Assessment of Thermal Heating Requirements for 

Non-Industry Dependent Warm-Water Refuges for 

Florida Manatees 

FSEC-CR-1481-04 

Revised Final Report 

February 16, 2005 

Submitted to: 

David Laist 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 

FSEC/UCF Contract # 20126025 

Submitted by: 

Lixing Gu 

Florida Solar Energy Center 

CONTRACT REPORT 

Marine Mammal Commission 

4340 East-West Highway, Room 905 
Disclaimer 

The final report was submitted on Nov. 16, 2004. After submission, a more complete set of 

measured water temperature data was discovered for the site at Cape Canaveral. Requested by 

the sponsor, the final report was revised based on the discovery. 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The author thanks the Marine Mammal Commission for funding this work, and the project 

manager, David Laist. The author also thank Winifred Perkins, Florida Power and Light 

Company (FPL), for providing water temperature data measured from FPL power plants. Sincere 

appreciation is expressed to Kent Smith and Ron Mezich, Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, and Jim Valade, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for providing valuable guidance 

for the project. A special thanks is to Jim Huggins at Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) for 

providing performance curves of solar collectors, and to Charles Cromer at FSEC for providing 

measured data in a heated pool in Cocoa Beach, FL. 

i 
ii
Table of Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1

OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 6

Task 1 Identify the location and physical configuration of refuges .................................. 8

1.1 Refuge locations .................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Refuge Configurations ........................................................................................... 8

Task 2 Identification and Selection of Weather and Water Temperature Data ................ 9

2.1 Hourly Weather Data ............................................................................................. 9

2.2 River water temperature ....................................................................................... 10

Task 3 Simulation benchmarking .................................................................................... 21

3.1 Heat losses in manatee refuges ............................................................................ 21

3.2 Selection of simulation program .......................................................................... 26

3.3 Solar collectors .................................................................................................... 26

3.4 Model Validation ................................................................................................. 31

Task 4 Sensitivity study ................................................................................................... 32

4.1 A list of parameters .............................................................................................. 32

4.2 Heating requirements ........................................................................................... 34

4.3 Solar collector requirements ................................................................................ 38

Task 5 Economic analysis of solar water heating systems .............................................. 42

5.1 Solar collector types and cost .............................................................................. 42

5.2 Water pump requirement ..................................................................................... 44

5.3 Gas fired boiler requirements .............................................................................. 45

5.4 Life cycle cost analysis for refuge solar systems ................................................. 47

5.5 Results analysis .................................................................................................... 54

5.6 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 55

Task 6 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 60

Appendix A: Ocean Air and Ocean Water Temperatures Used to Predict Inland Coastal Water

temperatures at the Cape Canaveral and Rivera Power Plants ........................................ 62

Appendix B: Tidal calculation software and hourly prediction ................................................... 67

B-1 WXTide32 software ............................................................................................. 67

B-2 Tidal height .......................................................................................................... 67

iii 
Appendix C: Heating energy requirements ................................................................................. 71

Appendix D: Solar collector size requirements ........................................................................... 83

Appendix E: Number of solar panels and flow rate requirements ............................................... 95

Appendix F: Initial cost of solar panels and water pumps ......................................................... 107

Appendix G: Annual O&M and lifetime costs .......................................................................... 120

iv 
List of Figures 

Figure 1 Schematic of proposed solar water heating system ........................................................ 1

Figure 2-4 Comparison of December 1989 water temperatures measured by FPL at the Cape

Figure 2-5 Comparison of Jan-Mar. 1990 water temperatures measured by FPL at the Cape

Figure 2-6 Comparison of predicted water temperatures for the Indian River with the measured

daily minimum and mean temperatures in Banana Creek provided by the U.S. Geological

Figure 2-9 Comparison of ambient water temperatures measured by FPL at cooling water

Figure 2-10 Comparison of ambient water temperatures measured by FPL at cooling water

Figure 2-11 Comparison of ambient water temperatures measured by FPL at cooling water

Figure 3-4 Pool temperature comparison between measurement and prediction on Dec. 11-14,

Figure 5-5 Initial cost of solar collectors for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with constant tide

Figure 5-6 Initial cost of water pumps for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with constant tide

Figure 5-7 Initial cost of gas boilers for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with constant tide

Figure 5-11 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a large refuge in Cape

Figure 1-1 Three hypothetical refuge locations in Florida .......................................................... 8

Figure 2-1 Buoy locations in Atlantic Ocean of Florida from NODC ....................................... 11

Figure 2-3 Predicted ambient water temperature at the Cape Canaveral power plant for 1990

.......................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure 2-2 Predicted ambient water temperature at the Cape Canaveral power plant for 1989

.......................................................................................................................................... 13

Canaveral power plant with predicted water temperatures .............................................. 14

Canaveral power plant with predicted water temperatures .............................................. 14

Survey, Sirenia Project. ................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2-7 Predicted ambient water temperatures at the Riviera power plant in 1989. ............. 15

Figure 2-8 Predicted ambient water temperature at the Riviera power plant in 1990 ................ 16

intakes for the Riviera and Port Everglades power plant in 2001 ................................... 18

intakes for the Riviera and Port Everglades power plant in 2002 ................................... 19

intakes for the Riviera and Port Everglades power plant in 2003 ................................... 20

Figure 2-12 Estimated inland water temperatures for Miami in 1989 ........................................ 20

Figure 3-1 Efficiencies of different solar collectors ................................................................... 28

Figure 3-2 Solar collector perfoamce with three types in three locations in Dec. 1989. ............ 29

Figure 3-3 Solar collector perfoamce with three types in three locations in Jan. 1990. ............. 30

1990 in Cocoa Beach ....................................................................................................... 31

Figure 5-1 water pump costs vs. water pump power .................................................................. 45

Figure 5-2 Water pump flow rates vs. water pump power .......................................................... 45

Figure 5-3 Estimated and predicted costs for gas fired boilers. ................................................. 46

Figure 5-4 Schematic of solar collector system .......................................................................... 47

.......................................................................................................................................... 48

.......................................................................................................................................... 48

.......................................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 5-8 Total initial cost for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with a constant tide ............ 49

Figure 5-9 Annual O&M cost for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with a constant tide. ........ 49

Canaveral with a constant tide ......................................................................................... 52

v 
Figure 5-10 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a small refuge in Cape

Canaveral with a constant tide ......................................................................................... 52

Figure 5-15 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a large refuge in Miami with

Figure 5-14 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a small refuge in Miami with

Figure 5-12 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a small refuge in West Palm

Figure 5-13 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a large refuge in West Palm

Figure 5-16 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a small refuge in Cape

Figure 5-17 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a large refuge in Cape

Figure 5-20 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a small refuge in Miami with

Figure 5-21 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a large refuge in Miami with

Figure 5-19 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a large refuge in West Palm

Figure 5-18 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar heating system for a small refuge in West Palm

Figure 5-22 20-year cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating systems for a small refuge

Figure 5-23 20-year cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating systems for a large refuge

Figure 5-24 20-year cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating systems for a small refuge

Figure 5-25 20-year cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating systems for a large refuge

Figure 5-26 Predicted water temperature for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral in Dec. 1989

Figure 5-28 Predicted water temperature for a small refuge in West Palm Beach in Dec. 1989

Figure 5-29 Predicted water temperature for a small refuge in West Palm Beach in Jan. 1990

Figure A-1 Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measurement and

Figure A-2 Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measurement and

Figure A-3 Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measurement and

a constant tide .................................................................................................................. 52

a constant tide .................................................................................................................. 52

Beach with a constant tide ............................................................................................... 52

Beach with a constant tide ............................................................................................... 52

Canaveral with a variable tide ......................................................................................... 53

Canaveral with a variable tide ......................................................................................... 53

a variable tide ................................................................................................................... 53

a variable tide ................................................................................................................... 53

Beach with a variable tide ................................................................................................ 53

Beach with a variable tide ................................................................................................ 53

with a constant tide in three locations .............................................................................. 54

with a constant tide in three locations .............................................................................. 54

with a variable tide in three locations .............................................................................. 55

with a variable tide in three locations .............................................................................. 55

.......................................................................................................................................... 58

.......................................................................................................................................... 58

Figure 5-27 Predicted water temperature for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral in Jan. 1990 ... 58

Figure 5-31 Predicted water temperature for a small refuge in Miami in Jan. 1990 .................. 58

Figure 5-30 Predicted water temperature for a small refuge in Miami in Dec. 1989 ................. 58

.......................................................................................................................................... 58

prediction in Cape Canaveral in 2001. ............................................................................. 63

prediction in Cape Canaveral in 2002 .............................................................................. 64

prediction in Riviera in 2001 ........................................................................................... 65

vi 
Figure A-4 Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measurement and 

prediction in Riviera in 2002 ........................................................................................... 66

Figure B-1 Predicted hourly tidal history in Capa Canaveral ..................................................... 68

Figure B-2 Predicted hourly tidal history in West Palm Beach .................................................. 69

Figure B-3 Predicted hourly tidal history in Miami .................................................................... 70

vii
List of Tables 

Table 4-1: Case description with a constant tidal rate ................................................................. 33

Table 5-1: Solar collector types and associated installed costs

Table C-1: Heating energy required in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge with a constant tide

Table C-2: Heating energy required in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge with a constant tide

Table C-4: Heating energy required in West Palm Beach for a large refuge with a constant tide

Table C-5: Heating energy required in Miami for a small refuge with a constant tide

Table C-6: Heating energy required in Miami for a large refuge with a constant tide

Table C-7: Heating energy required in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge with a variable tide

Table C-8: Heating energy required in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge with a variable tide

Table C-9: Heating energy required in West Palm Beach for a small refuge with a variable tide

Table C-10: Heating energy required in West Palm Beach for a large refuge with a variable tide

Table C-12: Heating energy required in Miami for a large refuge with a variable tide

Table D-1: Required solar collector size in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge with a constant

Table D-3: Required solar collector size in West Palm Beach for a small refuge with a constant tide

Table D-4: Required solar collector size in West Palm Beach for a large refuge with a constant tide

Table D-5: Required solar collector size in Miami for a small refuge with a constant tide

Table 4-2: Percent change of heating energy use in Dec. 1989 with constant tide ..................... 37

Table 4-3: Percent change of heating energy use in Dec. 1989 with variable tide ..................... 38

Table 4-4: Ratio of required solar collector size to refuge surface area with a constant tide ..... 39

Table 4-5: Ratio of required solar collector size to refuge surface area with a variable tide ..... 40

.......................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 5-2: Estimated normalized cost ......................................................................................... 44

Table 5-3: Recommended flow rate ............................................................................................. 44

Table 6-1: Estimated costs for possible scenarios in three locations ........................................... 61

Table A-1: Coefficients of determination of inland coastal water temperature regression ........ 62

.......................................................................................................................................... 71

.......................................................................................................................................... 72

Table C-3: Heating energy required in West Palm Beach for a small refuge with .................... 73

.......................................................................................................................................... 74

.......................................................................................................................................... 75

.......................................................................................................................................... 76

.......................................................................................................................................... 77

.......................................................................................................................................... 78

.......................................................................................................................................... 79

.......................................................................................................................................... 80

Table C-11: Heating energy required in Miami for a small refuge with a variable tide ............. 81

.......................................................................................................................................... 82

tide ................................................................................................................................... 83

Table D-2: Required solar collector size in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge with ................. 84

.......................................................................................................................................... 85

.......................................................................................................................................... 86

.......................................................................................................................................... 87

viii 
Table D-6: Required solar collector size in Miami for a large refuge with a constant tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 88

Table D-7: Required solar collector size in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge with a variable

tide ................................................................................................................................... 89

Table D-8: Required solar collector size in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge with a variable tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 90

Table D-9: Required solar collector size in West Palm Beach for a small refuge with a variable tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 91

Table D-10: Required solar collector size in West Palm Beach for a large refuge with a variable tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 92

Table D-11: Required solar collector size in Miami for a small refuge with a variable tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 93

Table D-12: Required solar collector size in Miami for a large refuge with a variable tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 94

Table E-1: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge

with a constant tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 95

Table E-2: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge

with a constant tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 96

Table E-3: Number of panels and required water flow rate in West Palm Beach for a small

refuge with a constant tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 97

Table E-4: Number of panels and required water flow rate in West Palm Beach for a large refuge

with a constant tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 98

Table E-5: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Miami for a small refuge with a

constant tide

.......................................................................................................................................... 99

Table E-6: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Miami for a large refuge with a

constant tide

........................................................................................................................................ 100

Table E-7: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge

with a variable tide

........................................................................................................................................ 101

Table E-8: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge

with a variable tide

........................................................................................................................................ 102

Table E-9: Number of panels and required water flow rate in West Palm Beach for a small

refuge with a variable tide

........................................................................................................................................ 103

Table E-10: Number of panels and required water flow rate in West Palm Beach for a large

refuge with a variable tide

........................................................................................................................................ 104

ix 
Table E-11: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Miami for a small refuge with a

variable tide

........................................................................................................................................ 105

Table E-12: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Miami for a large refuge with a

variable tide

........................................................................................................................................ 106

Table F-1: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with

a constant tide ................................................................................................................ 108

Table F-2: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral with

Table F-3: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in West Palm Beach

Table F-4: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in West Palm Beach

Table F-5: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in Miami with a

a constant tide ................................................................................................................ 109

with a constant tide ....................................................................................................... 110

with a constant tide ........................................................................................................ 111

constant tide ................................................................................................................... 112

Table F-6: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in Miami with a constant

tide ................................................................................................................................ 113

Table F-7: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with

a variable tide ................................................................................................................ 114

Table F-8: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral with

Table F-9: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in West Palm Beach

Table F-10: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in West Palm Beach

Table F-11: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in Miami with a

Table F-12: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in Miami with a

a variable tide ................................................................................................................ 115

with a variable tide ........................................................................................................ 116

with a variable tide ........................................................................................................ 117

variable tide ................................................................................................................... 118

variable tide ................................................................................................................... 119

Table G-1: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with a constant

tide ................................................................................................................................ 120

Table G-2: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral with a constant

tide ................................................................................................................................ 121

Table G-3: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in West Palm Beach with a

Table G-4: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in West Palm Beach with a

Table G-5: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in Miami with a constant tide 

Table G-6: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in Miami with a constant tide 

constant tide .................................................................................................................. 122

constant tide .................................................................................................................. 123

........................................................................................................................................ 124

........................................................................................................................................ 125

Table G-7: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with a variable

tide ................................................................................................................................ 126

x 
Table G-8: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral with a variable

tide ................................................................................................................................ 127

Table G-9: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in West Palm with a variable tide 

Table G-10: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in West Palm Beach with a

Table G-11: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in Miami with a variable tide 

Table G-12: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in Miami with a variable tide 

........................................................................................................................................ 128

variable tide ................................................................................................................... 129

........................................................................................................................................ 130

........................................................................................................................................ 131

xi 
xii
1

Figure 1 Schematic of proposed solar water heating system

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

About two-thirds of all Florida manatees now depend on warm water outfalls from power

plants to survive cold winter periods. Many of these plants may be retired in the next 10-20

years. These closures and the loss of their heated outfalls could cause high levels of cold-stressrelated manatee deaths. To help identify possible steps to prevent such deaths, this study was

undertaken to determine if non-industry dependent warm-water refuges for Florida manatees

could be created using solar water heating technology. This approach assumes manatees would

find and begin using these refuges as they have found and used power plant outfalls. Providing a

steady source of freshwater, a known manatee attractant, might facilitate such use. A previous

modeling study funded by Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) examined the possible

creation of a solar heated refuge at an embayment in West Palm Beach Florida in the central part

of the manatee’s current winter range along Atlantic coast. The study, using average daily water

temperature and weather data, concluded that solar water heating technology could be used at

that site to create a 20o

C warm-water refuge, but that a more detailed analysis should be

undertaken using hourly winter water temperature and weather data. 

To follow up on that recommendation, the Marine Mammal Commission asked the

Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) to assess the feasibility and cost of solar collector systems

to create warm water manatee refuges using hourly water temperature and weather data for the

coldest recent year at three hypothetical sites in the species’ principal Atlantic coast winter

range. This report provides the results. The conceptual design for the refuge, as shown in Figure

1, involves a closed solar heating system in which heat is transferred to the refuge water across a

heat exchanger rather than by direct discharge of heated water. Work was divided into 5 major

tasks summarized below.
Task 1 involved selecting the general location and physical configuration. The general 

areas selected during a January 2004 project planning meeting involving representatives of the 

Marine Mammal Commission, Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Commission, and Florida Power & Light Company (FPL). The three locations identified, chosen 

to reflect the northern, central, and southern parts of the species Atlantic coast winter range on 

the Atlantic coast, were in Brevard County (Cape Canaveral), Palm Beach County (West Palm 

Beach), and Dade County (Miami). Two physical configurations were also identified: a small 

refuge (50 ft x 50 ft or 0.04 acres) that might support about 50 animals, and a large refuge (100 ft 

x150 ft or 0.3 acres) that might support several hundred manatees. Two depths were considered 

for each refuge size: 6 ft at mean low tide and 9 ft at mean low tide. The latter was suggested as 

a potential buffer against rapidly declining temperatures in the event of a severe cold or 

prolonged cloudy weather. The agreed target refuge temperature was 22o

C, chosen to match the 

temperature of natural springs used by large aggregations of manatees in winter. 

