, but to gather enough information on RES generation. In such a way the capabilities of the GEM Tower RES systems could be fully validated. Unfortunately the 2020 festival season was disrupted by the global pandemic. Five alternatives were found for GEM Tower testing, one of them an actual festival. Smaller RES generation sample size meant that less data points were gathered. Nonetheless the available GEM Tower RES generation data was used for validation and is available in Fig. 21. Additional explanation on VAWT and PV performance will be present in the following sections of the report.

GEM Tower Renevable Energy Generation Validated Assumptions Energy Generation, [kWh/day]

37.0 32.0 27.0 22.0 17.0 12.0 7.0 2.0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

3 kW VAWT

0.97

0.54

0.45

0.27

0.31

0.20

0.27

7.2 kWp PV

2.71

5.74

11.01

14.96

19.96

19.89

20.78

0.25

0.23

0.41

0.49

16.80

11.91

7.18

3.66

Total

3.68

6.28

11.46

15.23

20.27

20.09

21.05

17.04

2.14

12.13

7.59

4.14

2.63

Month 3 kW VAWT

7.2 kWp PV

Total

Fig. 21. Annual RES energy output of the GEM Tower. “3 kW VAWT” and “7.2 kWp PV” series adjusted with 5.1.1.3 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine and 5.1.1.3 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine correction factors accordingly.

GEM Tower is aimed at outdoor events and most of them happen during the warm part of the year. We can define the Festival Season by exploring Google search queries for the term “Festival” (Fig. 22.). This can allow to see which time of the year GEM Tower should focus on. April, May, June, July and August can be deemed as the months of the Festival Season. Even in the WECS assumptions (Fig. 5.) Wind output for these months is small and most of the energy production comes from Solar. In validated results Wind output plays an even smaller role (Fig. 23.) in total RES output. Solar output for Festival Season months makes up an even greater proportion of total RES output. Yearly GEM Tower RES output is not as handy as Festival Season RES output as not many events that need offgrid energy sources happen in colder times of the year.

Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Feb

Mar

102.0 92.0 82.0 72.0 62.0 52.0 42.0 32.0 22.0 12.0 2.0 Jan

Google Trends search interest, []

Google Trends seach interest for "Festival" topic in 2019

Month Netherlands

Belgium

France

Germany

Average (Monthly)

Mean (Anual)

Fig. 22. Google Trends search interest for “Festival” topic in the year 2019 indicates, that on average the festival season lasts 5 months: April, May, June, July, August.

GEM Tower Renevable Energy Generation Festival Season Validated Assumptions Energy Generation, [kWh/day]

37.0 32.0 27.0 22.0 17.0 12.0 7.0 2.0

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

3 kW VAWT

0.27

0.31

0.20

0.27

0.25

7.2 kWp PV

14.96

19.96

19.89

20.78

16.80

Total

15.23

20.27

20.09

21.05

17.04

Month 3 kW VAWT

7.2 kWp PV

Total

Fig. 23. Festival Season GEM Tower RES validated (correction factor adjusted) generation capacity.

GEM Tower There were no major structural issues with the GEM Tower. Architectural elements have been continuously worked on. A secondary goal of having an automatically erecting and deconstructing tower has not been achieved. Therefore the current GEM Tower requires significant amounts of manpower and man‐hours for erection and deconstruction. These are biased observations, in order 51

to accurately evaluate the overall erection/deconstruction performance an independent audit ought to be done focusing on appropriate Key Performance Indicators (KPI).

5.1.1. Energy Sources All RES energy sources of the GEM Tower System (Internal and External) underperformed. After initial setup the BESS was functioning mostly as intended, with occasional GSM modem connectivity issues. When the GEM Tower was deployed to places that had power needs, the majority of energy came from backup energy sources. The need for charging the BESS with backup energy sources was diminished by Solar Canvas RES generation (Fig. 56.).

Building Integrated Photovoltaics BIPV consist of 36 pcs PERC Mono‐Si with the combined power output of 0.9 kWp. These panels face three different directions and different tilt angles. Not much power output was expected from them due to suboptimal Angle of Incidence (AoI). BIPVs together with LSC PVs are wired in 3 strings (Fig. 51.). BeNext Energy Switches indicate that cumulative BIPV and LSC PV output in the month of July was 0.4 kWh/day (Fig. 24.).

Luminescent Solar Concentrator Photovoltaics LSC PV output is combined with BIPV output. LSC PVs contain 36 pcs LSC panels, whose edges are surrounded by 108 pcs CIGS PV modules, with cumulative power of 0.15 kWp. BIPVs together with LSC PVs are wired in 3 strings (Fig. 51.). BeNext Energy Switches indicate that cumulative BIPV and LSC PV output in the month of July was 0.4 kWh/day (Fig. 24.). The BeNext Energy Switches directly measure the energy output from the Enphase IQ7X microinverters, which consume 50 mW in standby mode. Such low consumption is not registered by the Energy Meters. Due to tiny theoretical LSC PV performance their portion in the 0.4 kWh/day energy generation output is minimal.

Fig. 24. BeNext Energy Switch BIVP and LSC PV energy generation (purple bars) log for 2020 July. Usage (green bars) is from BeNext Energy Switch calibration at TU/e’s BPS laboratory.

Vertical Axis Wind Turbine

Fig. 25. VAWT erected at 6 meters height during a test at TU/e (20 March 2020).

VAWT performance was tracked by logging the VAWT MPPT charger (Fig. 34. – Fig. 38.) cumulative generated energy. The average annual electricity generation deviation from VAWT has been computed, by averaging the monthly discrepancies (Fig. 26.). The VAWT did not meet the expectations – annual deviation was 97%. The deviation was used as a correction factor for GEM Tower RES generation assumptions (Fig. 21.). This result clearly showed that full scale long term deployment of the GEM Tower was required. Additional tests were carried out in Ede‐Driesprong (Fig. 37), Hoge Veluwe (Fig. 38) and etc.. As mentioned previously IBIS Power was the PowerVIBES partner responsible for the Wind energy. Therefore I do not have the necessary experience nor knowledge to comment on why exactly the VAWT performance did not meet the expectations.

Energy Generation, [kWh/day]

GEM Tower Wind Energy Generation Assumptions vs Measurements 22.0 17.0 12.0 7.0 2.0

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Assumed

21.92

12.23

10.26

6.10

6.92

4.58

6.17

5.57

5.14

9.28

11.01

11.16

Measured

0.25

0.33

0.39

0.29

0.01

0.45

Month Assumed

Measured

Fig. 26. Validated annual Wind Energy output of the GEM Tower. The months with 0 kWh are energy generation values from deployment in DDW 2019 and ESNS 2020 (Fig. 34.).

In March 2020 VAWT was deployed at 1/3 of the height, in the middle of an urbanized area, and next to a building. It was able to generate considerable amounts of energy (Fig. 25, Fig. 35). Which is paradoxal as on other occasions, when it was standing in unobstructed areas it generated similar amounts. According to IBIS Power their PowerNEST energy outputs are in accordance with their calculations. It was not possible to acquire hardware and software required to monitor VAWT controller’s logic. The exact reasons for VAWT drastic underperformance remains unclear, but there are some hypotheses:    

VAWT electrical system have been damaged. VAWT was physically damaged during transportation, erection, deconstruction, etc. VAWT sensors detect excessive vibrations and control logic places it into limp mode. VAWT output calculations do not take into consideration lack of building facades wind deflection.

5.1.2. Storage The Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) functioned almost flawlessly. Initial field adaptations had to be performed in order to make the BESS function as intended. Due to lack of weatherproofing the BESS Human Machine Interface (HMI) got damaged by water ingress during the first deployment in Pukkelpop 2019. Other than malfunctioning of parts of the HMI no additional water damage occurred. However after a redeployment to a new location Victron Remote Management’s (VRM) “Phase rotation” alert would often inform that the black and grey cables of the 100 kVA 3 phase power cable were switched places and the issue has to be mended in order to commence the charring of the BESS. Occasionally the BESS GSM modem had to be reset, and as a result some VRM data points have been lost.

Valve Regulated Lead Acid BESS battery cells functioned flawlessly. During the times of low demand and high solar output, the Victron Quattro inverters were able to absorb the access energy and store it in VRLA cells. Moreover when BESS SoC was full, solar output was high, and power demand was low the BESS’s Victron Quattro inverters were able to shift the AC output frequency – temporarily switching the SC solar microinverters off (Fig. 56). In order to increase the VRLA lifespan OGE limited the BESS discharge voltage to half of its capacity. As a result only half of the available energy storage capacity was available – 90/2=45 kWh.

Fig. 27. BESS VRM Battery Power and SoC plots for 2020 April 6 to April 16.

Data available via BESS’s VRM interface was used for SC performance calculations (Fig. 27.). When the GEM Tower was deployed in locations with no external loads the BESS VRM SoC data was used to extrapolate how much energy SCs are generating. The BESS internal parasitic loads are known to be 0.3*24=7.2 kWh/day. The sum of parasitic loads and change in daily SoC (90*ΔSoC=… kWh) shows how much energy the SCs (and/or VAWT) were able to generate that day.

External The GEM Tower’s external systems are Solar Canvases and Backup electrical energy sources. Their performance is going to be discussed in this section.

Solar Canvas PV Solar Canvas performance was tracked by extrapolating BESS VRM SoC data (Fig. 27.) and by utilizing BeNext Energy Switches [80] (Fig. 48.). The average annual electricity generation deviation from SCs has been computed, by averaging the monthly discrepancies (Fig. 28.). SCs partially met the 55

expectations – annual deviation was 27%. The deviation was used as a correction factor for GEM Tower RES generation assumptions (Fig. 21.).

Energy Generation, [kWh/day]

GEM Tower Solar Energy Generation Assumptions vs Measurements 37.0 32.0 27.0 22.0 17.0 12.0 7.0 2.0 Assumed Measured

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

3.72

7.88

15.12

20.55

27.41

27.32

28.54

23.07

16.35

9.86

5.02

2.93

6.40

13.42

18.67

19.42

17.17

12.08

Month Assumed

Measured

Fig. 28. Validated annual Solar Energy output of the GEM Tower

SCs do have a major mounting hurdle to overcome. SCs have to be secured in place, in areas that are preferably not shaded. This often ends up being on the rooftops of various structures. Working at heights first of all raises health and safety concerns, and secondly each location differs and a simple to utilize universal mounting method is currently not implemented. The initial concept of mounting SCs in an aluminum tube frame on top of two TEU containers seemed promising (Fig. 29), but it’s cumbersome and costs a lot of time. If a crane is not available for lifting the assembled SC frames on top of the TEU roof mounted subframe, then working at heights pose the aforementioned HS concerns. No en masse deployment method for SCs was envisioned and their deployment takes too much time. Currently SC deployment solution is custom tailored for each location – which is inefficient. However it’s currently the only GEM Tower’s RES source that produces any significant amounts of energy. Therefore SCs are essential for GEM Tower’s energy system and it seems that the labor intensive task of deploying them will remain an issue for the time being.

Fig. 29. Aluminum tube frame for “rapid” Solar Canvas deployment utilizing two TEUs that are used for GEM Tower component storage and transportation.

Backup Electrical Energy Source GEM Tower’s backup energy either came from ICE generators or the electricity grid. The GEM Tower on its own is barely able to sustain itself. The BESS’s Victron Quattro 3*10 kVA DC/AC inverters draw a parasitic load equal to ~300 W, which requires 7.2 kWh/day. Only with all the Solar Canvases deployed, the BESS can charge itself and maintain the charge (Fig. 56.). Therefore when deployed in an event the GEM Tower has to be connected at all times to a backup energy source. In this fashion the GEM Tower functions more as an energy buffer than energy source. When GEM Tower is running in hybrid mode with an ICE generator, the GEM Tower can optimize the load to match the optimum ICE’s efficiency (as it’s done in hybrid systems [56]). Therefore backup power from the grid or ICE generators was connected to the GEM Tower in most deployments. There were no issues with backup power other than “Phase rotation” issue described in 5.1.2 Storage.

6. Discussion/Conclusion The results indicate that local RES electricity generation in the range of kWh makes littles sense when general energy demands are in the range of MWh. Festivals are used to having copious amounts of energy available at their disposal. They are used to MWh amounts of energy that’s taken care off by the ICE generator renting companies (Fig. 31.). After an event the rental company simply sends an invoice for the plant rental and consumed fuel. It’s important to realize that successful innovations have to be better than their predecessors. From energy generation perspective current state GEM Tower is not a step forward, but backward. It cannot independently deliver even comparable amounts of energy to its rivals – ICE generators (Fig. 21.,Fig. 31.). For dedicated niche festival

applications local RES electricity generation could be an option, but that is not applicable for general use wide scale adoption. Even though the GEM Tower in its current form might not be a successful innovation, it can be a stepping stone for other innovations in the area of Energy Storage [81].