Task 2 involved identifying weather and water temperature data for each site. At the 

initial planning meeting it was agreed that weather data for the winter of 1989-90 should be used 

for model simulations because the highest rates of cold-stress related manatee deaths were 

recorded that winter. Weather data for the three locations was obtained from FSEC and the 

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for 1989 and 1990. It was anticipated that inland coastal 

water temperatures for the three sites could be provided by FP&L plants from temperature 

probes in cooling water intakes at their power plants in Brevard County (i.e., the Cape Canaveral 

Plant), Palm Beach County (i.e., the Riviera Plant) and southern Broward County a few miles 

north of Miami (i.e., the Fort Lauderdale and Port Everglades Plant). Unfortunately very little 

temperature data was available for 1989 and 1990. A bi-quadratic equation using 1989 and 1990 

ocean water and ocean air temperatures recorded by the National Oceanographic Data Center 

(NODC) off Cape Canaveral and West Palm Beach was therefore used to predict 1989-90 inland 

water temperatures near the three sites. Predicted temperatures compared closely with available 

measured inland water temperatures provided by FP&L for 1989 and later years. For the winter 

of 1989-90, they fell to 11o

C at Cape Canaveral, 18oC at West Palm Beach and 19o C at Miami. 

At the end of the study a more complete set of measured temperature data was discovered for the 

site at Cape Canaveral. That data was compared to predicted temperatures. Although the 

predicted and measured temperatures tracked each other closely, the measured minimum 

temperatures were up to 7.7o

C cooler than predicted temperatures were in December and 

January. 

Task 3 involved developing and calibrating a model to calculate the amount of heat 

required to maintain a minimum water temperature of 22o

C within the two refuge sizes (i.e., 

small and large) at all three sites. The governing equation included factors for multiple sources 

of heat loss and gain, including conduction of heat through the bottom and sides of the refuge, 

solar radiation added through the refuge surface, night sky radiation, evaporation, convection 

(i.e. heat loss to air due wind), and exchange of water between the refuge and surrounding bays

due to tides or artificial circulation designed to maintain water quality. The model was validated 

against measured temperature data from a heated pool in Cocoa Beach. In addition, performance 

curves were added to the model for three different types of commonly used solar collectors: 

unglazed, glazed, and evacuated. Simulations were then conducted to predict heat requirements 

2
for (1) maintaining refuge temperatures at 22o

C for 100%, 99% and 95% of the time under 1989­

90 winter conditions. A final simulation was then performed to determine the amount of time 

and extent to which water temperatures fell below 22o

C under the 95% and 99% scenarios. 

Task 4 included a sensitivity analysis to determine the relative importance of different 

heat loss variables at all three locations. The largest source of heat loss was caused by the 

exchange of water between the refuge and adjacent rivers and bays due to tides and/or pumping 

water into the refuge for water quality purposes. Evaporation and convection were the second 

and third largest sources of heat loss, respectively. Heat loss to the bottom and sides of the 

refuge was very small relative to other factors. If a refuge cover 1 meter above the refuge 

surface could be used to control evaporation and convection heat loss over all or much of the 

refuge surface, the amount of heat energy needed to maintain the refuge could be reduced 

significantly. 

Task 5 involved an analysis to determine (1) the type of solar collector most economical 

for providing enough heat for manatees to survive a cold winter and (2) the costs of different 

types of solar collecting systems. Estimated costs included the initial purchase of solar collector, 

pumps and pipes, annual maintenance, and cumulative costs for these needs over an expected 20­

year live span for the equipment. Unglazed solar collectors were found to provide the most cost 

effective solar collector systems. Systems designed to provide 99% of the heat requirements 

appear adequate to ensure that refuge temperatures in West Palm Beach and Miami would not 

fall more than a degree or two below 22o

C for more than a day or two. For refuges in Cape 

Canaveral, however, a back up oil or gas fired water heating system would be necessary to 

prevent temperatures from dropping below 18o

C for a few days. Estimated costs for unglazed 

solar collector systems assuming one complete turnover in water volume per day and no refuge 

cover are: 

Case Cost Cape Canaveral West Palm Beach Miami 

Small Large Small Large Small Large 

refuge refuge refuge refuge refuge refuge 

Base Case (6 Initial cost ($) 123271 713613 29261 174997 16965 100798 

ft deep without Annual cost ($) 12381 73888 3263 19505 1891 11235 

cover) Lifetime cost ($ Million) 0.268 1.578 0.067 0.399 0.039 0.230 

# Panel 146 874 39 231 22 133 

Refuge with Initial cost ($) 100397 578166 19986 119118 13483 79864 

Opaque Cover Annual cost ($) 9945 59268 2229 13277 1503 8902 

(6 ft deep) Lifetime cost ($ Million) 0.219 1.284 0.048 0.283 0.033 0.194 

# Panel 118 701 26 157 18 105 

Refuge with Initial cost ($) 74153 420532 6911 40784 3891 22817 

Transparent Annual cost ($) 7005 41633 771 4546 434 2543 

Cover (6 ft Lifetime cost ($ Million) 0.159 0.926 0.019 0.111 0.012 0.070 

deep) # Panel 83 493 9 54 5 30 

Based on estimates of the number of solar panels required for small and large size 

refuges at Cape Canaveral under the base case, it is estimated that the amount of land required 

for the solar panels would be about 1/3 ac and 1 1⁄2 ac, respectively. The estimated initial cost of 

a backup water heating system for Cape Canaveral was $12,000 for the base case. Considering 

3 
the lower than predicted water temperatures that were provided at the end of the study, it was 

determined that the additional heating requirements could be met without increasing the size of 

the solar panel system by increasing the size of the backup water heating system about 60 

percent. The extent to which this would increase the cost estimates for the Cape Canaveral 

refuges was not determined, but was not thought likely to be more than about $15,000. If a 

translucent cover 1 m above the refuge surface could be use over most of the refuge area to 

allow passage of solar energy directly into the refuge water, reduce evaporation, and reduce 

conduction of heat loss, solar collector costs could be significantly reduced and nearly 

eliminated at sites in Miami and perhaps West Palm Beach. 

Costs not considered in this study includes those for land, the heat exchanger, 

construction of the refuge embayment, the preparation of detailed construction plans, or the 

development of required permit applications. 

4
OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present project is to assess the feasibility of a solar-power-based water 

heating system to provide reliable warm-water refuges for manatees within the principal portions 

of their current winter ranges along the coast. The assessment is achieved by comprehensive 

computer simulations. Economic analysis will be performed to provide the most economical 

solar-powered water heating system. 

5
INTRODUCTION 

Cold stress is a significant source of mortality for Florida manatees. In general such deaths 

occur when they are exposed for long periods of time to temperatures colder than about 19N C 

(66 N F). To survive such cold periods, most animals retreat to confined warm-water refuges 

(usually natural springs or power plant outfalls) that discharge water at temperatures above 19 N 

C. However, areas with refuges discharging water at temperatures below about 22 N C can still 

experience significant levels of cold stress-related deaths. Currently perhaps 85% of all 

manatees along Florida’s Atlantic coast (not including animals using Blue Spring on the upper 

St. Johns River) rely principally on outfalls at five power plants built before the early 1970s to 

meet their thermoregulatory needs during winter months1

. Many of these plants are reaching the 

end of their planned operational life. Regulations governing thermal discharges now preclude 

the approval of comparable thermal discharges from new plants. Thus, if these older plants are 

not repowered (in which case they could continue to discharge heated effluent) and are instead 

closed, the Atlantic coast subpopulation of Florida manatees could be significantly reduced due 

to winter cold stress. 

A possible option to respond to this situation is the creation of alternative non-industry 

dependent warm-water refuges into which water heated principally by solar power is discharged 

into an embayment designed to retain heat for manatees, while minimizing its release into 

adjacent waterbodies. Such refuges might circulate water heated by solar panels through a 

closed system of pipes to a heat exchanger at the bottom of the refuge. The heat exchanger 

would transfer heat to warm water in the refuge (see Figure 1). A preliminary modeling study2

 to 

assess the feasibility of such an approach has been undertaken using average daily water 

temperature and weather data at a site in Palm Beach County in the central portion of the winter 

range of Atlantic coast manatees. The study concluded that a system of solar panels could be 

adequate to heat small embayments to levels sufficient to meet thermoregulatory needs for 

manatees overwintering at that site, based on simple assumptions. To further assess the 

feasability of this approach, the study concluded that a more detailed analysis should be 

undertaken using hourly winter water temperature and weather data. In addition, the study did 

not provide detailed cost estimation of solar water heating system components. 

To address this need and further assess the feasibility of a solar-power-based water heating 

system to provide reliable warm-water refuges for manatees within the principal portions of their 

current winter range along the east coast, a study is needed to: 

1 Laist, D. W., J. E. Reynolds, "The Effect of Power Plants and other Warm-Water Refuges on Florida 

Manatee Abundance and Distribution," Manatee Habitat Workshop 2004, Nov. 29 - Dec. 1, 2004, Defray 

Beach, Florida 

2 Goswami, Y., N. Goel, D. W. Kearney, 2002, “Feasibility study on solar heating of a manatee refuge in 

southeast Florida,” Florida Manatee Refuge Heating Study 

6 
1) assess the heat loss from hypothetical warm-water areas in the northern, central, and 

southern portions of the manatee’s current winter range along Atlantic coast of Florida 

using a heat flux model that incorporates hourly water temperature and weather data; 

2) estimate how much heat would be needed to create a semi-enclosed warm-water manatee 

refuge that would remain at or above 22 N C during the coldest winter periods a site in 

each of the northern, central, and southern parts of their principal winter range along the 

Atlantic coast; 

3) assess the availability, engineering requirements, and cost-effectiveness of solar-based 

water heating technology and a back-up/booster water-heating system to create a warmwater embayment that could be kept at 22 N C or above during periods of exceptionally 

cold or cloudy winter weather or if technical problems limit operation of the solarpowered system; 

4) identify a recommended cost-effective, reliable solar powered water heating system to 

create a warm-water manatee refuge at each location and estimate the costs to purchase, 

install, and maintain that equipment and the life expectancy of such a system; and 

7
Task 1 Identify the location and physical configuration of refuges 

The objective of this task involved consulting with manatee resource managers with U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), 

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), and the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) to 

identify the location and physical configuration for hypothetical warm-water refuges of two 

different sizes in each of the northern, central, and southern portions of the manatee’s current 

principal winter range along the Atlantic coast. Based on the kickoff meeting at Florida Solar 

Energy Center (FSEC) in Jan. 2004, the sizes and locations to be used for modeling simulation 

analyses was identified as described below. 

1.1 Refuge locations 

For purposes of this study, it was 

decided to consider the development 

of artificial refuge in three 

hypothetical locations. The included 

sites are in Brevard County at the 

FP&L Cape Canaveral Power Plant, 

in Palm Beach County at the Riviera 

Beach Power Plant, and in Dade 

County near Miami. The locations 

were selected largely because they 

were locations where whether data 

included information solar radiation 

levels, as well as air temperatures, 

wind speeds, cloud cover, etc., were 

available. 

Figure 1-1 Three hypothetical refuge locations in Florida 

1.2 Refuge Configurations 

For purposes of this study, it also was decided to model two sizes of refuges at each location: 

small refuge to support about 50 animals and large refuge capable of supporting several hundred 

manatees. For the small refuge, the agreed size was 50x50 ft (2,500 ft2

/0.06 acre). For the larger 

refuge, it was agreed to use the Riviera Beach power plant embayment as a model (i.e., an 

embayment 100 x150 ft (15,000 sq ft/10.33 acre)). Its depth ranges from about 3 to 8 ft. with an 

average of about 6 ft. Although it was agreed that modeling should consider two different 

depths, agreement on those depths was not settled. An average of 6 ft and 9 ft. might be 

appropriate. The deeper alternative was suggested as a possible means of buffering the effects of 

heat loss during a cold period. 

8
Task 2 Identification and Selection of Weather and Water Temperature Data 

The objective of this task was to identify and compile hourly water temperature, weather, and 

tidal data for the months of December 1989, and January and February 1990, which was thought 

to characterizes local environmental conditions during the coldest year for which data are 

available at each of the three locations selected in Task 1. 

2.1 Hourly Weather Data 

Weather data sought to carry out the project include the following for each site during the 

coldest year in recent history: Hourly measurements of solar radiation, air temperature, dew 

point or relative humidity, cloudy cover, and wind conditions. 

• Solar radiation was used to calculate heat gains provided directly to refuge waters and 

solar collectors by exposed to sunlight. 

• Air temperature was used to calculate convective heat losses from refuge through airwater interface. 

• Dew point or relative humidity was used to calculate refuge evaporative losses. 

• Cloudy cover was used to calculate sky temperatures and sky radiation losses. 

• Wind speed was used to determine heat and mass transfer coefficients for both 

convective and evaporative heat losses 

At the initial project organizing meeting, it was agreed that weather data for the years 1989 and 

1990 should be used as the winter of 1989-1990 had the highest rates of cold-stress related 

manatee mortality in recent years. There are several possible sources of hourly weather data for 

1989 and 1990 including :Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) data from the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) weather stations, the 

National Climate Data Center (NCDC), and Solar and Meteorological Surface Observation 

Network. 

Typical Meteorological Year Weather Data 

The most commonly used weather data is TMY2 weather data developed by National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory3

. TMY2 data provide typical weather conditions during a 30-year period 

collected at about 240 locations throughout in the United States between 1961 and 1990. To 

assess its suitability for use in this project, TMY2 data were assessed by comparing it with the 

range of interannual variation in 30-year data sets from stations near selected project sites. 

Comparisons were made on a monthly and annual basis for global horizontal, direct normal, and 

south-facing latitude tilt radiation; and for heating and cooling degree days. Such comparisons 

show how well TMY2 data portray long-term conditions related to the solar resource and the dry 

bulb temperature environment for simulations of solar energy conversion systems and building 

systems. On an annual basis, the TMY data compare closely to the 30-year data sets. The 

3 Marion, W. & K. Urban, 1995, “User's Manual for TMY2s (Typical Meteorological Years),” National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado 

9 
monthly comparisons are less favorable than the annual comparisons. The detailed description 

how to generate TMY2 weather data can be found 3 in Marion and Urban (1995). 

Because the goal of the present project is to predict heating requirements in the coldest year, 

rather than a typical year, TMY2 weather data was not considered suitable for the present study. 

National Climatic Data Center Weather Data 

The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) provides hourly weather measurement more than 

300 stations in the United States, including locations in Daytona Beach, West Palm Beach and 

Miami. Most weather data are collected at airports to meet aircraft landing and take-off 

requirements. The data consists of air temperatures, humidity levels, wind conditions and cloudy 

cover. Unfortunately, solar radiation is not measured and recorded, except for a few locations. 

Due to lack of solar radiation data, the NCDC weather data were not considered and suitable for 

the present study. 

Florida Solar Energy Center Meteorological Station 

The FSEC meteorological station constantly monitors ambient weather conditions at FSEC's 

main site in Cocoa, Florida. This data is gathered primarily for FSEC testing and research 

activities. The station measures all the weather conditions necessary to conduct project analyses 

and is located within five miles of the Florida Power and Light Companies Cape Canaveral 

power plant, which was selected as the northern project test site. FSEC weather data was 

therefore used to conduct analyses for the northern test site, but was not suitable for the other 

two hypothetical sites (i.e. West Palm Beach County and Miami-Dade County). 

Solar and Meteorological Surface Observation Network 

The Solar and Meteorological Surface Observation Network (SAMSON) 3-volume CD-ROM set 

is divided geographically into three regions: Eastern, Central, and Western U.S. It contains 

hourly solar radiation data along with selected meteorological elements for the period 1961­

1990. It encompasses 237 national weather stations in the United States, Guam and Puerto Rico. 

The data set includes both observational and modeled data. The hourly solar elements are: 

Extraterrestrial horizontal and extraterrestrial direct normal radiation; global, diffuse, and direct 

normal radiation. Meteorological elements include: total and opaque sky cover, temperature and 

dew point, relative humidity, pressure, wind direction and speed, visibility, cloud ceiling height, 

present weather, precipitable water, aerosol optical depth, snow depth, days since last snowfall, 

and hourly precipitation. The database is a joint effort by the NCDC and National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL). Although the solar radiation data were modeled, it was found to be 

the best source for the present study, because it included a completed data set for 1989 and 1990. 

Therefore, the weather data of SAMSON was used in the present study for the three selected 

hypothetical sites. 

2.2 River water temperature 

10 
River water temperatures are needed to calculate the effect of refuge basin heat gains and losses 

due to tidal exchange and perhaps additional water added to the refuge to increase water volume 

to prevent stagnation or water quality problems within the refuge. Because manatee refuges 

must have openings to allow manatee access, river water temperatures are a major factor for 

predicting required heating energy needs. Model predictions show the tidal exchange and water 

circulation through the refuge are the most important single parameter. 

With the assistance of Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L), hourly river water temperatures 

were obtained from cooling water intake canals at four east coast power plants -- the Cape 

Canaveral Power Plant, the Riviera Power Plant, the Fort Lauderdale Power Plant, and the Port 

Everglades Power Plant corresponding to the approximate locations of the three hypothetical 

project test sites. Water temperatures from the Fort Myers cooling water effluent canal also 

were obtained for purposes of model calibration. These were the only locations for which longterm continuous water temperature data for inland coastal waters could be found for locations 

between Cape Canaveral and Biscayne Bay. Unfortunately, continuous hourly water 

temperature data from these sites was available only for recent years. None included data for 

1989 and 1990 believed to be the coldest year in Florida recent years. The data provided 

covered the following periods: 

Cape Canaveral Power Plant: hourly data from 1996-2003 

Riviera Beach Power Plant: hourly data from 1995-2003 

Port Everglades and Fort Lauderdale Power Plants: hourly data from 2001-2003 

After requesting more measured data specifically for the winter of 1989-90, FP&L, also was able 

to provide hourly intake water temperatures from its Cape Canaveral Power Plant for one day 

(Dec. 23, 1989), and daily maximum and minimum water temperatures for the period between 

December 29, 1989 and March 31, 

1990. Although this additional data 

was not suitable for direct use, it 

was very helpful for assessing the 

accuracy of the model described 

below used to generate estimates of 

hourly inland coastal water 

temperatures at all three sites during 

the winter of 1989-90. 