Fig. 30. GEM Tower in Hoge Veluwe (03 July 2020).

Time and time again it’s being noted that sales is the most difficult aspect of running an enterprise [82]. Even though in its current incarnation the PowerVIBES project was unable to achieve its main goal of becoming an alternative to ICE generator power it successfully pivoted and generated awareness surrounding this issue. The science is all there, the technology is all there, it’s the societal mindset that needs to catchup and awareness generation is what will create this paradigm shift.

It is important to note the importance of Awareness Generation. To technocrats there is little doubt that the energy future is clear – RES. But society as a whole is as fast as its slowest members. Here lies the culprit of technocratic mindset – large parts of the society do not understand or even care about the sources of the energy that they consume. They are preoccupied with chores and other daily hurdles. As a result awareness creation becomes even more important than the technology itself: “We must recognize the need to go beyond the development of new gadgets like the iPhone to see the ways in which society is constituted with its technological systems and to understand that to change technological systems is to change who we are, how we behave, and how we live.” [83] In order to experience how effective awareness can be one has to simply explore the phenomena of lobbyism. With constant diligence any politician (or person for that matter) can be persuaded to choose a certain direction [84]. That is why political will is what is going to drive the large scale RES adoption. If there is no pressure from the electorate, then one can innovate till the bitter end. The public needs to be informed and pushing for changes as innovation is the easy part and selling it is the hard part [85]. That is where GEM Tower’s pivot into awareness generation can benefit RES development as a whole.

Supplier, [#] 1 2 3 4 5

Energy Made Fuel Rent 30 kVA Rent [31], Consumed Duration, Cost, Cost, [kWh] [30], [l] [€/day] [day] [€] 85 255 125 375 100 300 3 1728 910 145 435 74 222

Average Total Total Cost, Cost, [€] [€] 1438 1558 1483 1183 1500 1618 1405

Fuel Cost [86], [€]

Average Total Cost, [€/kWh]

0.87

Fig. 31. Internal Combustion Engine Generator energy generation capabilities and usage costs [30], [31], [86]–[91].

Let’s explore what demands can the GEM Tower satisfy in relation to current ICE generator practices. If we decide to use the current GEM Tower in an off‐grid mode (without any backup) how large of an event could it power? We will use Shambala 2017 diesel consumption data (Fig. 32.) to assume how large of a Shambala 2017 audience could the GEM Tower support. Festivals are usually 3 days long, so we would need 0.8‐4 kWh/audience. In August GEM Tower RES generation is 17 kWh/day (Fig. 21), so in 3 days we could expect to generate 51 kWh. We can add this up with the BESS storage of 45 kWh and we end up with current GEM Tower capacity to provide 96 kWh of energy for a 3 day event in the summer. We divide that by the required_energy/audience range and we see that in the current state GEM Tower could power a 24‐120 people Shambala 2017 style event for 3 days (Fig. 32.). If we were to upgrade the BESS battery cells to LiPo, the same BESS volume could contain 450 kWh of storage. Coupled with RES generation this would account for 501 kWh. With this amount of energy the upgraded GEM Tower could power an event of 125‐626 people (Fig. 32.).

Electricity (3.33 kWh/l) Electricity (0.66 kWh/l)

Shambala Festival 2017, [kWh/audie nce/day] 1.33 0.27

Shambala 2017 – 3 day; [kWh/Audie nce] 4 0.8

GEM Tower – 3‐day‐ RES (51 kWh); [Audience #] 12 63

GEM Tower – 3‐day‐RES + VLRA BESS (96 kWh); [Audience #] 24 120

GEM Tower – 3‐day‐RES + LiPo BESS (501 kWh); [Audience #] 125 626

Fig. 32. GEM Tower’s ability to power a 3 day off‐grid Shambala Festival 2017 style events in August – in audience count [30], [31].

As with any construction project sacrifices had to be made in order to conform to time, financial and technical constraints. The current GEM Tower local RES electricity generation system cannot meet the demands of microgrid general purpose electricity supply. However if the focus is shifted to powering predetermined low power loads, then such mobile local RES generation could be sufficient. Integrated design approach could allow incorporation of energy demands from communication, shower, toilet and other low power equipment into the energy supply side. There would be less uncertainty and GEM Tower system components could be specified to meet these clear demands. The current GEM Tower system with limited RES generation capabilities can be used as long as there is a robust backup energy source. Currently backup is either ICE generators or grid electricity. Incorporation of a FC would allow the GEM Tower to have its own robust backup energy source and would diminish reliance on third parties. Due to HFC issues with H2 carbon neutrality, H2 supply chains and H2 storage, other FC fuels seem to be better solutions (e.g. DFAFC, DMFC). Finally, if general electricity supply is still the goal then this can be achieved by focusing on energy storage and supplying it at MWh range. Moreover the initial GEM Tower erection and deconstruction goal of deploying a simplified storage focused system in 4 man‐hours would become feasible. One would simply need to unload a TEU sized BESS of a semi‐trailer truck on a suitable surface. Due to the GEM Tower’s underperformance and 2020 pandemic PowerVIBES had to pivot into awareness generation. Selling innovations is known to be one of the hardest aspect of any given venture, especially when big portion of the society still seems to be agnostic to RES. Therefore RES awareness generation work will not be done until RES becomes the breakfast cereal of 21st century [92], [93]. Let’s just hope that the information that the masses will absorb will not cause any undesirable side effects. My primary goal of incorporating as much solar energy into the GEM Tower RES system was achieved. Secondary goal of managing energy system integration into the GEM Tower ran into some issues, but with the help of the design team and PowerVIBES partners most issues (except VAWT underperformance) have been resolved. GEM Tower – Awareness it can generate, but Electricity not so much.

7. Additional Thoughts Rhetoric remark can be done regarding the costs. On average ICE generator energy costs 0.86 €/kWh (Fig. 31.). Can current GEM Tower business model be financially sustainable with 0.86*96=82.56 € income for a 3 day deployment? Taking into consideration that from 501 kWh of energy only 10% constitutes to locally produced RES energy, it shows how it’s more constructive to focus the efforts on increasing the storage capacity of the GEM Tower’s BESS. Especially for short term weekend events. BESS utilizing LiPo batteries are able to store energy in MWh range and fit into standardized

transportation logistics infrastructure. Such systems could be used to store renewable energy when not in use and would enable RES to be used in wide scale microgrid applications. Another aspect to consider that limits local mobile RES generation is the amount of solar energy available. The amount of solar energy in the Netherlands for the summer months is ~4.9 kWh/m2/day [74]. With high efficiency PV systems ~30% overall system efficiency is possible. Then we could expect to get 4.9*0.3=1.47 kWh/m2/day from a high efficiency PV system that is laying flat. In order to reach MWh/day generation capacity we would need 1000/1.47=680 m2 of preferably unobstructed roof area. That’s 680/14=48 TEU container worth roof area. Taking into account the low electricity prices, amount of labor, man‐hours, and effort required to temporarily mount such a complex PV system, it seems highly unlikely for it to be a financially sustainable venture. At least as long as SC type solar systems are considered. However large capacity, containerized, and easy to deploy (not clear about deconstruct) PV systems are indeed commercially available [94]. A good example of diminishing returns is PV panel usage in EVs. In EVs PV panels are primarily used for marketing reasons. PVs generate little energy, which is used in niche applications (e.g. powering a 12 V HVAC fan) – they do not charge the main battery. Installing a PV system for powering a small loads does not make sense, but when you add marketing and greenwashing into the picture, the increased manufacturing costs are paid by increase in sales driven by appealing marketing story. Same could be said about mopeds and cars – why are there no pedals in cars (diminishing returns and little to no marketing appeal)? Increasing the amount of SCs in order to increases RES generation will simply result in diminishing returns. What is the optimal SC number is not clear, it can increase with improved deployment methods. If one analyses the whole system and the amount of man‐ hours that is required to deconstruct, transport and construct such a system the potential positives are outweigh by the negatives (not quantified, personal opinion). The same is seen in the PV usage in EVs debacle – why not to integrate solar power into my car [95]? Because the amount of effort required to integrate PVs into EVs does not make financial sense (unless it gives competitive sales advantage), even though it’s technologically feasible: “The reality is that a car solar panel, which has to be shaped to the car roof, protected and robust against vibration, is much more expensive than a household or grid‐solar panel. If want 2 miles of extra range a day, your best bet would be to (if you could) buy a slightly bigger battery, and pay for solar power from your electric company.” [96] It might be time to also disassociate from mobile wind energy generation. Firstly there is little wind during festival season (Fig. 22., Fig. 23.). Secondly because of the constantly changing environment due to relocation it’s difficult to estimate what WECS is going to output. Therefore in order to continue GEM Tower’s legacy it might be a smart move to rebrand the GEM acronym into Green Energy Machine. The Tower can become a single TEU with maxed out BESS, which could be erected vertically. The second TEU could also be a tower with maxed out BESS or anything else for that matter including MWh capacity PV system [94]. Both TEUs can fit on a single EU semi‐trailer truck. When deployed one GEM Tower could be brought to the site, while the second GEM Tower could be charging with grid RES electricity in one of the multiple charging locations. Even though the circular cross section of a TEU tank (Fig. 33.) is not optimal for BESS packaging it can be customized to look like a big AA cell battery.

Fig. 33. In case of GEM Tower’s pivot into MWh energy generation a TEU tank could be converted into a large battery cell. The internal tank volume could be filled with BESS equipment and the tank erected vertically. The exterior could be modified to look like a large battery cell (Fig. 57.). Part or all of the exterior could be converted into a curved LED screen (Fig. 58.) to aid PowerVIBES storytelling.

Major redesign work aside let’s explore what hypothetical improvements could be done in order to make the current GEM Tower more competitive in the field of electricity supply. If the BESS battery cell volume currently occupied by VRLA was to be upgraded to LiPo cells, the energy storage capacity could be increased to 450 kWh (LiPo energy density is 5 times higher than VRLA). MWh capacity BESS could be employed for powering off‐grid events by directly replacing existing ICE generators. During offseason (Fig. 22.) such system could generate income (price arbitrage, peak shaving, etc.) by balancing the grid. If more than one GEM Tower RES system was manufactured a BESS charging ecosystem could be created in order to make use of under or overcapacity present in transmission line infrastructure. In business world they say “Do not try to do everything. Do one thing well [97]” for a reason. Therefore the BESS could become the core business of the venture and RES energy generation could be outsourced. It could come from Norwegian hydropower, North Sea wind parks, Italian geothermal power plants, and etc. All of this could be incorporated into an aesthetically pleasing and hard to miss 6 meter high battery cell (Fig. 57., Fig. 58.). However without a detail LCA analysis one does not have qualitative evidence for such predictions. Therefore LCA should done in order to evaluate GEM Tower’s business case when Interreg grant is no more.