Predictive Water Temperature 

Model 

In the absence of measured hourly 

water temperatures for the winter of 

1989-90 at the three selected project 

sites, a model was developed and Figure 2-1 Buoy locations in Atlantic Ocean of Florida tested to predict inland coastal from NODC 

water temperatures using hourly 

11 
ocean water and ocean air temperatures collected at two nearby monitoring stations by the 

National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC). The two monitoring stations include (1) an 

ocean buoy located 20 miles offshore of Cape Canaveral, and (2) a station located on an ocean 

pier at Lake Worth nine miles south of the Riviera Power Plant. Figure 2-1 shows buoy locations 

in Atlantic Ocean of Florida from NODC4

. The stations used in this study included Station 

41009, 20 miles East of Cape Canaveral and Station LKWF1, located on an ocean pier in Lake 

Worth Pier, nine miles north of the central site considered in this study in central Palm Beach 

County. Ocean air and water temperatures data are available for 1989 and 1990 at both stations. 

Although NODC also operates a monitoring station off Miami, temperature data prior to 1994 

were not available for that site. 

Because of concern that ocean water temperatures, especially for the site 20 miles east of Cape 

Canaveral, are not equivalent to inland coastal water temperatures, it was considered 

inappropriate to use ocean water temperatures as a direct proxy for inland coastal water 

temperatures. Because of their shallow nature, winter water temperatures tend to be cooler in 

inland coastal waters than in the ocean during periods when air temperatures drop significantly 

below water temperatures. However, because of constant tidal exchange between the ocean an 

inland estuarine waters, it was believed they could be correlated. The following regression 

model was therefore developed whereby inland coastal water temperature is expressed as a biquadratic function of ocean air and water temperatures: 

2 Triver = + a b * Tair + c * T + d * Tair 2 + e * T + f * Tair * T (1) ocean ocean ocean 

where 

Triver River temperature [o

C] 

a,b,c,d,e,f Regression coefficients 

Tair Ocean air temperature [o

C] 

Tocean Ocean water temperature [o

C] 

To calibrate the model, predicted inland coastal water temperatures were compared with actual 

measured water temperatures provided by FP&L from cooling water intake openings at two 

inland sites (Cape Canaveral and Riviera Beach) for the years 2001 and 2002. Predicted water 

temperatures at the Cape Canaveral Power Plant were based on ocean air and water temperatures 

from the buoy 20 miles east of Cape Canaveral; the predicted water temperatures for the Riviera 

Power Plant were based on ocean air and water temperatures from the ocean pier in Lake Worth. 

Appendix A provides a comparison of the predicted and measured river water temperatures at 

both sites for 2001 and 2002. The comparison provides a high level of confidence that the ocean 

air and ocean water temperatures can be used to predict inland coastal water temperatures. 

Water Temperatures at the Cape Canaveral Power Plant 

Using Eq. (1) and the same regression coefficients developed to calibrate the model, ocean air 

and water temperatures for 1989 and 1990 from the ocean buoy off Cape Canaveral was used to 

predict inland coastal water temperatures at Cape Canaveral. (See Appendix A for the ocean air 

4 http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/BUOY/bafl.html 

12 
and ocean water temperatures used to predict water temperatures at Cape Canaveral). Figures 2­

2 and 2-3 show the predicted water temperatures at Cape Canaveral for 1989 and 1990, 

respectively, which includes the cold winter period in late 1989 and early 1990 that had high 

cold-stress-related manatee mortality. 

Preidcted inland coastal w ater tem perature for Cape Canaveral in 1989 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

)T (C

1/1/1989 2/20/1989 4/11/1989 5/31/1989 7/20/1989 9/8/1989 10/28/1989 12/17/1989 

0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 

Tim e 

Figure 2-2 Predicted ambient water temperature at the Cape Canaveral power plant for 1989 

Predicted inland coastal water temperatures for Cape Canaveral in 1990 

(C) 

10.00 

15.00 

20.00 

25.00 

30.00 

35.00 

Temp

1/1/1990 2/20/1990 4/11/1990 5/31/1990 7/20/1990 9/8/1990 10/28/1990 12/17/1990 

0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 

Time 

Figure 2-3 Predicted ambient water temperature at the Cape Canaveral power plant for 1990 

Figures 2-4 and 2-5 compare the predicted temperatures at Cape Canaveral with the actual 

measured water temperatures available for the same period at that site from FP&L. Figure 2-4 

13 
shows the measured and predicted water temperatures over a 14-day period at the end of 

December 1989 when a very intense cold front struck Florida between 23 and 26 December, 

causing a large number of cold-related manatee deaths. Figure 2-4 also shows that the predicted 

temperatures are nearly identical to FP&L's measured hourly temperatures on 23 December, but 

were about a degree warmer than the measured maximum temperatures and 4 degrees warmer 

/ /

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

/ 12/ 12/ / 12/ / / 12/ /

 (C) 

ly i i il il in 

Com parison of predicted and recorded inland w ater tem peratures at C ape 

Canaveral, 12 18-31 1989 

12 18/1989 

0:00 

20/1989 

0:00 

22 1989 

0:00 

24 1989 

0:00 

12 26/1989 

0:00 

12/28/1989 

0:00 

30 1989 

0:00 Tim e 

Temp

FPL Hour Pred ct on FPL Da y Max FPL Da y M

Figure 2-4 Comparison of December 1989 water temperatures measured by FPL at the Cape 

Canaveral power plant with predicted water temperatures 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

/ / 1/ / / / 3/ / / /

 (C) 

i i il in 

C o m p a ris on of pre d ic te d a nd re c o rd e d in la nd w ate r te m p e ra ture s a t C a pe 

C a na v e ra l in J an-M a r. 1 9 89 

1/1 1990 

0:00 

1/11 1990 

0:00 

21/1990 

0:00 

1/31 1990 

0:00 

2/10 1990 

0:00 

2/20 1990 

0:00 

2/1990 

0:00 

3/12 1990 

0:00 

3/22 1990 

0:00 

4/1 1990 

0:00 

Tim e 

Temp

Pred ct on FPL Daily Max FPL Da y M

Figure 2-5 Comparison of Jan-Mar. 1990 water temperatures measured by FPL at the Cape 

Canaveral power plant with predicted water temperatures 

14 
River water temperature between 9/1/89-4/30/90 at Cape Canaveral 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

)Temp (C

8/30/1989 10/19/1989 12/8/1989 1/27/1990 3/18/1990 5/7/1990 

Time 

Pred cted i Measured (Mean) Measured (Min)

Figure 2-6 Comparison of predicted water temperatures for the Indian River with the measured 

daily minimum and mean temperatures in Banana Creek provided by the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Sirenia Project. 

than the measured minimum temperatures between 29 and 31 December. Figure 2-5, which 

illustrates the predicted water temperatures and the measured minimum and maximum 

temperatures at the Cape Canaveral power plant between 29 December and 31 March, shows 

that the predicted temperatures for this site consistently fell within or very close to the bounds of 

the measured water temperatures throughout early 1990. 

10 

20 

30 

40 

1/1/ 2/ 9/8/ /

) 

Predicted inland coastal water temperature at Riviera Beach in 1989 

1989 0:00 20/1989 

0:00 

4/11/1989 

0:00 

5/31/1989 

0:00 

7/20/1989 

0:00 

1989 0:00 10/28 1989 

0:00 

12/17/1989 

0:00 

Time 

Temp (C

Figure 2-7 Predicted ambient water temperatures at the Riviera power plant in 1989. 

15 
10 

20 

30 

40 

2/20/ / / / / 10/ /

0:00 

12/ /

0:00 

) 

Predicted inland coastal water temperature at Riviera Beach in 1990 

1/1/1990 0:00 1990 

0:00 

4/11 1990 

0:00 

5/31 1990 

0:00 

7/20 1990 

0:00 

9/8 1990 0:00 28 1990 17 1990 

Time 

Temp (C

Figure 2-8 Predicted ambient water temperature at the Riviera power plant in 1990 

As this report was being finalized, a more complete set of water temperature data for the Cape 

Canaveral area was located for the years 1989 and 1990. The Sirenia Project in the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s Office of Biological Services provided minimum and maximum daily water 

temperatures for a site located about one mile upstream from the Indian River on the northern 

Banana River near the Route 3 bridge. Those data were compared with the predicted 

temperatures, as shown Figure 2-3. The comparison revealed that the predicted temperatures 

closely tracked the daily trends of the measured data, but that in December 1989 and January 

1990, the measured temperatures were significantly cooler than the predicted temperatures. The 

lowest measured temperature occurred on 26 December 1989 when the water temperature 

reached a low of 4.2o

C, a high of 10.6oC, and had a mean of 7.0oC, compared to a minimum 

predicted temperature for that day of 12.2o

C and a maximum predicted temperature of 14.6oC. It 

is possible that the winter water temperatures in this creek are colder than those in the Indian 

River due to the shall dead end nature of the Creek. 

Water Temperatures at the Riviera Power Plant 

Using Eq. (1) and the same regression coefficients developed to calibrate the model, the ocean 

air and water temperatures for 1989 and 1990 at the Lake Worth ocean pier were used to predict 

hourly inland waters at the Riviera Power Plant. Figures 2-7 and 2-8 shows the predicted water 

temperatures at this site for 1989 and 1990, respectively. Unfortunately, no measured water 

temperature data for 1989-1990 was available for this site for comparison purposes. 

Inland Water Temperatures near Miami 

Because ocean air and ocean water temperature data before 1994 were not available from the 

NODC monitoring station for Miami, it was not possible to use the regression equation to predict 

inland water temperature for Miami. However, measured water temperatures were available 

from FP&L for more recent years at both the Riviera and Port Everglades power plants. A 

16
comparison of data on intake water temperatures at the two power plants during the winter 

months in 2001 (Figure 2-9), 2002 (Figure 2-10), and 2003 (Figure 2-11) reveals that the water 

temperatures at the Riviera plant were very close to those at Port Everglades plant except in 

December in 2002 when water temperatures at the former plant were about 5 degrees Celsius 

cooler than those at the Port Everglades plant. 

Because the present project seeks to provide required heating during the coldest periods, the 

predicted inland water temperatures for 1989 and 1990 at the Riviera Beach power plant were 

selected for use in analyzing heating requirements at the southern site in the Miami area, but 

modifies them to increase the temperature estimates by 2 degrees Celsius. Figure 2-12 shows 

the inland water temperatures used for analyses of a southern refuge basin in the Miami area in 

1989. 

17
18 

20 

22 

24 

26 

28 

30 

32 

34 

1/1/2001 1/11/2001 1/31/2001 2/20/2001 

T (C) 

Cooling water intake temperatures at Riviera and Port Everglades power plants 

from Jan. to Feb. in 2001 

1/21/2001 2/10/2001 

i

Time 

Riv era Port Everglades 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

11/1/2001 12/1/2001 12/11/2001 12/31/2001 

T (C) 

Cooling water intake temperatures at Riviera and Port Everglades power plants 

from Nov. to Dec. in 2001 

11/11/2001 11/21/2001 12/21/2001 

i

Time 

Riv era Port Everglades 

Figure 2-9 Comparison of ambient water temperatures measured by FPL at cooling water

intakes for the Riviera and Port Everglades power plant in 2001

18
Cooling water intake temperatures at Riviera and Port Everglades power plants 

from Jan. to Mar. in 2002 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

29 

31 

33 

35 

T (C) 

1/1/2002 1/11/2002 1/21/2002 1/31/2002 2/10/2002 2/20/2002 3/2/2002 3/12/2002 3/22/2002 

Time 

Riv era i Port Everglades 

Cooling water intake temperatures at Riviera and Port Everglades power plants 

from Nov. to Dec. in 2002 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 

T (F) 

11/1/2002 11/11/2002 11/21/2002 12/1/2002 12/11/2002 12/21/2002 12/31/2002 

Time 

Riv era i Port Everglades 

Figure 2-10 Comparison of ambient water temperatures measured by FPL at cooling water 

intakes for the Riviera and Port Everglades power plant in 2002 

19
15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

/2003 /2003 

) 

Cooling water intake temperatures at Riviera and Port Everglades power plants 

from Jan. to Mar. in 2003 

1/1/2003 1/11/2003 1/21/2003 1/31/2003 2/10 2/20 3/2/2003 3/12/2003 3/22/2003 

Time 

T (C

Riviera Port Everglades 

Figure 2-11 Comparison of ambient water temperatures measured by FPL at cooling water

intakes for the Riviera and Port Everglades power plant in 2003

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

29 

31 

33 

AM 

/ / /

AM 

/ /

T (C) 

Estimated inland coastal water temperature at Miami in 1989 

1/1/89 12:00 2/20/89 

12:00 AM 

4/11 89 

12:00 AM 

5/31 89 

12:00 AM 

7/20 89 

12:00 AM 

9/8/89 12:00 10/28 89 

12:00 AM 

12/17 89 

12:00 AM 

Time 

Figure 2-12 Estimated inland water temperatures for Miami in 1989

20
Task 3 Simulation benchmarking and validation 

The objective of this task was to use an appropriate model to calculate how much heat would be 

required to maintain a minimum water temperature of 22 N C in the two different warm-water 

refuge configurations at each of the three hypothetical sites using data collected in Task 2. 

Although there are several models available to calculate heat losses from swimming pools, the 

model used for the present project also must account for tidal impact. Before the model can be 

used with high level of confidence, the model should be validated to compare predicted results 

with measured temperature data. 

This section describes the mathematical formulas used to model heat losses and the required 

solar collector performance for the various manatee refuges considered. The section also 

describes the exercise to validate the model against measured pool data in Cocoa Beach. 

The model considers heat transfer across the following boundaries: 

• heat from solar radiation entering the refuge embayment, 

• heat transfer due to convection at the water surface through air movement; 

• heat exchange between the water surface and sky temperatures due to night sky 

radiation, 

• heat exchange between the ground and water within the refuge area, 

• heat exchange due to tidal effects, and 

• heat exchange between reheat water and the water in the refuge. 

3.1 Heat losses in manatee refuges 

Sources of heat loss and gain for manatee refuges include conduction from refuge walls and 

ground, radiation between the water surface and sky, evaporation between the water and ambient 

air, solar heat gain from solar radiation, rain, and tide. 

Although rain is a factor in calculation of heat losses, it is not considered in the present study, 

Firstly, the weather data do not detail rain information. Secondly, Cromer5

 assumed 0.1oF 

temperature drop with light rain, 0.2o

F with moderate rain, and 0.3oF with heavy rain, 

respectively. The maximum temperature drop of 0.3o

F is not significant to affect refuge water 

temperatures. Thirdly, low precipitation rates in winter are not sufficient to significantly cool a 

water body of the size and volume envisioned. Therefore, the rain impact is not included in 

refuge heat loss and gain. 

Conduction 

Conduction heat loss from surrounding walls and ground may be written as: 

Q cond = UA T( soil − T w ) (2)

Q

where 

cond = Heat conduction loss from surrounding walls and ground [W] 

21
T

T

U = Overall heat transmission coefficient [W/m2.K] 

A = Surface area [m2

]

w = Refuge water temperature [o

C]

soil = Soil temperature [o

C]

There are two types of conduction loss: wall conduction loss and ground conduction loss from 

the bottom of refuges. The U value is assumed to be 0.57 W/m2

.K 5. The average wall 

temperature is assumed to be a third of ground temperature and two thirds of ambient 

temperature. It should be pointed out that conduction loss is minor compared to other major 

sources of heat loss. The sensitivity study in the next section will demonstrate this conclusion. 

Solar Radiation 

Solar radiation gain from global and diffuse horizontal radiation is 

Q = α A q (3) solar w w solar 

Q

where

solar = Heat gain from solar radiation [W]

"w = Refuge water absorptivity [dimensionless]

qsolar = Global and diffuse solar heat flux [W/m2

] 

The absorptivity of water is assumed to be 0.755

. 

Night Sky Radiation 

Radiation loss between refuge water surface and sky temperature5 may be written as 

Q = ε σw Aw (Tsky − T w ) (4) 4 4 

rad 

T

T

,

Q

where

rad = Total radiation loss due to sky temperature [W]

w = Emissivity of refuge water surface, assume 0.955

F = Stefan-Boltzmann constant [5.67x10-8 W/m2.K4]

A = Water surface area [m2

]

w = Water surface temperature [K]

sky = Sky temperature [K]

The clear sky emissivity may be a function of ambient dew point and hour of a day6 

5 Cromer, C. 1982, “Chapter 4: Sizing Guide for Solar Pool Heating Systems,” Solar Water and Pool 

Heating Manual, Vol. II, Florida Solar Energy Center, FSEC-IN-22-82, Cocoa, FL 

6 ASTM, 1999, "Standard Practice for Estimation of Heat Gain or Loss through Ceilings under Attics 

Containing Radiant Barriers by Use of a Computer Program," ASTM C 1340-99, American Society for 

Testing and Materials 

22 
. . d ε . sky clear = 0 711 + 0 56 *(T / 100) + 0 73*(T / 100)

2 + 013* cos(2π * hour / 24) (5) , . d 

T

where

d = Dew point temperature [o

C]

hour = The hour of a day [1-24]

The sky emissivity may be a function of sky cloud cover 

10 − ε . . sky clear , ) * C / 10 0 * 0 784 (6)

C

ε sky = ε sky clear + (. , c

where 

c = Cloud cover used in NCDC weather data [0-10] 

The sky temperature may be expressed as a function of sky emissivity: 

0 25 . Tsky = Tair *(ε sky ) (7) 

Convection 

The algorithm to predict hourly convection loss at water surface is 

Q conv w amb w = hA (T − T ) (8)

T

T

A

Q

where

conv = Convective loss [W]

h = Heat transfer coefficient [W/m2

.K]

w = Water surface area [m2

]

w = Water surface temperature [K]

amb = Ambient air temperature [K]

Evaporation 

The equation used to predict hourly evaporation loss from the refuge water surface is 

Qevap = h m w * A *λ *(w amb − ww ) (9)

w

w

h

A

Q

where

evap = Evaporation loss [W]

w = Refuge water surface area [m2

]

m = Mass transfer coefficient [kg/m2

.s]

w = Water surface saturated humidity ratio [kg/kg]

amb = Ambient air humidity ratio [kg/kg]

8 = Latent heat [J/kg]

23
The mass transfer coefficient, hm, can be obtained from heat transfer coefficient based on Lewis 

relation7 

h 

≈ 1 (10) h Cm p 

where 

h = Heat transfer coefficient [W/m2

.K] 

C = Air specific heat [J/kg.K] p 

Tide 

Heat transfer from tides and water circulation through a refuge is determined by the inland 

coastal temperature and volume change rate. The equation used to predict hourly tidal loss from 

the refuge is 

Q & tide = mCp water *(Triver − Tw , ) (11)

Q

where 

tide = Tidal heat loss [W] m C

m = Tidal water flow rate [kg/s] 

Cp,water = Water specific heat [J/kg.K] 

Triver = River water temperature [o

C] 

Tw = Refuge water temperature [o

C] 

Two types of tidal water flow rates are used in the present study: constant and variable. The 

constant tidal flow rate is based on the daily water volume turn over rate, varying from 0.5 to 5 

volume change per day. This range of volume change rate was selected at project kickoff 

meeting in January, 2004 at FSEC. The hourly flow rate is equally distributed based on the daily 

turn over rate. 

The variable tidal flow rate is based on tidal height and tidal flow direction. The tidal heat loss 

occurs only during a rising tide (from river to refuge), while ebb tides (from refuge to river) 

cause no heat losses within the refuge itself. Unlike a 24-hour solar day, a lunar day lasts 24 

hours and 50 minutes, because the moon revolves around the Earth in the same direction as the 

Earth's rotation. Therefore, it takes the Earth an extra 50 minutes to “catch up” to the moon. 

Since the Earth rotates through two tidal “bulges” every lunar day, Florida experiences two high 

and two low tides every 24 hours and 50 minutes. High tides occur 12 hours and 25 minutes 

apart, taking 6.2 hours for the water at the shore to go from high to low, and about 6.2 hours to 

go from low to high. In addition, high and low tidal time varies with locations. Therefore, the 

three locations used in the present study have different high and low tidal time and heights. 

7 ASHRAE, 1997, ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals, p. 5.11, Eq. (50) 

24 
WXTide32, a free Windows tide and current prediction program, was used to predict tide times 

and water levels8

. A detailed description of the program is given in Appendix B. Unfortunately, 

hourly simulations are used in the present study. Since the tidal cycle did not match the solar 

daily cycle, we had to modify the tidal cycle data to fit the solar cycle. The following approach 

was used to meet the hourly simulation requirements. 

• The time and height of high and low tide at each cycle were obtained for each cycle in 

the three locations in 1989 and 1990, using WXTide32; 

• The tidal shape at each cycle was assumed to be a sine curve, so that continuous tidal 

curves were generated in the three locations in both years; 

• Hourly tidal height was calculated based on the continuous curves. It should be noted that 

although the points at the lowest tide and highest tide may not be obtained due to an 

hourly interval, the best approach is to meet the hourly simulation requirements; 

• An hourly tide input file was created which included time, tidal height, and height 

difference between previous and current hour; and 

• Tidal energy loss was calculated based only on the incoming flow of the rising tide, 

because outgoing flows are not a source of heat losses within the refuges. 

The predicted mass flow rate is expressed as 

m & = ρ water * ∆h * A / 3600 (12) w 

where C

m = Tidal water flow rate [kg/s] 

Dwater = Water density [1000 kg/m3] 

)h = Height difference in an hour [m/h] 

Aw = Refuge surface area [m2

] 

The tidal curves are presented in Appendix B for all three locations in 1989. 

Governing equation 

The general governing equation to calculate refuge heat losses may be written as: 

dTw ρCV 

dt = Qcond + Qsolar + Qrad + Qconv + Qevap + Q + Q (13) p tide heat 

where 

D = Water density [1000 kg/m3] 

Cp = Water specific heat [4180 J/kg.K] 

V = Refuge volume [m3

] 

Tw = Refuge water temperature [K] 

t = Time [s] 

Qheat = Heating energy [W], either from ideal heating or solar collectors 

Other nomenclatures are defined earlier. 

8 http://www.wxtide32.com/ 

25 
3.2 Selection of simulation program 

Initially, we planned to use the FSEC 3.0 program to simulate refuge water temperatures for the 

present project. The FSEC program, developed by the Florida Solar Energy Center9

, is a general 

building simulation program, which provides detailed simulations for a whole building. It 

simulates energy, moisture, multizone airflows and air distribution systems simultaneously. Its 

capabilities are listed as follows: 

! Zone thermal balance

! Zone moisture balance

! Zone contaminant balance, including radon

! Heat and moisture transfer in building envelope

! Multi-zone airflow, including air distribution system

! Zone and air distribution system pressures

! HVAC system models

! Duct system heat and moisture exchange

! Radon transport in soil and slab

The wall heat transfer model in the FSEC program uses either the finite element method or 

conduction transfer function (CTF). Users have a choice of selecting either a detailed or 

simplified moisture model to simulate moisture transfer in buildings. The program can perform 

1-D, 2-D and 3-D thermal simulations. The other main reason selecting the FSEC 3.0 program 

was that it could be modified to simulate complicated physical phenomenon, such as manatee 

refuge thermal performance in 2-D or 3-D. Although other software, such as FLUENT (a CFD 

commercial software), can also perform this work, it is not easy to modify these programs to 

simulate evaporation loss or tidal impact. 

Although we planned to use the FSEC 3.0 program to perform 2-D simulations, it became 

apparent that water temperatures did not change very much, after analyzing the 2-D simulation 

results. After looking at other literature and available pool calculation software, it was decided to 

use a lumped water temperature approach that assumes the refuge water temperature is 

homogeously distributed. Since there was a little difference of temperature between lumped and 

2-D approach, we concluded the lumped approach would be accurate enough for the present 

study. Also, because the main interest was calculating how many solar collectors would be 

needed, the slight difference in refuge temperatures in the two approaches would likely have a 

little impact on solar collector selection. 

Finally, because the refuge volume varies with variable tide, the 2-D simulation cannot change 

volume, due to fixed mesh. The lumped approach allowed us to vary the refuge volume. 

3.3 Solar collectors 

9 Florida Solar Energy Center, 1992, "FSEC 3.0: Florida Software for Enervironmetal Computation," 

Version 3.0, FSEC-GP-47-92 

26 
There are three main types of solar collectors commonly used: unglazed, glazed, and evacuated. 

The thermal performance of solar collectors is dependent on both efficiency and tilt. Therefore, 

two equations were required to calculate solar collector performance in different locations: an 

incident angle modifier and collector efficiency. The performance curves in three types of solar 

collectors are provided by Florida Solar Energy Center through performance testing based on 

ASHRAE Standard 93-1998. In accordance with Florida Law (§ 377.705, F.S.), the Florida 

Solar Energy Center is charged to “develop and promulgate standards for solar energy systems 

manufactured or sold in the state based on the best currently available information. . .” and 

"establish criteria for testing performance of solar energy systems. . .". 

The performance of unglazed solar collector may be written as: 

Incident angel modifier: 

1 ⎞ K . . τα = 10 − 0 02 * ⎝

⎜

⎛ (14) 

K

cosθ

−1

⎠

⎟

where 

J" = Incident angle modifier [dimensionless] 

2 = Angel between the normal of the collector and solar direct normal 

The efficiency equation is 

TT i a − i − η = 82 8 . −1336 * −10126 * ⎛

⎝

⎜

T Ta ⎞

⎠

⎟

2 

(15)

I I 

where 

0 = Efficiency of solar collector [%] 

Ti = Inlet water temperature of solar collector [o

C] 

Ta = Ambient temperature [o

C] 

I = Solar radiation received on solar collector surface, including direct and diffuse 

 solar radiation [W/m2

] 

The performance of glazed solar collector may be written as: 

Incident angel modifier: 

⎛ 1 ⎞ K . . τα = 10 − 015* ⎝

⎜ (16)

cos θ

−1

⎠

⎟

The efficiency equation is 

TT i a − i − η = 67 4 . − 486 * −1669 * ⎛

⎝

⎜

T Ta ⎞

⎠

⎟

2 

(17) I I 

The performance of evacuated solar collector may be written as: 

27
Incident angel modifier: 

⎛ 1 ⎞ K . . τα = 10 − 0 08 * ⎝

⎜ (18)

cos θ

−1

⎠

⎟

The efficiency equation is 

TT i a − i − η = 571 . − 269 * − 503* ⎛

⎝

⎜

T Ta ⎞

⎠

⎟

2 

(19) I I 

Figure 3-1 illustrates the 

efficiencies of three different Efficiency of solar collectors 

types of solar collectors. When 100 

(Ti

-Ta)/I is small, the unglazed 

η (%)

80

solar collector has the highest 

60 efficiency. Therefore, the 

unglazed solar collector works 40 

the best when the inlet water 

temperature is much larger than 20 

the ambient temperature, When 0 

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 (Ti

-Ta)/I is between 0.02 and 

(Ti-Ta)/I 0.04, the glazed solar collector 

performs the best. When the inlet 

water temperature is slightly 

l i

i

Ungazng 

Glazng 

Evacuated 

Figure 3-1 Efficiencies of different solar collectors 

larger than the ambient air 

temperature, the evacuated solar collector works the best. 

In addition to the efficiency, which was measured at direct normal tilt, the solar collector 

position is also important to determine how much solar radiation can be absorbed. In general, a 

tilt angle equal to the latitude has the best performance annually. However, the purpose in the 

present study requires best performance in winter. After performing simulations using three 

different types of solar collectors in the three locations in Dec. 1989 and Jan. 1990 with different 

inlet water temperatures from 10o

C to 20oC, a south facing tilt angle at 50o was found to have the 

best performance in all three locations. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 show solar collector performance at 

the three locations with different tilt angles. Therefore, a 50o

 tilt angle facing south was used in 

simulations to calculate how many solar collectors would be needed in each scenario. 

28
Figure 3-2 Solar collector perfoamce with three types in three locations in Dec. 1989. 

29 
Figure 3-3 Solar collector perfoamce with three types in three locations in Jan. 1990. 

30 
3.4 Model Validation 

Although the above equations are well known to calculate heat losses, the model had to be 

validated against measured data to be used with high confidence. 

A swimming pool in Cocoa Beach was measured during 1990-1991. The swimming pool was 40 

ft long and 20 ft wide with an average depth of 4.5 ft. The maximum depth was 6 ft. The pool 

was heated by a heat pump with COP 3.33. The temperature was maintained at 83o

F (28.3oC). 

The measured data recorded in every 15 minutes consisted of 

• Air temperature 

• Ground temperature 

• Pool water temperature 

• Air relative humidity 

• Horizontal solar radiation 

• The amount of heat provided by a heat pump 

• Heat pump power use 

The required cloudy cover used to calculate sky temperatures was not measured. Cloudy cover 

values obtained from Daytona Beach weather in 1990 were used to calculate the sky temperature 

for the validation. Figure 3-4 compares the measured and predicted pool temperatures for the 

period of Dec. 11-14, 1990. Because the measure data agreed closely with the predicted water 

temperatures, we concluded the model could be used to predict refuge water temperature with 

high level of confidence. 

It should be pointed Pool temperature comparison between measurment and prediction 

between Dec. 11-14, 1990 in Cocoa Beach out that the pool 

thermal 

T (C)

32 performance does 

31 not include tidal or 

30 

Predicted 

Measured 

water exchange 29

28 impacts, which are 

27 important for 

26 refuge water 25 temperature 24 

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 prediction. Since 

Time (h) the tidal loss is well 

documented, the 

Figure 3-4 Pool temperature comparison between measurement and results in the 

prediction on Dec. 11-14, 1990 in Cocoa Beach present study can 

be used to provide 

valuable information on how much solar collectors are needed to provide 95% and 99% heating 

energy. 

31
Task 4 Sensitivity study 

The objective of this task was to conduct a sensitivity analysis of refuge heating energy 

requirements to determine which parameters have the greatest effect on refuge water heating 

requirements at given the location and environmental conditions at each of the three possible 

sites. 

4.1 A list of parameters 

The parameters used in the simulations are annual average ground temperature, multiplier of 

evaporation rate, refuge depth, and volume change rate per day due to tide. Justification of 

parameters is as follows: 

• Average ground temperature 

Although year-round average ground temperatures are known to be 74o

F in Miami and 

West Palm Beach, and 72o

F in Cape Canaveral in a typical year, seasonal and hourly 

ground temperature data were unavailable. Therefore, to estimate the minimum ground 

temperature for the coldest year, we assumed an annual average ground temperature 2o

F 

below the typical year, and used a formula to calculate hourly ground temperatures based 

on that assumption. 

• Multiplier of evaporation rate 

The default multiplier is 1.0. We assumed that a refuge cover may be used to reduce 

evaporation heat loss, as well as convective loss. Multipliers of 0.0 and 0.5 will were 

used to simulate the effect of different refuge cover configurations. For example, a refuge 

cover could be used to cover a whole refuge with a small air space between the cover and 

refuge water surface. This condition was assumed to multiplier at 0.0. For manatee to 

breath, the cover should be 1m above the surface at high tide. That condition was 

assumed to be multiplier at 0.5. 

• Refuge depth 

We assumed a refuge depth of at least 6 ft deep at low tide. In order to consider possible 

buffering effects on heat loss due to increased volume, an average depth of at least 9 ft 

was also examined. 

• Tidal impact/water volume turn over rate (TOR) 

As mentioned earlier, two types of tidal impact were considered: constant tidal rate and 

variable tidal rate based on real tidal conditions. The constant tidal rate was equal to the 

mass flow rate at each hour based on daily volume change rate. As noted above, it was 

decided to consider water turn over rates of 0.5 to 5 times per day to prevent water 

quality problems and account for tidal exchange of water within the refuge. This 

parameter allows consideration of variable mass flow rates based on changes in tide or 

other steps to increase water circulation. Tidal heat loss within the refuge occurs only 

during the incoming tide when cool adjacent water mixes with warm refuge water. 

Table 4-1 lists the parameters used in the sensitivity analysis with constant tidal rate: 

32 
Table 4-1: Case description with a constant tidal rate 

Case Desc Description 

1 Base All the multipliers are set to 1.0, with 1 volume change rate per day with 

6 ft deep at mean low tide 

2 No cond Assume no thermal conduction losses from refuge walls and ground 

3 No solar Assume no solar radiation absorbed by refuges 

4 No sky Assume no night sky radiation heat transfer 

5 No conv Assume no convective heat transfer between ambient and refuge water 

surfaces 

6 No evap Assume no evaporation loss from refuge surfaces 

7 No turn over rate Assume tidal impact to be zero 

8 No solar, evap, sky, 

conv 

Assume no solar radiation, no evaporation, no sky radiation, and no 

convective heat transfer (equivalent to adding a refuge cover) 

9 No evap, sky, conv Assume no evaporation, no sky radiation, and no convection (equivalent 

to adding a transparent refuge cover to make solar radiation pass 

through) 

10 1⁄2 daily turn over 

rate (TOR) 

Assume 0.5 water volume changes per day 

11 2 daily TOR Assume 2.0 water volume changes per day 

12 5 daily TOR Assume 5.0 water volume changes per day 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR Assume no evaporation and 0.5 volume change rate per day 

14 No solar, evap, sky, 

conv + 1⁄2 TOR 

Assume no solar radiation, no evaporation, no sky radiation, no 

convective heat transfer with 50% tidal heat losses, and 0.5 volume 

change rate per day 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap Assume no evaporation, and 0.5 volume change rate per day 

16 1⁄2 TOR + Low 

ground temperature 

(LT) 

Assume 0.5 volume change rate per day, and ground temperature with 

2o

C below annual average 

17 Base + LT Assume same conditions as base case (Case 1), except for ground 

temperature with 2o

C below annual average 

18 2 TOR + LT Assume 2 volume change rate per day, and ground temperature with 

2oC below annual average 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR 

+LT 

Assume no evaporation loss, 0.5 volume change rate per day, and 

ground temperature with 2oC below annual average 

20 1⁄2 evap & tide + LT Assume 50% evaporation loss, 1 volume change rate per day, and 

ground temperature with 2o

C below annual average 

21 9 ft deep Same conditions as the base case, except for a refuge with 9 ft deep 

water 

22 Case 8 + 9 ft deep Same conditions as Case 8, except for a refuge with 9 ft deep water 

23 Case 9 + 9 ft deep Same conditions as Case 9, except for a refuge with 9 ft deep water 

24 Opaque cover with 

1m high 

Assume the opaque cover is 1m high over the refuge surface. The 

condition is equivalent to no solar, no night sky radiation, 1⁄2 convection, 

and 1⁄2 evaporation. 