8. References [1] “PowerVIBES ‐ Sustainable solution for the festival market.” https://www.nweurope.eu/projects/project‐search/powervibes‐sustainable‐solution‐for‐the‐ festival‐market/ (accessed Sep. 28, 2020). [2] “Why Nuclear Fusion Is Always 30 Years Away,” Discover Magazine. https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/why‐nuclear‐fusion‐is‐always‐30‐years‐away (accessed Aug. 04, 2020). [3] G. Roseberry, The Evolution of Energy and Meaning, Empirical Idealism. iUniverse, 2002. [4] K. Arun, S. B. Gudennavar, and C. Sivaram, “Dark matter, dark energy, and alternate models: A review,” Advances in Space Research, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 166–186, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2017.03.043. [5] “The early universe | CERN.” https://home.cern/science/physics/early‐universe (accessed Jul. 27, 2020). [6] “Half the universe was missing... until now ‐ YouTube.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp_kqamkYpw (accessed Aug. 01, 2020). [7] D. Tytler, J. M. O’Meara, N. Suzuki, and D. Lubin, “Review of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Primordial Abundances,” in Particle Physics and the Universe, 0 vols., WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2001, pp. 12–31. [8] How Science Can Be As Comforting As Religion. . [9] “Hydrogen‐Helium Abundance.” http://hyperphysics.phy‐ astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/hydhel.html (accessed Jul. 27, 2020). [10] E. Scerri, The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance. Oxford University Press, 2019. [11] T. Encrenaz, J.‐P. Bibring, M. Blanc, M.‐A. Barucci, F. Roques, and P. Zarka, The Solar System. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. [12] J. A. Johnson, “Populating the periodic table: Nucleosynthesis of the elements,” Science, vol. 363, no. 6426, pp. 474–478, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1126/science.aau9540. [13] M. Claessens, ITER: The Giant Fusion Reactor: Bringing a Sun to Earth. Copernicus, 2020. [14] “WMAP‐ Life in the Universe,” 2016. https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_life.html (accessed Jul. 21, 2020). [15] R. W. Miles, K. M. Hynes, and I. Forbes, “Photovoltaic solar cells: An overview of state‐of‐the‐art cell development and environmental issues,” Progress in Crystal Growth and Characterization of Materials, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–42, Jan. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.pcrysgrow.2005.10.002. [16] R. F. ServiceApr. 10, 2019, and 4:30 Pm, “Marrying two types of solar cells draws more power from the sun,” Science | AAAS, Apr. 10, 2019. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/marrying‐two‐types‐solar‐cells‐draws‐more‐ power‐sun (accessed Jul. 28, 2020). [17] J. Kosowatz, “Energy Storage Smooths the Duck CurveAs solar energy becomes a bigger piece of the electric generation pie, utilities are grappling with the challenge of putting gigawatts of power online every afternoon.,” Mechanical Engineering, vol. 140, no. 06, pp. 30–35, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1115/1.2018‐JUN‐1. [18] A. France‐Presse, “Dutch electric trains become 100% powered by wind energy,” The Guardian, Jan. 10, 2017. [19] “The Peltier Effect and Thermoelectric Cooling.” http://ffden‐ 2.phys.uaf.edu/212_spring2007.web.dir/sedona_price/phys_212_webproj_peltier.html (accessed Jul. 28, 2020). [20] “Cosmic Origins of Uranium ‐ World Nuclear Association.” https://www.world‐ nuclear.org/information‐library/nuclear‐fuel‐cycle/uranium‐resources/the‐cosmic‐origins‐of‐ uranium.aspx (accessed Jul. 21, 2020).

[21] “Wind turbine power coefficient ‐ definition and how it’s used.” https://www.ftexploring.com/wind‐energy/wind‐power‐coefficient.htm (accessed Jul. 30, 2020). [22] M. Świerczyński, R. Teodorescu, C. N. Rasmussen, P. Rodriguez, and H. Vikelgaard, “Overview of the energy storage systems for wind power integration enhancement,” in 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics, Jul. 2010, pp. 3749–3756, doi: 10.1109/ISIE.2010.5638061. [23] T. Ackermann and L. Söder, “An overview of wind energy‐status 2002,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 67–127, Jan. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S1364‐ 0321(02)00008‐4. [24] “PowerNEST – IBIS Power.” https://ibispower.eu/powernest‐2/ (accessed Jul. 30, 2020). [25] J. Yen and N. Ahmed, “Improving Safety and Performance of Small‐Scale Vertical Axis Wind Turbines,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 49, pp. 99–106, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2012.10.117. [26] “NorNed ‐ TenneT.” https://www.tennet.eu/our‐grid/international‐connections/norned/ (accessed Aug. 06, 2020). [27] H. Schobert, Chemistry of Fossil Fuels and Biofuels. Cambridge University Press, 2013. [28] “Carbon Calculator Systems,” Peter Harper, 2016. http://peterharper.org/the‐library/carbon‐ calculators (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [29] “The Show Must Go On Report,” Powerful Thinking, 2015. http://www.powerful‐ thinking.org.uk/resources/the‐show‐must‐go‐on‐report/ (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [30] “First Festival To Achieve 5* Creative Green Rating!,” Shambala, Dec. 20, 2017. https://www.shambalafestival.org/first‐festival‐achieve‐5‐creative‐green‐rating/ (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [31] “Genset (diesel engine, diesel generator) consumption, power and energy calculator ‐ free on‐ line tool,” 2015. https://power‐calculation.com/generator‐diesel‐energy‐calculator‐ genset.php#consumptionvalues (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [32] S. Lim and L. K. Teong, “Recent trends, opportunities and challenges of biodiesel in Malaysia: An overview,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 938–954, Apr. 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.027. [33] N. N. A. N. Yusuf, S. K. Kamarudin, and Z. Yaakub, “Overview on the current trends in biodiesel production,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 2741–2751, Jul. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.12.004. [34] D. Tan, “For efficient energy, do you want solar panels or biofuels?,” The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/for‐efficient‐energy‐do‐you‐want‐solar‐panels‐or‐biofuels‐9160 (accessed Aug. 08, 2020). [35] A. Stiel and M. Skyllas‐Kazacos, “Feasibility Study of Energy Storage Systems in Wind/Diesel Applications Using the HOMER Model,” Applied Sciences, vol. 2, pp. 726–737, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.3390/app2040726. [36] A. Dobos, “PVWatts Version 5 Manual,” NREL/TP‐6A20‐62641, 1158421, Sep. 2014. doi: 10.2172/1158421. [37] “Power‐to‐gas facility with high efficiency.” https://phys.org/news/2018‐03‐power‐to‐gas‐ facility‐high‐efficiency.html (accessed Aug. 08, 2020). [38] G. Locatelli, C. Bingham, and M. Mancini, “Small modular reactors: A comprehensive overview of their economics and strategic aspects,” Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 73, pp. 75–85, May 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2014.01.010. [39] “Small nuclear power reactors ‐ World Nuclear Association.” https://www.world‐ nuclear.org/information‐library/nuclear‐fuel‐cycle/nuclear‐power‐reactors/small‐nuclear‐ power‐reactors.aspx (accessed Aug. 09, 2020).