25 Transparent cover 

with 1m high 

Assume the transparent cover is 1m high over the refuge surface. The 

condition is equivalent to 1⁄2 night sky radiation, 1⁄2 convection, and 1⁄2 

evaporation. 

The parameters used in the variable tidal rate are the same as those used for the constant tidal 

rate, except that 5 times turn over rate was not used. The main reason was that the 5 times turn 

over rate could leave refuge water level too shallow, so that manatees may not survive. The 

secondary reason was that the high turn over rate could be non realistic. For the cases of the 

variable tidal rate, the tidal values did not represent volume turn over rate. Instead, values 

33 
represented multipliers based on tidal height. Therefore, the total case number is 25 with 

constant tidal rate, while 24 with variable tidal rate. 

Although simulation was run for the period between Jan. 1, 1989 and April 30, 1990, simulation 

results are reported only for the one year from May 1, 1989 to April 30, 1990. For stochastic 

reason, the initial months of a model run are not useful for prediction purposes. 

The simulation procedure involved the following steps: 

• Calculating required heating energy to maintain an hourly refuge temperature of 22o

C 

(i.e., ideal heating); 

• Calculating heat output from three different types of solar collectors in a unit area; 

• Determining refuge energy requirement for Dec. 1989; 

• Calculating the heat energy to maintain refuge water temperatures of 22o

C at 95% and 

99% of the time in Dec. 1989; 

• Calculating solar collector size necessary to ensure heat output in Dec. 1989 met the 

95% and 99% heating requirement; and 

• Based on solar collector sizes for the three different types, recalculating refuge water 

temperatures assuming temperatures would be maintained at 22o

C only for 95% and 99% 

of the time. 

4.2 Heating requirements 

We first calculated the heat required to maintain refuge water temperatures at 22oC at all times in 

a whole year with an ideal heater. The results were then used to calculate how many solar panels 

would be needed to meet those heat requirement. Appendix C provides the results. It shows the 

required heating energy for what was considered to be the coldest year, month, peak day, peak 

hour. The results also provide a basis for determining the importance of different parameters on 

heat losses for the three locations and two types of refuges, and two volume turn over rate 

assumptions. The heating energy listed in the peak hour would be used to calculate sizes of gas 

fired burners as a backup heater. A percentage of heating energy lost or gained relative to the 

based case (i.e, Case 1 on Table 4-1) was used to evaluate the importance of individual 

parameters (see Table 4-2) during the period of Dec. 1989. It should be pointed out that each 

location and type of refuge has its own base case. The absolute values are presented in Appendix 

C. The fist two columns list the case number and a brief description of the case, respectively. 

The next six columns provide percent changes in three locations and two types of refuge. A 

positive sign indicates heating requirements are less than the base case, and a negative sign 

indicates more heat is required than the base case to maintain a 22o

C temperature. 

Although the amount of heating energy needed to warm a small refuge is much less than a large 

refuge in the same location, the proportional difference is very small within one percent. That is, 

a refuge twice the volume will require almost exactly twice the amount of heat. Therefore, the 

present results can be used to predict the heating energy needs for any size of refuge. 

34
Conduction loss was found to be very small compared to other losses. It was less than 1% in 

Cape Canaveral, and less than 2% for small refuges in West Palm Beach and Miami, as shown in 

Case 2. Therefore, heat loss through the sides and bottom of the refuge are likely negligible. 

As shown in Case 3, direct solar radiation contributed 21% of the heating energy required to 

maintain temperatures of 22o

C under the base case scenario in Cape Canaveral, 55% in West 

Palm Beach, and 64% in Miami, respectively. Since more heating energy is needed without solar 

radiation, the signs shown on Table 4-2 are negative for this parameter. In general, the more 

south a refuge is located, the less heating energy is used. It should be pointed out that although 

solar radiations in three locations from weather data are very close, the percent contribution of 

solar radiation in three locations are different. The main reason is that required heating energy of 

the base case in Miami is lower than Cape Canaveral. That is why the percent changes in Miami 

are larger than Cape Canaveral. 

Heat loss from sky radiation exchange was about 7% in Cape Canaveral, 15% in West Palm 

Beach, and 18% in Miami, respectively, as shown in Case 4. Although heat loss from sky 

radiation is larger than conduction loss, it is still small compared to losses from convection, 

evaporation, and tide. 

Heat loss from convective heat transfer to air at the refuge water surface was about 25% in Cape 

Canaveral, 53% in West Palm Beach, and 61% in Miami, respectively, as shown in Case 5. In 

general, annual convection heat loss should be less than that estimated on Table 4-1; however, 

because Dec 1989 was very cold, the amount of convective heat loss was significant. 

Heat loss from evaporation was about 29% in Cape Canaveral, 59% in West Palm Beach, and 

61% in Miami, respectively, as shown in Case 6. Although Dec. 1989 was cold, heat loss due to 

evaporation was still larger than convective heat loss and was the second largest contributor to 

the total heat loss. 

Heat loss from tides and water turn over was about 58% in Cape Canaveral, -5% in West Palm 

Beach, and -28% in Miami, respectively, as shown in Case 7. The highest heat loss in Cape 

Canaveral is from tidal heat loss, due to the cold inland water temperatures in Dec. 1989. 

However, the inland coastal water temperatures in West Palm Beach and Miami were warm 

enough to contribute heat to the refuges under the base case scenario as reflected by the negative 

numbers for those cases in Table 4-2. 

As shown in Case 8, an opaque refuge cover may significantly reduce heat losses from solar 

radiation, evaporation, sky radiation, and convection. Heat loss reduction was estimated at 41% 

in Cape Canaveral, 81% in West Palm Beach, and 89% in Miami, respectively using this 

approach. Although solar heating is still required in West Palm Beach and Miami, the amount of 

requirement would be much less with a refuge cover. It should be pointed out that the opaque 

refuge cover is about 1-2 ft above the refuge surface. It may not have enough air space for 

manatees to breath. 

35
If a transparent cover was available that could allow solar radiation pass through the cover, while 

eliminating heat loss due to sky radiation, convection and evaporation, heat requirements could 

be reduced by about 60% in Cape Canaveral, 96% in West Palm Beach, and 100% in Miami, 

respectively, as shown in Case 9. If so, solar collectors may not be needed at all in West Palm 

Beach and Miami. 

Cases 10, 11, and 12 examine the impact of tide and water turn over rate. When the volume 

change rate per day is reduced to 0.5 from the based case 1.0 (Case 10 in Table 4-2), energy use 

in Cape Canaveral is reduced 29%, while energy use is only reduced 1% in West Palm Beach 

and less than 1% in Miami. However, when the volume change rate per day is double from 1.0 to 

2.0 (Case 11), more heating energy is needed: 58% in Cape Canaveral, 11% in West Palm 

Beach, and 8% in Miami. When the volume turn over rate is increased to 5.0 times per day, the 

impact on heating energy needs is much larger: 234% in Cape Canaveral, 69% in West Palm 

Beach, and 55% in Miami. Although 5.0 change rate is unlikely to occur naturally due to tides, 

artificial means of increasing circulation through the refuge may be needed to address water 

quality problems. 

Cases 13, 14, and 15 repeat Cases 6, 8, and 9, assuming a 0.5 volume change rate per day. 

Because of the lower turn over rate, a greater reduction in heating requirements is expected in all 

the three locations. 

Cases 16 through 20 assume low ground temperature. Since heat energy loss to the ground is 

only about 1%, the impact on required heating energy appears to be negligible. 

The increased volume of 9 ft deep refuges require more heating energy: 29% in Cape Canaveral, 

0.4% in West Palm Beach, and 8% in Miami, respectively, as shown in Case 21. The value of 

using deep refuge as a buffer against heat loss in cold period appears to unnecessary and costly. 

If an opaque refuge cover is used over a deep refuge (Case 22), heat loss is reduced to 11% in 

Cape Canaveral, 71% in West Palm Beach, and 60% in Miami. If a transparent cover is used 

(Case 23), heat loss reduction is greater: 31% in Cape Canaveral, 90% in West Palm Beach, and 

87% in Miami. 

The above cases using refuge covers assumed that the refuge cover is about 1-2 ft above the 

water surface, it may not have enough air space for manatees to breath. Cases 24 and 25 

assumed the refuge cover is 1 meter high over the refuge water surface, so that manatees have 

enough air space to breath. If an 1m high opaque cover is used (Case 24) by assuming no solar 

radiation and night sky radiation, 50% reduction of convection and evaporation compared to the 

base case, heat loss is reduced to 13% in Cape Canaveral, 34% in West Palm Beach, and 24% in 

Miami. If an 1m high transparent cover is used (Case 25) by assuming night sky radiation, 50% 

reduction of night sky radiation, convection and evaporation compared to the base case, heat loss 

reduction is greater: 30% in Cape Canaveral, 61% in West Palm Beach, and 58% in Miami. 

From the above analysis, the biggest impact on heating energy use is from tides and water 

volume turn over rates. Evaporation loss is the second most important source loss, while 

36
convective heat loss to air is the third most important. Other sources are comparatively 

unimportant. Increasing refuge volume using deep refuges requires more heat with little benefit 

in terms of heat conservation in cold period. Using refuge covers does reduce heat losses. 

Table 4-2: Percent change of heating energy use in Dec. 1989 with constant tide 

Case 

Percent change 

Cape Canaveral West Palm Beach Miami 

Small 

refuge 

Large 

refuge 

Small 

refuge 

Large 

refuge 

Small 

refuge 

Large 

refuge 

Dec (%) Dec (%) Dec (%) Dec (%) Dec (%) Dec (%) 

2 No cond 0.77 0.50 1.39 0.85 1.71 1.06 

3 No solar -21.53 -21.59 -55.11 -55.36 -64.66 -64.93 

4 No sky 7.22 7.24 15.31 15.36 18.12 18.20 

5 No conv 25.14 25.21 53.53 53.70 61.12 61.36 

6 No evap 28.84 28.91 58.54 58.67 60.87 61.04 

7 No TOR 57.62 57.78 -4.96 -4.89 -28.81 -28.52 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 40.59 40.70 80.45 80.68 88.96 89.26 

9 No evap, sky, conv 59.60 59.71 95.97 96.08 100.00 100.00 

10 1⁄2 TOR 28.93 29.01 1.10 1.16 0.20 0.32 

11 2 TOR -58.03 -58.19 -11.28 -11.44 -7.51 -7.67 

12 5 TOR -233.58 -234.24 -68.92 -69.48 -54.75 -55.33 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 57.49 57.65 70.24 70.47 70.12 70.40 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

69.96 70.15 91.27 91.54 98.86 99.12 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 43.39 43.51 41.19 41.39 41.68 41.92 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 28.77 28.87 0.67 0.76 -0.29 -0.13 

17 Base + LT -0.16 -0.15 -0.36 -0.33 -0.37 -0.34 

18 2 TOR + LT -58.19 -58.34 -11.54 -11.67 -7.76 -7.91 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 57.35 57.51 70.03 70.27 69.90 70.20 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 43.24 43.37 40.86 41.09 41.34 41.61 

21 9 ft Deep -29.10 -29.04 0.40 0.57 -7.85 -7.79 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 11.03 11.19 70.82 71.15 59.95 60.31 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 31.58 31.79 90.08 90.35 87.01 87.30 

24 Opaque cover with 1m high 13.30 13.34 33.56 33.69 24.09 24.17 

25 Trans cover with 1m high 30.60 30.68 61.47 61.62 57.52 57.71 

Table 4-3 lists the percentage change in required heating energy in Dec. 1989 compared to the 

base case in the three locations and two types of refuges with variable tide. As noted above, the 

effect of tides on heating energy use occurs only between low tide and high tide, when cold 

water from adjacent water bodies enter the refuge. The percent change trend is very similar to 

the above cases with a constant tide. The most affected parameter was heat loss due to 

evaporation, which increased nearly 50% from the constant tide condition. 

37
Table 4-3: Percent change of heating energy use in Dec. 1989 with variable tide 

Case NCDC Real tide (89-90) Cape Canaveral West Palm Beach Miami 

Percent change Small 

refuge 

Large 

refuge 

Small 

refuge 

Large 

refuge 

Small 

refuge 

Large 

refuge 

1 Base Dec (%) Dec (%) Dec (%) Dec (%) Dec (%) Dec (%) 

2 No cond 1.33 0.80 2.06 1.25 2.57 1.60 

3 No solar -30.23 -30.39 -79.20 -79.83 -115.95 -117.01 

4 No sky 10.21 10.27 19.19 19.29 22.55 22.68 

5 No conv 35.83 36.02 63.22 63.58 63.52 63.90 

6 No evap 40.93 41.14 74.53 74.81 73.43 73.70 

7 No TOR 39.42 39.59 -8.86 -8.92 1.22 1.41 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 58.79 59.10 94.68 95.09 91.86 92.41 

9 No evap, sky, conv 81.54 81.81 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

10 1⁄2 TOR 29.50 29.64 -5.65 -5.68 1.92 2.09 

11 2 TOR -119.74 -120.34 -6.62 -6.87 -33.91 -34.56 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 71.89 72.26 82.60 82.91 88.35 88.89 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

88.74 89.20 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 50.16 50.41 46.88 47.27 56.51 56.99 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 29.27 29.43 -6.26 -6.23 1.04 1.29 

16 Base + LT -0.23 -0.21 -0.53 -0.48 -0.66 -0.59 

17 2 TOR + LT -119.98 -120.56 -6.92 -7.14 -34.24 -34.86 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 71.66 72.05 82.40 82.72 88.04 88.62 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 49.93 50.20 46.34 46.78 55.95 56.48 

20 9 ft Deep -0.07 0.13 5.35 5.71 9.25 9.66 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 58.48 58.99 95.68 96.29 93.58 94.41 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 82.06 82.50 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

23 Opaque cover with 1m high 19.60 19.71 31.72 31.96 20.55 20.79 

24 Trans cover with 1m high 43.45 43.68 76.38 76.69 77.05 77.34 

4.3 Solar collector requirements 

Based on the results of heating requirements needed to maintain refuges at 22o

C 100% of the 

time, we calculated size of solar collector array needed to provide those heating requirements 

95% and 99% of the time in Dec. 1989. The main reason to select a monthly heat requirement, 

instead of the peak day, is that the solar collector size will need to be larger when the peak day is 

cloudy, than when it is clear. Monthly energy needs more closely match average cloud cover 

conditions. It should be pointed out that, the refuge water temperature may be above 22o

C during 

day time when the solar system is working, but below 22o

C at night when solar heat is not 

available. Since manatees can survive at low temperatures in a short period, this constraint 

appears acceptable. 

The solar collector size determination is based on the assumption that the heating energy 

generated by solar collector in Dec. 1989 must maintain a temperature of 22o

C 95% of time. 

Appendix D provides solar collector sizes for the three locations, two types of refuges, and two 

types of water volume change. A dimensionless parameter is used in this section to discuss solar 

collector requirements. The parameter is defined as a ratio of solar collector size to refuge water 

surface area, called the solar collector ratio. 

38
Table 4-4 presents the solar collector ratio assuming a constant tide in three locations and two 

refuges. The first two columns identify case number and a brief scenario description consistent 

with the previous tables. The third and fourth columns show the solar collector ratios in Cape 

Canaveral with small and large refuges, respectively. The fifth and sixth columns provide these 

ratios for West Palm Beach and the last two columns show the ratios for Miami. 