[40] M. A. Hannan, Md. M. Hoque, A. Mohamed, and A. Ayob, “Review of energy storage systems for electric vehicle applications: Issues and challenges,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 69, pp. 771–789, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.171. [41] Z. Sun et al., “Spent lead‐acid battery recycling in China – A review and sustainable analyses on mass flow of lead,” Waste Management, vol. 64, pp. 190–201, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.03.007. [42] “Fire Hazard Assessment of Lead‐Acid Batteries.” https://www.nfpa.org/News‐and‐ Research/Data‐research‐and‐tools/Hazardous‐Materials/Fire‐Hazard‐Assessment‐of‐Lead‐Acid‐ Batteries (accessed Sep. 21, 2020). [43] “LG ESS Home 10.” https://www.europe‐solarstore.com/lg‐ess‐home‐10.html (accessed Aug. 09, 2020). [44] L. C. Casals, B. Amante García, and C. Canal, “Second life batteries lifespan: Rest of useful life and environmental analysis,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 232, pp. 354–363, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.11.046. [45] L. Hammarström and S. Hammes‐Schiffer, “Artificial Photosynthesis and Solar Fuels,” Acc. Chem. Res., vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1859–1860, Dec. 2009, doi: 10.1021/ar900267k. [46] O. Z. Sharaf and M. F. Orhan, “An overview of fuel cell technology: Fundamentals and applications,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 32, pp. 810–853, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.012. [47] S. K. Kamarudin, F. Achmad, and W. R. W. Daud, “Overview on the application of direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) for portable electronic devices,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 34, no. 16, pp. 6902–6916, Aug. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.013. [48] P. Kumar, K. Dutta, S. Das, and P. P. Kundu, “An overview of unsolved deficiencies of direct methanol fuel cell technology: factors and parameters affecting its widespread use,” International Journal of Energy Research, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 1367–1390, 2014, doi: 10.1002/er.3163. [49] N. M. Aslam, M. S. Masdar, S. K. Kamarudin, and W. R. W. Daud, “Overview on Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cells (DFAFCs) as an Energy Sources,” APCBEE Procedia, vol. 3, pp. 33–39, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.apcbee.2012.06.042. [50] H. Ritchie and M. Roser, “Fossil Fuels,” Our World in Data, Oct. 2017, Accessed: Aug. 15, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil‐fuels. [51] “Biogas from Manure,” Penn State Extension. https://extension.psu.edu/biogas‐from‐manure (accessed Sep. 22, 2020). [52] P. Hauser, H. U. Heinrichs, B. Gillessen, and T. Müller, “Implications of diversification strategies in the European natural gas market for the German energy system,” Energy, vol. 151, pp. 442– 454, May 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.065. [53] “Resiliency: AlwaysON Microgrids,” Bloom Energy, Mar. 18, 2019. https://www.bloomenergy.com/solutions/advanced‐applications/microgrid (accessed Aug. 15, 2020). [54] “Fuel Cell‐Powered Ships, Coming to a Port Near You,” Bloom Energy, Oct. 01, 2019. https://www.bloomenergy.com/blog/fuel‐cell‐powered‐ships‐coming‐port‐near‐you (accessed Aug. 15, 2020). [55] C. Sagan, Cosmos. Random House Publishing Group, 2011. [56] H. Fathabadi, “Novel standalone hybrid solar/wind/fuel cell power generation system for remote areas,” Solar Energy, vol. 146, pp. 30–43, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2017.01.071. [57] “Our Solutions,” Offgrid. https://www.offgrid‐energy.co.uk/solutions/ (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [58] W. J. H. Lenaers and W. J. H. Lenaers, “GEM‐tower Structural Engineering and Design,” Thesis, Dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, 2020. [59] “PowerVIBES – IBIS Power.” https://ibispower.eu/powerrvibes/ (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [60] “Ladybug Tools | Ladybug.” https://www.ladybug.tools/ladybug.html (accessed Sep. 15, 2020). 66

[61] AdvDig Week 05‐1 Ladybug Basic Setup, Radiation Analysis. 2016. [62] “Radiation_Analysis.” http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=mostaphaRoudsari&fork=hydra_1&id=Radiat ion_Analysis&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0 (accessed Sep. 17, 2020). [63] “Building_envelope_Solar_potential.” http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=vertragus&fork=hydra&id=Building_envelop e_Solar_potential&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0 (accessed Sep. 17, 2020). [64] “Customise Panel.” http://www.raygleam.com/pages.php?id=9 (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [65] “Enphase Solar Microinverter Family ‐ World’s Most Advanced Inverter Technology | Enphase.” https://enphase.com/en‐us/products‐and‐services/microinverters/family (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [66] Á. Bognár et al., “The solar noise barrier project 4: Modeling of full‐scale luminescent solar concentrator noise barrier panels,” Renewable Energy, vol. 151, pp. 1141–1149, May 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.102. [67] “Cast acrylic (PMMA) | Materials,” Imatex Plastics. https://imatex‐ plastics.be/en/materials/cast‐acrylic‐pmma/ (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [68] “Lusoco | Technology,” Lusoco, Jan. 22, 2020. https://lusoco.com/technology/ (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [69] “Hi‐VAWT DS‐3000W Vertical Axis Wind Turbines.” http://www.hi‐ vawt.com.tw/en/ds3000w.html (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [70] “Sonnenschein® A600 | Exide.” https://www.exide.com/us/en/product/sonnenschein‐a600 (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [71] “Quattro,” Victron Energy. https://www.victronenergy.com/inverters‐chargers/quattro (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [72] “SCHADUWDOEK OP MAAT,” Zeilmakerij van Hooff. https://www.zeilmakerijvanhooff.com/schaduwdoek‐op‐maat/ (accessed Jul. 24, 2020). [73] “Green‐Corner‐Toilet ‐ Green Corner Toilet,” Green‐Corner‐Toilet. Green‐Corner‐Toilet.html (accessed Sep. 14, 2020). [74] “PVWatts Calculator.” https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/index.php (accessed Aug. 27, 2020). [75] “Solar battery system types ‐ AC Vs DC coupled,” CLEAN ENERGY REVIEWS. https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/ac‐coupling‐vs‐dc‐coupling‐solar‐battery‐storage (accessed Sep. 17, 2020). [76] “Fast Fold,” Renovagen. http://www.renovagen.com/products/fast‐fold/ (accessed Sep. 18, 2020). [77] S. B. Peterson and J. J. Michalek, “Cost‐effectiveness of plug‐in hybrid electric vehicle battery capacity and charging infrastructure investment for reducing US gasoline consumption,” Energy Policy, vol. 52, pp. 429–438, Jan. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.059. [78] A. B. M. S. Hossain, A. Salleh, A. N. Boyce, P. Chowdhury, and M. Naqiuddin, “Biodiesel fuel production from algae as renewable energy,” American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, vol. 4, no. 3, Art. no. 3, 2008. [79] “Our products,” DENS, 2020. https://dens.one/our‐products/ (accessed Jul. 21, 2020). [80] “Energy Switch | BeNext B.V.” https://www.benext.eu/en/products/energy‐switch/ (accessed Aug. 21, 2020). [81] K. Rhaiem and N. Amara, “Learning from innovation failures: a systematic review of the literature and research agenda,” Rev Manag Sci, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11846‐019‐00339‐2. [82] S. Garber, “The Hardest Part Of Building A Startup (You’ll Never Guess),” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stellafayman/2013/10/10/the‐hardest‐part‐of‐building‐a‐ startup‐youll‐never‐guess/ (accessed Aug. 13, 2020). [83] C. A. Miller, A. Iles, and C. F. Jones, “The Social Dimensions of Energy Transitions,” Science as Culture, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 135–148, Jun. 2013, doi: 10.1080/09505431.2013.786989. [84] C. Boggs, The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. Militarism and Popular Culture. Routledge, 2017. 67

[85] B. Bueno de Mesquita and A. Smith, The dictator’s handbook: why bad behavior is almost always good politics. 2018. [86] “Actuele brandstofprijzen Diesel.” https://www.unitedconsumers.com/tanken/informatie/brandstof‐prijzen/diesel (accessed Aug. 19, 2020). [87] “Bo‐rent.” https://www.borent.nl/materialen/groep/aggregaten (accessed Sep. 23, 2020). [88] “Topkwaliteit Atlas Copco aggregaat huren | 14 tot 40 kVA | RECO.” https://reco.eu/nl/energie‐ licht‐warmte/aggregaten/art/1503‐aggregaat‐30‐kva (accessed Sep. 23, 2020). [89] “Aggregaat 30 kVA huren,” GECO verhuur verkoop en service. https://geco.nl/product/verhuur/energie‐lucht‐en‐water/aggregaten‐energie‐lucht‐en‐ water/aggregaten‐diesel/aggregaat‐30‐kva/ (accessed Sep. 23, 2020). [90] “Hire Generator 30 kVA at Boels.” https://www.boels.nl/en/hire/power‐ lighting/generators/generator‐30‐kva (accessed Sep. 23, 2020). [91] “aggregaat 30 kVA.” http://www.burgersverhuur.nl/aggregaat‐30‐kva.html (accessed Sep. 23, 2020). [92] O. Oksman, “How lobbyists made breakfast ‘the most important meal of the day,’” The Guardian, Nov. 28, 2016. [93] H. A. Anderson, Breakfast: A History. AltaMira Press, 2013. [94] “how it works… – SOLAR CONTAINER.” https://www.solarcontainer.at/how_it_works/ (accessed Aug. 19, 2020). [95] “Does Car‐Mounted Solar Make Sense?,” MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/07/14/219636/does‐car‐mounted‐solar‐make‐ sense/ (accessed Aug. 13, 2020). [96] B. Templeton, “Hyundai Put A Solar Panel On An Electric Car But It’s False Green,” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2019/08/26/hyundai‐put‐a‐solar‐panel‐on‐an‐ electric‐car‐but‐its‐false‐green/ (accessed Aug. 13, 2020). [97] I. Widjaya, “The ‘Drilling Down’ Principal ‐ Do One Thing Well,” SMALL BUSINESS CEO, Jun. 13, 2016. http://www.smbceo.com/2016/06/13/the‐drilling‐down‐principal‐do‐one‐thing‐well/ (accessed Aug. 14, 2020). [98] “American Wire Gauge (AWG) Cable Conductor Size Chart / Table.” https://diyaudioprojects.com/Technical/American‐Wire‐Gauge/ (accessed Sep. 29, 2020). [99] “Light Festival ‘Glow’ ‘AnTUenna,’” Har Hollands Office For Architectural Lighting, 12:24. http://www.hollands.info/‐test/portfolio/light‐festival‐glow‐antuenna (accessed Sep. 27, 2020).

9. Annex

Fig. 34. VAWT MPPT charger’s screen (05 February 2020) indicating how much energy (1.8 kWh) the WAVT generated during the 3 GEM Tower’s deployments. The reading has not changed since 2019 August. The VAWT generated 0 kWh during DDW 2019 and ESNS 2020.

Fig. 35. VAWT MPPT charger’s screen (27 March 2020) indicating how much energy the WAVT generated in total after the test at TU/e Campus. During the TU/e Campus test the WAVT generated 7.9‐1.8=6.1 kWh.

Fig. 36. VAWT MPPT charger’s screen (8 April 2020) indicating how much energy the WAVT generated in total to that date. During the TU/e Campus test the WAVT generated 9.2‐1.8=7.4 kWh.

Fig. 37. VAWT MPPT charger’s screen (10 June 2020) indicating how much energy the WAVT generated in total to that date. During the Ede‐Driesprong test the WAVT generated 20.2‐9.2=11 kWh

Fig. 38. VAWT MPPT charger’s screen (10 August 2020) indicating how much energy the WAVT generated in total to that date. During the Hoge Veluwe test the WAVT generated 20.5‐20.2=0.3 kWh

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

IBIS Power: Daily VAWT Performance Data Bospop Defcon Dour DDW Mysteryla Noordersl North Sea Paaspop Pinkpop PukkelpopTomorrow 18.614163 24.95 15.55 11.02703 33.76 35.62 26.87 19.56 18.6 18.18 18.43 9.1335118 11.49 10.86 9.161012 20 19.14 15.48 9.67 9.17 9.52 10.89 7.786958 10.97 7.01 8.470724 15.9 18.86 12.19 8.62 7.55 7.32 8.15 4.6734152 5.98 5.13 5.998268 8.43 10.45 6.78 5 4.57 4.81 5.26 5.5079292 6.59 5.87 5.571779 10.64 9.94 8.64 6.01 5.26 5.62 6.51 3.3248459 4.7 3.02 4.518997 6.79 8.96 5.36 3.71 3.05 3.22 3.69 5.0075125 6.19 4.62 5.632294 8.52 11.39 6.4 4.9 5.49 4.99 4.73 3.9133265 5.2 3.67 5.878088 9.11 10.2 6.83 4.14 4.14 3.93 4.27 3.7446086 4.59 3.69 4.897479 8.56 8.97 6.19 3.8 3.83 3.99 4.25 6.8115161 9.03 7.99 6.791372 15.16 15.01 11.32 7.07 7.96 7.3 7.61 9.1422448 9.07 8.81 8.205713 18.03 16.01 13.44 8.61 9.83 9.99 10.02 8.1332332 9.84 9.11 11.48473 17.62 18.79 12.87 7.96 9.26 8.79 8.92

Fig. 39. IBIS Power Wind Generation calculations for VAWT in various Benelux locations.