Table 4-4: Ratio of required solar collector size to refuge surface area with a constant tide 

Case Desc 

Cape Canaveral West Palm 

Beach 

Miami 

Small Large Small Large Small Large 

refuge refuge refuge refuge refuge refuge 

1 Base 3.99 3.98 0.78 0.78 0.53 0.53 

2 No cond 3.96 3.96 0.77 0.77 0.52 0.52 

3 No solar 4.83 4.82 1.21 1.21 0.87 0.87 

4 No sky 3.71 3.70 0.66 0.66 0.44 0.44 

5 No conv 2.99 2.98 0.36 0.36 0.28 0.27 

6 No evap 2.85 2.84 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.24 

7 No TOR 1.70 1.69 0.82 0.82 0.45 0.44 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 2.37 2.36 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 

9 No evap, sky, conv 1.62 1.61 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 

10 1⁄2 TOR 2.84 2.83 0.78 0.77 0.48 0.47 

11 2 TOR 6.29 6.28 0.87 0.87 0.66 0.66 

12 5 TOR 13.11 13.10 1.32 1.32 1.12 1.12 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 1.70 1.69 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.15 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 1.20 1.19 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 2.27 2.26 0.46 0.46 0.29 0.29 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 2.85 2.84 0.78 0.77 0.48 0.47 

17 Base + LT 4.00 3.99 0.79 0.78 0.53 0.53 

18 2 TOR + LT 6.29 6.28 0.87 0.87 0.66 0.66 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 1.71 1.70 0.24 0.23 0.15 0.15 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 2.27 2.26 0.46 0.46 0.29 0.29 

21 9 ft Deep 5.16 5.14 0.78 0.78 0.57 0.57 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 3.55 3.54 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.21 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 2.74 2.72 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 

24 Opaque cover with 1m high 3.46 3.44 0.52 0.52 0.40 0.40 

25 Trans cover with 1m high 2.78 2.77 0.30 0.30 0.22 0.22 

As shown in the first 7 cases on Table 4-2, solar collector ratios for Cape Canaveral are 

significantly higher than those for West Palm Beach and Miami, and the ratio difference between 

West Palm Beach and Miami is relatively small. In addition, the ratios between small and large 

refuges in all the cases are almost identical. That means the solar collector size is proportional to 

the refuge size. If a different size of refuge will be used, the solar collector size can be easily 

calculation based on the linear relationship. Under the base case scenario, the ratios of small and 

large refuges is 4 for Cape Canaveral. 0.78 for West Palm Beach and 0.35 for Miami. When an 

opaque cover is used for the small refuge (Case 8), the solar collector ratio is reduced by nearly 

50% in Cape Canaveral, by 82% in West Palm Beach, and by 90% in Miami. When a transparent 

cover is used for the small refuge (Case 9), the solar collector ratio is reduced by 60% in Cape 

Canaveral, and almost equal to 0 in both West Palm Beach and Miami, meaning little or no solar 

collectors may be needed at those two sites. In general, this reflects the warmer weather and 

39
inland coastal water temperature at the two southern sites. When a small refuge is 9 ft deep in 

Case 21, the solar collector ratio increases to 5.2 from 4 in Cape Canaveral, to 0.6 from 0.35 in 

Miami, and remains the same in West Palm Beach. Therefore, there is no benefit to increase 

refuge depth with constant tide. The highest demand of solar collector occurs in 5 volume 

change rate per day in Case 12. The solar collector ratio for the small refuge is 13 in Cape 

Canaveral, 1.3 in West Palm Beach and 0.5 in Miami. When a refuge cover is 1m high above 

the refuge water surface, the required ratio for Cape Canaveral is 84% with an opaque cover and 

70% with a transparent cover, compared to the base case. Although the 1m high cover can 

reduce collector size, it may not be as effective as Cases 8 and 9. The refuges at Cape Canaveral 

would require the largest solar panel array of any site considered in this study. Assuming the 

required area of an individual solar panel is 4' x 15', the amount of land required for the solar 

collecting array would be about 0.3 ac for a small refuge and 1.5 ac for a large refuge. 

It should be pointed out that the solar collector ratios are almost the same for both small and 

large refuges in West Palm Beach and Miami. 

Table 4-5: Ratio of required solar collector size to refuge surface area with a variable tide 

Cape Canaveral West Palm Miami 

Beach 

Case Desc Small Large Small Large Small Large 

refuge refuge refuge refuge refuge refuge 

1 Base 2.80 2.79 0.74 0.74 0.43 0.42 

2 No cond 2.76 2.76 0.73 0.73 0.42 0.42 

3 No solar 3.64 3.62 1.33 1.32 0.92 0.92 

4 No sky 2.51 2.50 0.60 0.59 0.33 0.33 

5 No conv 1.80 1.78 0.27 0.27 0.16 0.15 

6 No evap 1.65 1.64 0.19 0.19 0.11 0.11 

7 No TOR 1.70 1.68 0.81 0.80 0.42 0.42 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 1.15 1.14 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0.52 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

10 1⁄2 TOR 1.98 1.96 0.78 0.78 0.42 0.41 

11 2 TOR 6.12 6.11 0.79 0.79 0.57 0.57 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 0.79 0.77 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.05 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0.32 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 1.40 1.38 0.39 0.39 0.19 0.18 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 1.98 1.97 0.79 0.78 0.42 0.42 

16 Base + LT 2.81 2.79 0.75 0.74 0.43 0.43 

17 2 TOR + LT 6.13 6.11 0.79 0.79 0.57 0.57 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 0.79 0.78 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.05 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 1.40 1.39 0.40 0.39 0.19 0.18 

20 9 ft Deep 2.80 2.78 0.70 0.69 0.39 0.38 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 1.16 1.14 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0.50 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

23 Opaque cover with 1m high 2.25 2.23 0.51 0.50 0.34 0.34 

24 Trans cover with 1m high 1.58 1.57 0.18 0.17 0.10 0.10 

Table 4-5 provides the solar collector ratio with a variable tide in three locations and two refuges 

in the same format as Table 4-4. Compared to the constant tide scenarios, the base case with a 

40 
variable tide requires in Cape Canaveral reduces solar collector ratio from 4 to 2.8 for the both 

small and large refuges, while reductions were from 0.8 to 0.7 in West Palm Beach, and from 0.5 

to 0.4 in Miami, due to warmer water in southern Florida. When an opaque cover is used (Case 

8), reductions of the solar collector ratio were from 2.4 to 1.2 in Cape Canaveral, from 0.15 to 

0.04 in West Palm Beach, from 0.14 to 0.03 in Miami. When transparent covers are used, the 

reduction is from 1.6 to 0.5 in Cape Canaveral, and there is almost no need of solar collector in 

West Palm Beach and Miami. If an opaque cover is 1m high over the water surface (Case 23), 

the ratio is 2.3 for Cape Canaveral, 0.5 for West Palm Beach, and 0.3 for Miami. If a transparent 

cover is used (Case 24), the reductions are much higher than the case (23) with an opaque cover. 

As noted above measured temperature data uncovered as the report was being finalized showed 

that ambient river water temperatures in Cape Canaveral could be up to 8o

C cooler than those 

used in this study to predict heating requirements. Based on a preliminary assessment of this new 

data, it appeared that the added heating requirements for refuges at Cape Canaveral could be met 

by increasing the capacity of the backup water heating system by 60%. If a solar heated refuge 

was to be tested or built in the Cape Canaveral area, the heating requirements will need to be 

reexamined. 

41
Task 5 Economic analysis of solar water heating systems 

The objective of this task was to review available solar collector technology to identify and 

estimate the cost and life span of an effective, reliable solar water heating system capable of 

providing 95-99 % of the heat required to maintain the refuge embayments at 22 N C during the 

coldest winter periods. It also sought to identify and estimate the cost and life span of a costeffective back up oil or gas burner system to provide such additional heat as may be needed 

during atypically cold or cloudy winter periods. 

There are two options to heat refuges using solar water heating systems. The first option is to 

pump refuge water through the solar water heating system, and then release it back to the refuge. 

The advantage is that there is no need for a heat exchanger. The disadvantages are 1) the need 

for filters to block any dirt and debris; 2) the corrosion effect of salt water on the pipes and solar 

panel conduits, so that cost is expected to increase; and 3) life span of the solar system will be 

reduced compared to fresh water solar systems. 

The second option is to use a close water circulation system with a heat exchanger, placed inside 

the refuge. The heat exchanger would need an efficiency of about 90-95%. The advantage is that 

fresh water could be used to carry heat inside the solar water heating system reducing the need 

for special anti-corrosion materials. The disadvantage is the heat exchanger reduces the heating 

efficiency. However, the efficiency reduction could be compensated for by increasing the flow 

rates through a solar system. We recommend this option. The following economic analysis is 

based on this option. 

5.1 Solar collector types and cost 

There are five types of solar collectors available in the market (Table 5-1 from Goswami et al8

). 

Table 5-1: Solar collector types and associated installed costs 

Collector type Potential outlet temperature Approximated cost of 

solar panel ($/ft2

) (

o

C) (

o

F) 

Unglazed plastic 27-32 80-90 #12 

Glazing flat plate 49-60 120-140 25 

Evacuated tube 93-121 200-250 35 

Evacuated CPC 121-177 250-350 35 

Parabolic trough 232-371 450-700 25-30 

42
A brief description for each collector type is presented below (available from the DOE web 

site)10: 

Unglazed collectors 

Unglazed solar collectors are generally used in swimming pool heating systems, and rely on a 

liquid flat-plate collector technology. They pump water through pool's existing filtration system 

to the solar collectors, where it is heated and then transferred back into the pool. Because solar 

pool collectors operate just slightly warmer than the surrounding air temperature, these systems 

typically use inexpensive, unglazed low-temperature collectors made from specially formulated 

plastic materials. Glazed (glass-covered) solar collectors usually are not used in pool-heating 

applications, except for indoor pools, hot tubs, or spas in colder climates. In some cases, 

unglazed copper or copper-aluminum solar collectors are used. 

Glazed flat panel collectors 

Flat-plate collectors are the most common solar collectors used for residential water-heating and 

space-heating installations. A typical flat-plate collector is an insulated metal box with a glass or 

plastic cover (called the glazing) and a dark-colored absorber plate. These collectors heat either 

liquid or air to temperatures less than 180°F. 

Evacuated tube collectors 

Evacuated-tube collectors are typically more efficient at higher temperatures than flat-plate 

collectors. In an evacuated-tube collector, sunlight enters through the outer glass tube and strikes 

the absorber, where the energy is converted to heat. The heat is transferred to the liquid flowing 

through the absorber. The collector consists of rows of parallel transparent glass tubes, each of 

which contains an absorber covered with a selective coating. The absorber typically has a fintube design (the fins increase the absorber surface and the heat-transfer rate), although 

cylindrical absorbers also are used. 

Evacuated CPC collectors 

Compound parabolic concentrating collectors (CPCCs) use mirrored surfaces to concentrate the 

sun's energy on a receiver, similar to parabolic-trough collectors. CPCCs achieve moderate 

concentration and moderately high temperatures, but unlike parabolic-trough collectors, they can 

collect both direct and diffuse sunlight and do not require an automated sun-tracking system. 

CPCCs are being investigated for use in commercial applications requiring higher temperatures. 

Parabolic-trough collectors 

Parabolic-trough collectors use trough-shaped reflectors that concentrate sunlight on a tube 

running along the reflector's focal line, achieving much higher temperatures than flat-plate or 

evacuated-tube collectors. They usually include a mechanical control system, called a tracker, 

that keeps the trough reflector pointed at the sun throughout the day. Parabolic-trough collectors 

can provide hot water and steam, and are generally used for commercial and industrial purposes. 

10 http://www..eere.energy.gov/solar/sh_basics.html 

43 
Although there are other types of solar collectors, the most possible candidates for the present 

project are unglazed swimming pool collector, glazed flat panel collector, and evacuated solar 

collectors. Based on information from manufacturers, the estimated panel costs for these three 

types of collectors are provided below. The cost of 4'x10' Unglazed swimming pool collectors 

are $130/panel in small quantities and 10% less ($117/panel) in large quantities. The cost for 

4'x10' glazing flat panels is $474/panel in large quantifies. The cost for 4.65'x6.63' evacuated 

panels is $2,184. 

Based on these estimated costs, the cost can be normalized by a unit area. Using installed costs 

provided by Goswami et. al.9

, the total costs based on types of solar collectors are listed in Table 

5-2: 

Table 5-2: Estimated normalized cost of solar collectors 

Type Panel ($/ft2

) Installed ($/ft2) Total ($/ft2) 

Unglazed collector 2.925 12.0 14.93 

Glazed flat panel 11.85 25.0 36.85 

Evacuated panel 70.85 35.0 105.85 

5.2 Water pump requirement 

The heat transfer from solar collectors to refuges is achieved by flowing water, driven by water 

pumps. Therefore, the cost of the water pump and electricity to run it should be included in 

economic analysis. Since each solar collector has its own recommended water flow rate, water 

pump requirements are based on the number of solar collector panels and collector types. The 

following table lists recommended flow rates based for the different collector types. 

Table 5-3: Recommended flow rate 

Collector type Size Recommended flow rate 

Unglazed pool panel 4.44 m2

 (3.653m x 1.216 m) 0.252 l/s (4.0 gpm) 

Glazed flat panel 4.44 m2

 (3.653m x 1.216 m) 0.0757 l/s (1.2 gpm) 

Evacuated panel 2.85 m2

 (2.020m x 1.417m) 0.05 l/s (0.8 gpm) 

Although a large flow rate is required for a large scale solar water heating system as would be 

needed for both small and large refuges, it may not need a single large water pump. Instead, a 

commonly used centrifugal water pump is recommended for two main reasons. First, solar 

collectors perform most efficiently in series of 3 - 4 panels each. For larger series, the inlet 

temperature at the last collector may be too high with low efficiency. Therefore, a series of small 

pumps for each series of linked collectors is preferable. Second, when a single large pump is 

used, it is hard to maintain the proper pressure across multiple parallel connections. Thus, a 

series of medium range water pumps from 1 hp to 5 hp is recommended for the present project. 

44
The connection of water pumps should be serial and parallel combination as shown in Figure 5­

3. 

Figure 5-1 plots the costs of 

water pumps of different 

sizes, based on power 

consumption under standard 

test conditions. The real 

power consumption varies 

with pressure head loss and 

flow rate. The costs are 

from two pump 

manufacturers: Price and 

Myers. The cost of pumps is 

proportional to the pump 

power. 

0 

200 

400 

600 

800 

1000 

1200 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

($) 

Water pump price at diiferent power ranges 

Price

Power (hp)

Price Pump Myers Predicted 

Figure 5-1 water pump costs vs. water pump power 

Figure 5-2 shows pump 

flow rates at different power 

consumption. In general, the 

flow rate is dependent on 

pressure head loss and 

discharge pressure. The 

head loss and discharge 

pressure needed for the 

present project are 

conservatively estimated to 

be 10ft and 30 psi 

respectively. 

A heat exchanger is also 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

($) 

Water pump flow rate at 10 ft head and 30 psi dischage pressure 

Price

Power (hp) 

Price Pump Predicted 

required to deliver heat to 

the refuges from the solar 

Figure 5-2 Water pump flow rates vs. water pump power 

water heating system. Since manufacturer's data on these performance and cost were not 

available, we assumed efficiency of 0.9 and did not attempt to estimate their cost. In general, 

water-to-water heat exchangers are built to customer's needs. It is unlikely that costs from 

manufacturers can be estimated without providing detailed requirements, such as flow rate, 

pressure drop, and surface area, which are beyond the scope of this study. 

5.3 Gas fired boiler requirements 

The proposed solar systems maintain refuge water temperature of 22o

C 95-99% of the time 

without hot water storage systems. Too may cloudy days in cold winter may cause the refuge 

temperature to be below 22o

C a long time, especially for the Cape Canaveral site. It is essential 

to provide additional heating with a backup gas fired boiler. 

45
The costs of boiler and 

installation may be obtained 

from RS Means11. Figure 5-3 90000 

80000 plots the equipment, 70000

installation and total costs for 60000 

50000 boilers in different capacities, 40000 which are selected in the 30000 

range for the proposed 20000 

backup systems. A predicted 10000 

0 

Cost ($)

Gas fired boiler cost 

cost is also plotted in the 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 

same figure. The predicted Size (MBtu/h) 

formula using the least 

square approach may be 

Equip Labor Total Predicted 

written as: Figure 5-3 Estimated and predicted costs for gas fired boilers. 

2 TotalCost = 2722 672 . . + 6 944638 * Cap − 0 0001481 . * Cap (20)

where 

TotalCost = Total boiler cost, including equipment and installation [$] 

Cap = Boiler capacity [MBtu/h] 

The value of r2

 (coefficient of determination) for Eq. (20) is 0.9978. The boiler total cost is used 

as a part of initial investment for the proposed solar system. 

The boiler efficiency is assumed to be 80%, which is the required minimum efficiency for large 

boilers12. The current natural gas price is $1.10 per MMBtu13. The boiler efficiency is used to 

calculate how much natural gas is needed, and the gas price is used as a part of annual cost 

(O&M) for the proposed solar system. 

The energy use in the coldest hour listed in the last column in Tables C-1 through C-12 would be 

used to calculate capacities of backup gas fired boilers. The initial cost of gas boilers can be 

predicted using Eq. (20). The energy use in the coldest month in the fourth column in the same 

tables would be used to calculate how much gas is needed to provide additional heat to the 

refuges. 

It should be pointed out that the backup gas heating system is required in Cape Canaveral, and is 

unnecessary in West Palm Beach and Miami. The detailed discussion is provided in Section 

5.6.4. 

11 RS Means, 1997, "Building Construction Cost Data," 55th Annual Edition, Kingston, MA 

12 New Building Institute, "Gas Boilers Guideline," Nov. 1998, Fair Oaks, CA 

13 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp 

46 
As noted above, as this report was being finalized, measured water temperature data was found 

indicating water temperatures during the winter of 1989-90 were colder than predicted. If water 

temperatures also were colder than predicted for West Palm Beach, a backup water heating 

system also may be prudent for this area as well. Further efforts to find water temperature data 

for the winter of 1989-90 should be undertaken for West Palm Beach to help determine the 

accuracy of predicted water temperatures for this area. 

5.4 Life cycle cost analysis for refuge solar systems 

After estimating initial cost of solar water heating system components and annual cost as 

operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, such as power consumption and annual operation and 

maintenance cost, it is possible to estimate solar heating system costs over the expected life-span 

of the systems based in 2004 dollars. The present values using the life cycle cost method are 

used to compare which system is the most economic system. It should be noted that these 

estimates do not include costs for land, a heat exchanger, environmental assessments, etc. 

Figure 5-4 Schematic of solar collector system 

A Schematic solar collector system for a manatee refuge is shown in Figure 5-4. Each water 

pump pumps water through a separate series of linked solar panels. Each pump has an outlet to 

be connected by a manifold to deliver hot water to a heat exchanger to provide heat for the 

refuges. A partial estimation of costs for such a system is provided below. Costs in this analysis 

do not include land, heat exchangers, and construction of the refuge embayment. 

5.4.1 Initial cost 

47 
The following assumptions are used 

to calculate the initial costs for solar 

collectors and water pumps: 

Solar collector 

Based on required solar panel areas 

and total cost of each solar panel 

(labor+material) listed in Table 5-2, 

the initial investment for solar panels 

can be calculated for the three solar 

collector types, three locations, two 

types of refuges, and two types of 

water change rate impact (constant 

and variable turn over rate). 

Water pump 

The installation cost of water pump 

and pipes are assumed to be 20% of 

the water pump cost. A 5 hp water 

pump was used for water pump cost 

calculation. The number of 5 hp 

water pumps is dependent on the 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

) 

Initial investment of solar collectors for a small refuge in Cape 

Canaveral 

1000 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

10000000 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

Investment ($

Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

Figure 5-5 Initial cost of solar collectors for a small refuge in 

Cape Canaveral with constant tide 

Canaveral 

1000 

10000 

100000 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Case 

Gl

Initial investment of water pumps for a small refuge in Cape 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Investment ($) 

Unglazed azed Evacuated 

Figure 5-6 Initial cost of water pumps for a small refuge in Cape 

Canaveral with constant tide 

total water flow rate at each 

scenario. 

The initial cost consists mainly of 

solar collectors, water pumps and 

backup gas boilers. Unglazed solar 

collectors are the least expensive, but 

require the higher water flow rate. 

The cost of pumps, however, is low 

relatively to solar collectors. For the 

base case, the initial cost of solar 

1000 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

($) 

Series1 

Initial investment of gas boilers for a small refuge in Cape 

Canaveral 

10000 

100000 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

Investment

Figure 5-7 Initial cost of gas boilers for a small refuge in Cape 

collectors for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with constant tide 

Canaveral is $149,091 for unglazed, 

$402,016 for glazed, and $1,309,454 for evacuated, respectively. The initial cost for water 

pumps is $9,360 for unglazed, $3,072 for glazed, and $3,584 for evacuated, respectively. The 

initial cost for backup gas boilers is $10,456, and is independent of solar collector types . The 

total initial cost with solar collectors, water pumps and gas boilers is $168,907 for unglazed, 

$415,544 for glazed, and $1,323,495 for evacuated, respectively. 

48
Figures 5-4 through 5-7 estimate initial costs of solar collectors, water pumps, backup gas 

boilers, and the total initial costs at different scenarios considered in Task 4 for a small refuge at 

Cape Canaveral. 

For comparison, it should be noted that Goswami et. al.8 estimated the cost at about $130,000 for 

a large refuge in West Palm Beach based on a target water temperature of 20o

C. The present 

study estimated the initial cost at about $207,119 for the base case to maintain the refuge water 

temperature at 22oC with additional 

costs of water pumps and backup 

gas boilers. 

All initial investment estimates for 

the different scenarios and 

locations are provided in detail in 

Appendix F. 

5.4.2 Annual operating and 

maintenance cost 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

($) 

Ungl

Annual O&M cost for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral 

1000 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

Investment

azed Glazed Evacuated 

Figure 5-9 Annual O&M cost for a small refuge in Cape 

Canaveral with a constant tide. 

The assumptions used to estimate 

annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the collector systems were: 

• Electricity: $0.08/kWh 

• Pump efficiency: 0.9 

• Collector operation and maintenance costs: 10% of the collector initial cost 

• Natural gas: $1.1/MMBtu 

• Gas boiler efficiency: 80% 

Based on these assumptions, annual operating and maintenance costs were calculated and are 

also provided in detail in Appendix G. 

The annual O&M costs depend mainly on required water pump power consumption, which in 

turn is dependent on the required flow rates in each case, location, solar collector type and daily 

water volume change rate type. The O&M cost from backup gas boiler is natural gas cost, a 

small portion of the total O&M cost. 

1000 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Case 

($) 

l

Total initial investment for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

10000000 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Investment

Ung azed Glazed Evacuated 

In the base case for a small refuge in 

Cape Canaveral, the annual cost is 

$18,019 for unglazed, $41,465 for 

glazed, and $132,357 for evacuated, 

respectively. 

The O&M costs of backup gas 

systems assumed to be zero in West 

Palm Beach and Miami, because 

there is no need to use the additional 

heating systems.. Figure 5-8 Total initial cost for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral 

with a constant tide 

49 
5.4.3 Lifetime project cost 

The lifetime cost is presented as present value (PV) using life cycle cost analysis. The present 

value is defined as the time-equivalent value of past, present or future cash flows as of the 

beginning of the base year14. In order to calculate present values, product life span and discount 

rate were used. It is assumed that the life of the solar collectors and water pumps is 20 years, and 

discount rate is 6%. Although backup gas boilers would be used a few weeks in a year, the 

lifetime was also assumed to be 20 year conservatively. 

In addition, refuge cover cost was provided by a manufacturer at $2,000 for a manual cover and 

$6,000 for an automatic cover for a small refuge (50'x50') . The cost of a transparent cover is 

assumed to be 50% more. For a manual transparent cover the cost was estimated at $3,000, and 

for an automatic transparent cover, it was estimated at $7,000. Since there is no cost estimate to 

cover a large refuge, we assumed a linear relationship. Thus, the cost of a cover for a large 

refuge is estimated to be 6 times higher than a small refuge cover, or $12,000 for an opaque 

manual cover and $36,000 for an opaque automatic cover. The estimated cost for a transparent 

manual and automatic covers over a large refuge area is $18,000 and $42,000, respectively. 

We included the cost for an opaque manual cover in estimates for Cases 8, 13, 14, 19, 22, and 24 

with a constant tide, and 8, 12, 13, 18, 21, 22, and 23 with a variable tide. The cost of a 

transparent cover was included in Cases 9, 23, and 25 with a constant tide, and Cases 9, 22, and 

24 with a variable tide. 

The formula used to calculate present values as a lifetime cost estimate indicator is: 

n (1 + i) −1 PV = +I M (21) n i(1 + i) 

where 

PV = Present value as lifetime cost [$] 

I = Initial cost [$] 

M = O&M annual cost [$] 

n = life span [20 years] 

I = Discount rate [0=1] 

Figures 5-10 though 5-15 plot the present values for the 25 cases with a constant tide. The first 

case is the base case. Each of six figures presents one location and one type of refuge. Figures 5­

16 through 5-21 show present values with 23 cases with variable tide. In the same manner, the 

first case is also the base case. Each plot presents the lifetime costs for one location and one 

refuge size. 

14 NIST, 1995, NIST Handbook 135 

50 
The lifetime costs in different scenarios are provided in detail in Appendix G. 

51
i l

1 2 3 4 5 6 

) 

l Gl

1000 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Gl

Lifet me costs for a soar system for a largel refuge in Cape 

Canaveral 

1000 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

10000000 

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

Investment ($

Ungazed azed Evacuated 

Lifetime costs for a solar system for a small refuge in Cape 

Canaveral 

100000 

10000000 

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

I nve stment ($) 

Unglazed azed Evacuated 

Figure 5-10 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar Figure 5-11 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar 

heating system for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral heating system for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral 

with a constant tide with a constant tide 

m 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Gl

m 

1 

10 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Lifetime costs for a solar system for a small refuge in West Pal

Beach 

1000 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

10000000 

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

Invest me nt ($ million) 

Unglazed azed Evacuated 

Lifetime costs for a solar system for a small refuge in West Pal

Beach 

0.001 

0.01 

0.1 

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

Inve stment ($ million) 

Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

Figure 5-12 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar Figure 5-13 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar 

heating system for a small refuge in West Palm heating system for a large refuge in West Palm 

Beach with a constant tide Beach with a constant tide 

Li i l i i 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

) 

Gl

i l i

1000 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

) 

Gl

fet me costs for a soar system for a small refuge n Miam

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

Inve stment ($ 

Unglazed azed Evacuated 

Lifet me costs for a soar system for a small refuge n Miami 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 

Case 

Inve stment ($ 

Unglazed azed Evacuated 

Figure 5-14 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar Figure 5-15 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar 

heating system for a small refuge in Miami with a heating system for a large refuge in Miami with a 

constant tide constant tide 

52
Li i l l i

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

i l

1 

10 

100 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Gl

fet me costs for a soar system for a smal refuge n Cape 

Canaveral 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

10000000 

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

Case 

I nve stment ($) 

Unglazed Glazed 3304536 

Lifet me costs for a soar system for a largel refuge in Cape 

Canaveral 

0.01 

0.1 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

Case 

I nve stment ($) 

Unglazed azed 3304536 

Figure 5-16 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar Figure 5-17 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar 

heating system for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral heating system for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral 

with a variable tide with a variable tide 

m 

1 

10 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

( ) 

Gl

Li lm 

1000 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Gl

Lifetime costs for a solar system for a large refuge in West Pal

Beach 

0.01 

0.1 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

Case 

Inves tment $ million

Unglazed azed Evacuated 

fetime costs for a solar system for a small refuge in West Pa

Beach 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

10000000 

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

Case 

Inv estment ($ mi llion) 

Unglazed azed Evacuated 

Figure 5-18 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar 

heating system for a small refuge in West Palm 

Beach with a variable tide 

Figure 5-19 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar 

heating system for a large refuge in West Palm 

Beach with a variable tide 

Li i l l i

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

) 

Gl

i i 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

) 

fet me costs for a soar system for a smal refuge n Miami 

1000 

10000 

100000 

1000000 

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

Case 

Inve stment ($ 

Unglazed azed Evacuated 

Lifetime costs for a solar system for a large refuge in Mam

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

Case 

Inve stment ($ 

Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

Figure 5-20 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar Figure 5-21 Estimated lifetime costs for a solar 

heating system for a small refuge in Miami with a heating system for a large refuge in Miami with a 

variable tide variable tide 

53
5.5 Results analysis 

The previous section presents the lifetime cost estimates for solar system powered manatee 

refuges under different scenarios at three locations, two sizes of refuges, two types of tidal 

impact, and three types of solar collectors. Based on this information, we assessed which case 

appeared most economical for both small and large refuges in three locations. 

Because unglazed solar collectors are the least expensive among three types of collectors and 

will provide a sufficient heat source, they recommended for use in heating refuges in all three 

locations. 

Because several simulations were used mainly for analyzing sensitivity of potential heat loss 

sources (e.g., no solar radiation and no conduction) and other cases seem unlikely aor 

unnecessary (e.g., 0.5 and 5 volume change rate per day), we concentrated on Cases 1 (the base 

case), Case 8 (an opaque refuge cover), Case 9 (a transparent refuge cover), Case 24 (an opaque 

cover with 1 m high), and Case 25 (a transparent cover with 1 m high) to determine the most 

feasible and economical solar 

water heating system. Although 

it seems unlikely the entire area 

of a large refuge could be 

covered, we still considered this 

possibility for comparison 

purposes. 

Figure 5-22 shows the estimated 

lifetime costs for these five 

cases in the three locations for a 

small refuge with a constant tide 

and volume change rate per day. 

The base case selected here is 

0 

100000 

200000 

300000 

400000 

Miami 

) 

) 

Trans ( ) 

Lifetime cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating systems 

for a small refuge with a constant tide 

Cape Canaveral West Palm 

Cost ($

Base 

Opaque cover 

Trans Cover 

Opaque (1m

1m

Figure 5-22 20-year cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating 

mainly used for comparison. 

However, it does provide 

information on the costs if a 

recommended cover is not used. 

Compared to the based case, use 

of an opaque refuge cover could 

reduce refuge system costs 40% 

in Cape Canaveral, 78% in West 

Palm Beach, and 69% in Miami, 

respectively. By using a 

transparent refuge cover, the 

costs could be reduced 58% in 

Cape Canaveral, 92% in West 

Palm Beach, and 89% in Miami, 

systems for a small refuge with a constant tide in three locations 

0 

1 

2 

Miami 

) 

) 

) 

Lifetime cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating systems 

for a large refuge with a constant tide 

0.5 

1.5 

2.5 

Cape Canaveral West Palm 

Cost (Million $

Base 

Opaque cover 

Trans Cover 

Opaque (1m

Trans (1m

Figure 5-23 20-year cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating 

systems for a large refuge with a constant tide in three locations 

respectively. When an opaque 

54
refuge cover is 1m high over the refuge surface, reductions of lifetime costs are 13% in Cape 

Canaveral, 30% in West Palm Beach, and 20% in Miami, respectively. If a transparent cover 

with 1m high is used, the costs could be reduced to 29% in Cape Canaveral, 57% in West Palm 

Beach, and 51% in Miami, respectively. 

Figure 5-23 provides estimates of lifetime costs at the three locations for a large refuge with a 

constant tide. Proportionally, cost savings for using an opaque or transparent covers are almost 

identical to the estimated savings for a small refuge. 

Figure 5-24 provides the same 

analysis for small refuges with a 

variable tide, rather than a 

constant tide, because from a 

point of view in solar panels 

needed with a variable tide, costs 

are significantly lower and 

proportional savings using 

covers are greater. Compared to 

the base case, cost savings for a 

small refuge with an opaque 

cover are 56% in Cape 

Canaveral, 92% in West Palm 

0 

50000 

100000 

150000 

200000 

250000 

300000 

lm Miami 

) 

) 

Trans ( ) 

Lifetime cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating systems 

for a small refuge with variable tide 

Cape Canaveral West Pa

PV ($

Base 

Opaque cover 

Trans Cover 

Opaque (1m

1m

Figure 5-24 20-year cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating 

systems for a small refuge with a variable tide in three locations 

Beach, and 87% in Miami, 

respectively. The savings using a 

transparent refuge cover are 

77%in Cape Canaveral, 96% in 

West Palm Beach, and 92% in 

Miami, respectively. When an 

opaque refuge cover is 1m high 

over the refuge surface, 

reductions of lifetime costs are 

18% in Cape Canaveral, 29% in 

West Palm Beach, and 15% in 

Miami, respectively. If a 

0 

1 

2 

Miami 

)

Opaque (1m) 

( ) 

Lifetime cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating systems 

for a large refuge with variable tide 

0.5 

1.5 

Cape Canaveral West Palm 

PV ($ million

Base 

Opaque cover 

Trans Cover 

Trans 1m

transparent cover with 1m high is 

used, the costs could be reduced 

to 41% in Cape Canaveral, 72% 

Figure 5-25 20-year cost estimates for unglazed solar water heating 

systems for a large refuge with a variable tide in three locations 

in West Palm Beach, and 69% in Miami, respectively. As above, cost savings with covers are 

similar for large refuges (Figure 5-25) 

5.6 Discussion 

This section discuss issues related to tidal impact, photovoltaic system, backup gas heating 

system, solar collector type, which are not covered in the previous sections. 

55
5.6.1 Tidal selection 

This sensitivity analysis calculates heat loss calculation due to tides and water turn over rates 

assuming they are either constant or variable. The purpose using a constant tide (i.e., volume 

exchange rates) is to facilitate hourly heating loss calculations with equally hourly volume 

change rates. Although this does not account for natural flow rate changes due to tides, a 

constant flow may be required artificially to meet water quality standards if tidal exchange 

volumes are not sufficient to do so. For this analysis, we assume natural tides with supplemental 

pumping sufficient to allow and complete change in water volume per day will achieve 

necessary water quality levels. On the other hand, natural water volume change rates defined as a 

variable tide in the present study do reflect reality. Therefore, variable tide calculation is used to 

finalize solar water heating system selection, while constant tide calculation is used for 

supplemental information. 

5.6.2 Photovoltaic system 

Although a photovoltaic system could be used to provide electricity to drive water pumps, it is 

not economical and not recommended for several reasons: 

• The estimated cost of a photovoltaic system for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral is 

$80,000. 

• Estimated electricity costs using photovoltaic systems are currently about $0.3-0.4/kWh 

in Florida, compared to $0.08/kWh for electricity provided by local utility companies. 

• The selected refuge locations are located in areas easily connected to the utility grid. 

• Photovoltaic systems generate DC electricity, while water pumps need AC electricity. 

The cost of equipment to convert DC to AC currently would add yo the total cost. 

5.6.3 Backup gas heating system 

We also considered whether a backup gas heating system would be required and its possible 

cost. To assess this need, we examined the predicted refuge water temperature for the period of 

two winter months in the three locations assuming a constant tide. 

Figures 5-27 and 5-28 show hourly predicted water temperature using three different solar 

systems for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral in Dec. 1989 and Jan. 1990, respectively. When a 

solar water heating system was used to heat a small refuge in Cape Canaveral, there are about 8 

days in Dec. 1989, when the refuge water temperature is below 22o

C. The minimum water 

temperature during the period is 14o

C. Although manatees may survive in a short period at 

temperature of 17o

C, but decline to 14oC could cause cold stress-related death during a cold 

winter. Therefore, a backup gas heating appears desirable and necessary in Cape Canaveral. 

Figures 5-29 to 5-32 show hourly predicted water temperature using three different solar systems 

for small refuges in West Palm Beach in Dec. 1989 and Jan. 1990, respectively. There are about 

6 days in Dec. 1989, when the refuge water temperatures are below 22o

C. The minimum water 

temperatures during the period is 17o

C, reached for less tan two days at these sites. It suggests 

that a backup system at both sites may be unnecessary. 

56
backup gas heating system. 

Figures 5-28 and 5-29 show hourly predicted water temperature using three different solar 

systems and one ideal heating system for a small refuge in Miami in Dec. 1989 and Jan. 1990, 

respectively. There are about 5 days in Dec. 1989, when the refuge water temperature is below 

22o

C. The minimum water temperature during the period is 17oC. It also should have no 

problems for manatees to survive without a backup gas heating system. 

Based on simulation results, a backup gas heating system is recommended for Cape Canaveral, 

but not for sites in West Palm Beach and Miami. It should be noted that if a cover is used in the 

refuges, the need for a gas heating system would be even less. 