Fig. 40. Hi‐WAVT DS‐3000W Vertical Axis Wind Turbine after attachment of its blades resting on support structure. Afterwards the VAWT is erected vertically by a crane (Fig. 13.), placed into VAWT footing on Module 3 (Fig. 6.) and fastened in place.

Fig. 41. OGE’s purpose built BESS for the GEM Tower exploded view drawing.

Fig. 42. Original OGE BESS design, which was adapted to fit inside of the GEM Tower (Fig. 41.).

Fig. 43. OGE BESS rack for securing VRLA cells, which was adapted to fit inside of the GEM Tower (Fig. 41.).

Fig. 44. Solar Canvas component and wiring schematics. I have designed, prototyped and fabricated all 12 Solar Canvases.

Fig. 45. Solar Canvas initial functional mockup revealed that when in folded state it’s not flat, which can become a handling issue.

Fig. 46. Mirrored PV panel and microinverter layout allowed the Solar Canvases to be folded flat (Fig. 47).

Fig. 47. Mirrored Solar Canvas folded flat.

Fig. 48.Two Solar Canvas energy generation test during 2020 June in SolarBEAT facility. For two Solar Canvas generation on average was 2.8 kWh/day. Full twelve piece Solar Canvas system this would on average generate 17.2 kWh/day.

Requested Location:

Location: Lat (deg N): Long (deg E): Elev (m): DC System Size (kW): Module Type: Array Type: Array Tilt (deg): Array Azimuth (deg): System Losses: Invert Efficiency: DC to AC Size Ratio: Average Cost of Electricity Purchased from Utility ($/kWh): Capacity Factor (%)

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

PVWatts: Monthly PV Performance Data Eindhoven BEEK, NETHERLAND S 50.92 5.78 116 7.2 Standard Fixed (open rack) 0 180 14.08 96 1.2 No utility data available 9.1 Solar Radiation Plane of Array AC System (kWh/m^2/da Irradiance Output(kWh) y) (W/m^2) 117.813 0.65383 20.2687 213.977 1.25834 35.2336 474.872 2.55205 79.1135 608.012 3.3807 101.421 827.378 4.61979 143.214 785.775 4.50389 135.117 892.694 5.10728 158.326 705.149 3.98922 123.666 507.627 2.90862 87.2586 328.977 1.8253 56.5844 159.504 0.92022 27.6066 101.561 0.57553 17.8414 5723.34 32.2948 985.65

DC array Output Valu (kWh) e ($) 129.924 0 229.181 0 500.341 0 638.726 0 866.65 0 824.057 0 934.918 0 739.726 0 534.148 0 349.076 0 173.019 0 112.782 0 6032.55 0

Fig. 49. Solar Canvas (12 pcs; 7.2 kWp) monthly RES energy generation while lying flat in Eindhoven. I performed these calculations using PVWatts [36].

PVWatts: Monthly PV Performance Data amsterdam AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS 52.3 4.77 ‐2 7.2 Standard Fixed (open rack) 0 180 14.08 96 1.2

Requested Location: Location: Lat (deg N): Long (deg E): Elev (m): DC System Size (kW): Module Type: Array Type: Array Tilt (deg): Array Azimuth (deg): System Losses: Invert Efficiency: DC to AC Size Ratio: Average Cost of Electricity Purchased from Utility ($/kWh): Capacity Factor (%)

No utility data available 9.1 AC System Solar Radiation Output(kWh) (kWh/m^2/day) 113.098 0.641576 227.2513 1.368445 462.7299 2.487233 624.7582 3.441101 872.23 4.817434 853.3079 4.928408 876.7864 4.930402 725.1338 4.059077 473.4404 2.711119 282.2485 1.54897 141.7314 0.824038 80.34412 0.463448 5733.06 32.22125

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total

Plane of Array Irradiance (W/m^2) 19.88886 38.31647 77.10423 103.233 149.3405 147.8522 152.8425 125.8314 81.33358 48.01805 24.72114 14.36689 982.8488

DC array Output (kWh) 124.8641 242.6736 487.755 656.3123 913.1307 894.4265 918.8232 760.562 499.0911 300.9102 154.5738 90.67089 6043.793

Value ($) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fig. 50. Solar Canvas (12 pcs; 7.2 kWp) monthly RES energy generation while lying flat in Amsterdam. I performed these calculations using PVWatts [36].

Fig. 51. BIPV and LSC PV component and wiring schematics. I have designed the wiring in AutoCAD. I determined the required electrical cables cross‐sections [98] by calculating the max string current (3 A) that could be generated by the PV panels.

Fig. 52. Upward facing LSC panel before application of BIPV.

Fig. 53. Upward facing LSC panel with BIPV applied.

Fig. 54. When disassembled the GEM Tower fits inside of two TUE containers. In the image above the GEM Tower is being prepared for transportation to ESNS 2020.

Fig. 55. The WAVT, tools and minor GEM Tower components fit inside one of the TUEs thanks to the space saving racking system.

Fig. 56. VRM charts showing BESS being charged by Solar Canvases without any external loads. BESS shifting “AC Output Frequency” above 50 Hz in order to switch the Solar Canvases off when “Battery SOC” reaches 100%. We can also observe how BESS is charged (“Battery SOC” raising from 80% to 100%) by RES when no external loads are connected. The “Battery SOC” dip happens during nighttime when there is no RES generation and internal parasitic load of 0.3 kW drains the BESS.

Fig. 57. The shape that most humans associate with a battery. A TEU tank made to look like such a battery and erected vertically could be used as a successor to the current GEM Tower that could actually power a festival.

Fig. 58. “AnTUenna” is an example of a large scale curved 3D LED screen that can be used to display various sorts of information and visualizations [99].