57
T (C) 

Water temperature in a small refuge in Cape Canaveral in Dec. 1989 

30

28

26

24

22

20

18

l i i

18 

20 

22 

24 

26 

28 

30 

(h) 

) 

i i

Water temperature in a smal refuge n Cape Canaveral n Jan. 1990 

8760 8808 8856 8904 8952 9000 9048 9096 9144 9192 9240 9288 9336 9384 9432 9480 

Time

T ( C 

Setpoint Unglazng Glazng Evacuated 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8016 8064 8112 8160 8208 8256 8304 8352 8400 8448 8496 8544 8592 8640 8688 8736 

Time (h) 

Setpoint Unglazng i Glazng i Evacuated 

Figure 5-26 Predicted water temperature for a small Figure 5-27 Predicted water temperature for a small 

refuge in Cape Canaveral in Dec. 1989 refuge in Cape Canaveral in Jan. 1990 

l i i

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

29 

31 

33 

35 

(h) 

T (C ) 

i i

Water temperature in a smal refuge n West Pam Beach n Jan. 1990 

8760 8808 8856 8904 8952 9000 9048 9096 9144 9192 9240 9288 9336 9384 9432 9480 

Time

Setpoint Unglazng Glazng Evacuated 

Water temperature in a small refuge in West Pam Beachin Dec. 1989 

23 

25 

)T ( C 

27

35 

33 

31 

29 

21 

19 

17 

15 

8016 8064 8112 8160 8208 8256 8304 8352 8400 8448 8496 8544 8592 8640 8688 8736 

Time (h) 

Setpoint Unglazng i Glazng i Evacuated 

Figure 5-28 Predicted water temperature for a small Figure 5-29 Predicted water temperature for a small 

refuge in West Palm Beach in Dec. 1989 refuge in West Palm Beach in Jan. 1990 

l i iami i

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

29 

31 

33 

35 

(h) 

T (C ) 

i i

Water temperature in a smal refuge n M n Jan. 1990 

8760 8808 8856 8904 8952 9000 9048 9096 9144 9192 9240 9288 9336 9384 9432 9480 

Time

Setpoint Unglazng Glazng Evacuated 

Water temperature in a smallrefuge in Miamiin Dec. 1989 

23 

25 

)T ( C 

27

35 

33 

31 

29 

21 

19 

17 

15 

8016 8064 8112 8160 8208 8256 8304 8352 8400 8448 8496 8544 8592 8640 8688 8736 

Time (h) 

Setpoint Unglazng i Glazng i Evacuated 

Figure 5-30 Predicted water temperature for a small Figure 5-31 Predicted water temperature for a small 

refuge in Miami in Dec. 1989 refuge in Miami in Jan. 1990 

58
5.5.4 Solar collector type 

Although Meyer et. al.15 suggested that thermal heating by means of parabolic trough solar 

collectors offered the most feasible solution, Goswami, et. al.8

 concluded reasonably that 

unglazed solar collectors could provide warm water for manatee refuges and cost-effective. We 

concluded that unglazed solar collector systems are the most cost-effective approach for 

providing enough heat for manatees to survive in cold winter in Cape Canaveral, West Palm 

Beach and Miami. We also found that installing transparent refuge covers with 1 m high above 

the refuge surface could significantly reduce the necessary number of solar panels and thus the 

cost of the solar collector systems. 

15 Meyer, S., L. Leonardi, J. Strate, and T. Lurtz, "Design of a Sustainable Thermal Refuge for 

Manatees," University of Florida, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, Winner of the FWEA 2001 Student 

Design Competition, March 2001 

59 
Task 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and cost of using solar collector systems 

to warm water manatee refuges that would remain at temperatures of 22o

C or higher year round 

at three locations along Florida east coast. Based on the above assessment, we reached following 

conclusions: 

• Solar collector systems can be used to create warm-water refuges and able to sustain 

manatees through winter months at Cape Canaveral, West Palm Beach and Miami. 

• The largest source of heat loss will be due to tidal and water turn over rates within the 

refuges. For a small refuge (i.e., 50ft x 50 ft), the number of unglazed solar panels needed 

to maintain a temperature of 22o

C increases from 209 for 1 complete turn over per day to 

686 for 5 complete turn over per day assuming a constant circulation rate. For a large 

refuge (i.e., 150ft x 100 ft), the number of unglazed solar panels increases from 1250 for 

1 complete turn over per day to 4111 for 5 complete turn over per day with a constant 

circulation rate. 

• Unglazed solar collectors are the best choice for the refuge water heating system, because 

of their ability to produce warm water to the refuges and their lowest cost relative to the 

other three types of collector examined in the present study. Although the unglazed 

collector may provide low outlet water temperature, the amount of heat provided by the 

unglazed collector is enough to meet the requirements. 

• The use of refuge cover above the refuge surface would significantly reduce heat losses 

and system costs. A solar water heating system may not be needed in West Palm Beach 

and Miami, if a transparent refuge cover could be used. 

• Deep refuge requires more heating energy to maintain warm temperatures and provide 

little benefit for buffering heat loss during cold periods. 

• A control system is needed in the solar heating system to control the system operation. 

• A photovoltaic system would not be a cost effective means of providing electricity to 

drive water pumps. 

• The opaque and transparent covers over the refuge surface with 1m high could 

significantly reduce the number of solar panels, compared to the base case. 

• A backup gas heating system is recommended for Cape Canaveral, but not may not be 

needed for sites in West Palm Beach and Miami. If a cover is used in the refuges, it 

requires much less capacity of a gas heating system. 

• For the base case at Cape Canaveral, the amount of land needed for the solar array is 

about 0.3 acres for a small refuge and 1.5 acres for a large. 

The estimated costs for an unglazed solar collector water heating system with a variable tide are 

provided in Table 6-1. In addition, the numbers of unglazed solar panels at different scenarios 

are also provided. 

60
Table 6-1: Estimated costs for possible scenarios in three locations 

Case Cost Cape Canaveral West Palm Beach Miami 

Small Large Small Large Small Large 

refuge refuge refuge refuge refuge refuge 

Base Initial cost ($) 123271 713613 29261 174997 16965 100798 

Annual cost ($) 12381 73888 3263 19505 1891 11235 

Lifetime cost ($ Million) 0.268 1.578 0.067 0.399 0.039 0.230 

# Panel 146 874 39 231 22 133 

Opaque cover Initial cost ($) 56217 314365 1560 8600 1383 7660 

Annual cost ($) 5104 30232 174 959 154 854 

Lifetime cost ($ Million) 0.118 0.680 0.006 0.032 0.005 0.029 

# Panel 60 358 2 11 2 10 

Trans cover Initial cost ($) 30939 163780 0 0 0 0 

Annual cost ($) 2287 13448 0 0 0 0 

Lifetime cost ($ Million) 0.061 0.339 0.003 0.018 0.003 0.018 

# Panel 27 159 0 0 0 0 

Opaque cover Initial cost ($) 100397 578166 19986 119118 13483 79864 

at 1 m high Annual cost ($) 9945 59268 2229 13277 1503 8902 

Lifetime cost ($ Million) 0.219 1.284 0.048 0.283 0.033 0.194 

# Panel 118 701 26 157 18 105 

Trans cover at Initial cost ($) 74153 420532 6911 40784 3891 22817 

1 m high Annual cost ($) 7005 41633 771 4546 434 2543 

Lifetime cost ($ Million) 0.159 0.926 0.019 0.111 0.012 0.070 

# Panel 83 493 9 54 5 30 

It should be pointed out that although we propose to use a refuge cover for refuges with the 

lowest cost, the costs in the base case with variable tide are also provided for future design 

reference. 

Recommendations 

To further investigate the development of a solar heated thermal refuge for manatees, it is 

recommended that a proposed site be identified in order to provide a basis for developing a 

detailed assessment of refuge design and costs parameters. If further consideration is to be given 

to a site in the Cape Canaveral area, water heating requirements as analyzed in this report, 

should be reexamined in light of the hourly water temperature data for the winter of 1989-90 in 

the Banana River that came to light at the end of this study. 

The following study will be needed to provide accurate cost estimation for possible solar water 

heating systems during design stage: 

• Detailed design of heat exchanger 

• Land cost 

• Permit cost 

• Water piping cost (The estimation of pipe system is included in economical analysis). 

A monitoring system in the refuge is recommended. 

61 
Appendix A: Ocean Air and Ocean Water Temperatures Used to Predict Inland Coastal 

Water temperatures at the Cape Canaveral and Rivera Power Plants 

This appendix provides detailed comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between 

measurement and prediction in Cape Canaveral and Riviera Beach in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The 

inland coastal water temperature prediction is assumed to be a bi-quadratic function of ocean air 

and water temperatures, obtained from National Oceanic Data Center (NODC). The equation is 

presented as Eq. (1) in the Task 2 section. The measured inland coastal water temperatures at the 

Cape Canaveral and Riviera power plants are provided by FPL. It should be pointed out that the 

FPL measured data are not a full year. Therefore, statistical analysis is performed based on the 

FPL data we received. 

By performing linear regression, the values of coefficient of determination (r2

) are listed in the 

following table. The coefficient of determination is defined as an indicator to compare estimated 

and actual y-values, and ranged in value from 0 to 1.0. If it is 1.0, there is a perfect correlation 

in the sample. It means that there is no difference between the estimated y-value and the actual 

y-value. At the other extreme, if the coefficient of determination is 0, the regression equation is 

not helpful in predicting a y-value. The y-value used in the present study is inland coastal water 

temperature. 

Table A-1 presents coefficients of determination for inland coastal regression at Cape Canaveral 

and riviera power plants in 2001 and 2002. Since ocean measurement station is 20 mile away 

from the shore of Cape Canaveral, the values of r2

 is less than 0.5, 0.49 in 2001 and 0.45 in 2002. 

The regression is much better in Riviera Beach with 0.72 in 2001 and 0.65 9n 2002, because the 

measured station is located near the pier in Riviera. In general, both regression equation 

represent inland coastal water temperatures well. 

Table A-1: Coefficients of determination of inland coastal water temperature regression 

Location Year r2 

Cape Canaveral 2001 0.49 

Cape Canaveral 2002 0.45 

Riviera 2001 0.72 

Riviera 2002 0.65 

Ocean air and ocean water temperatures collected for the years 2001 and 2002 at two National 

Ocean Data Center monitoring stations were used to predict inland coastal water temperatures at 

the Cape Canaveral and Riviera power plants during those years. These data were collected 

from an ocean buoy 20 miles east of Cape Canaveral and a station on ocean pier in Lake Worth. 

Figures A-1 and A-2 include the ocean air and water temperature data used in this study from the 

offshore Cape Canaveral NODC monitoring. Figures A-3 and A-4, show the same data used 

from the ocean pier in Lake Worth. 

62 
Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measured and 

predicted values in Jan. 2001 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

)Temp (C 12/30/2000 0:00 1/4/2001 0:00 1/9/2001 0:00 1/14/2001 0:00 1/19/2001 0:00 1/24/2001 0:00 1/29/2001 0:00 2/3/2001 0:00 

Time 

Measured Predicted 

Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measured and 

predicted values in Mar. 2001 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

)Temp (C 2/23/2001 0:00 2/28/2001 0:00 3/5/2001 0:00 3/10/2001 0:00 3/15/2001 0:00 3/20/2001 0:00 3/25/2001 0:00 3/30/2001 0:00 4/4/2001 0:00 

Time 

Measured Predicted 

Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measured and 

predicted values in Nov-Dec. 2001 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

(C)Temp 10/26/2001 0:00 11/5/2001 0:00 11/15/2001 0:00 11/25/2001 0:00 12/5/2001 0:00 12/15/2001 0:00 12/25/2001 0:00 1/4/2002 0:00 

Time 

Measured Predicted 

Figure A-1 Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measurement and 

prediction in Cape Canaveral in 2001. 

63
Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measured 

and predicted values in Jan-Mar 2002 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

(C)Temp 12/25/2001 1/4/2002 1/14/2002 1/24/2002 2/3/2002 2/13/2002 2/23/2002 3/5/2002 3/15/2002 3/25/2002 4/4/2002 4/14/2002 

0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 

Time 

Measured Predicted 

Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measured 

and predicted values in Nov-Dec 2002 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

Temp (C) 10/21/2002 0:00 10/31/2002 0:00 11/10/2002 0:00 11/20/2002 0:00 11/30/2002 0:00 12/10/2002 0:00 12/20/2002 0:00 12/30/2002 0:00 1/9/2003 0:00 

Time 

Measured Predicted 

Figure A-2 Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measurement and 

prediction in Cape Canaveral in 2002 

64
Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measured 

and predicted values in Jan 2001 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

Temp (C) 12/30/2000 0:00 1/4/2001 0:00 1/9/2001 0:00 1/14/2001 0:00 1/19/2001 0:00 1/24/2001 0:00 1/29/2001 0:00 2/3/2001 0:00 

Time 

Measured Predicted 

Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between measured 

and predicted values in Mar. 2001 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

Temp (C) 2/23/2001 0:00 2/28/2001 0:00 3/5/2001 0:00 3/10/2001 0:00 3/15/2001 0:00 3/20/2001 0:00 3/25/2001 0:00 3/30/2001 0:00 4/4/2001 0:00 

Time 

Measured Predicted 

Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between 

measured and predicted values in Nov-Dec. 2001 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

)Temp (C 10/26/2001 0:00 11/5/2001 0:00 11/15/2001 0:00 11/25/2001 0:00 12/5/2001 0:00 12/15/2001 0:00 12/25/2001 0:00 1/4/2002 0:00 

Time 

Measured Predicted 

Figure A-3 Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between 

measurement and prediction in Riviera in 2001 

65
Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between 

measured and predicted values in Jan 2002 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

)Temp (C 12/30/2001 1/4/2002 1/9/2002 1/14/2002 1/19/2002 1/24/2002 1/29/2002 2/3/2002 

0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 

Time 

Measured Pred cted i

Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between 

measured and predicted values in Mar 2002 

15 

17 

19 

21 

23 

25 

27 

29 

Temp (C) 2/23/2002 2/28/2002 3/5/2002 3/10/2002 3/15/2002 3/20/2002 3/25/2002 3/30/2002 4/4/2002 

0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 

Time 

Measured Pred cted i

Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures between 

measured and predicted values in Nov-Dec 2002 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

Temp (C) 10/21/2002 10/31/2002 11/10/2002 11/20/2002 11/30/2002 12/10/2002 12/20/2002 12/30/2002 1/9/2003 

0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 

Time 

Measured Pred cted i

Figure A-4 Comparison of inland coastal water temperatures 

between measurement and prediction in Riviera in 2002 

66
Appendix B: Tidal calculation software and hourly prediction 

This appendix provide a brief description of the software: WXTide32, and calculated hourly 

tidal height with time in three locations in 1989 and 1990. 

B-1 WXTide32 software 

WXTide32, a free Windows tide and current prediction program, was used to predict tide time 

and water levels16. The program is able to perform following predictions: 

• Predicts tides from 1970 through 2037. 

• 8,800 tide level stations worldwide including 44 in England, Ireland and Scotland. 

• 100 tidal current stations (all in North America). 

• User station manager to easily add custom tide and current secondary stations. 

• Text outputs: daily tide list, monthly calendar, incremental tide. 

• Graphic modes: tide clock, realtime graph, scrolling graph, overview. 

• Each mode has separate display options and window settings. 

• Designed for interactive use but can also be used from other programs. 

• Worldwide timezone support, solar/lunar events, cursor, recent stations. 

• Tested on Windows 9x, NT4, 2000, ME, XP. 

• Self-contained, nothing else needed. 

• Context sensitive help and all "C" source code included. 

• WXTide32 is based on the UNIX program XTide version 1.6.2 written by Dave Flater. 

B-2 Tidal height 

The methodology to calculate hourly tidal height and height difference between previous and 

current hour in 1989 and 1990 has been described in Section 3.2. This section show hourly tidal 

height graphically in three locations in 1989. 

Figures B-1 through B-3 plot predicted hourly tidal history in Cape Canaveral, West Palm Beach 

and Miami, respectively. Each figure has two sub-figures. The first sub figure shows tidal history 

in 1989 to provide a picture in a long period. The second sub figure shows the tidal history 

between Nov. 1989 and Dec. 1989 to provide tidal trend in detail in a short period. 

16 http://www.wxtide32.com/ 

67 
68

Tidal history in Cape canaveral in 1989

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

12/31/88

12:00 AM

2/19/89

12:00 AM

4/10/89

12:00 AM

5/30/89

12:00 AM

7/19/89

12:00 AM

9/7/89

12:00 AM

10/27/89

12:00 AM

12/16/89

12:00 AM

2/4/90

12:00 AM

3/26/90

12:00 AM

Time

Height (ft)

Predicted tide in Cape Canaveral between Nov. and Dec. 1989

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

11/1/89 12:00

AM

11/11/89 12:00

AM

11/21/89 12:00

AM

12/1/89 12:00

AM

12/11/89 12:00

AM

12/21/89 12:00

AM

12/31/89 12:00

AM

Time

Tide (ft)

Figure B-1 Predicted hourly tidal history in Capa Canaveral
69

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

12/31/88

0:00

2/19/89

0:00

4/10/89

0:00

5/30/89

0:00

7/19/89

0:00

9/7/89 0:00 10/27/89

0:00

12/16/89

0:00

2/4/90 0:00 3/26/90

0:00

Predicted tide in West Palm Beach between Nov. 1989 and Jan. 1990

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

11/1/89

0:00

11/11/89

0:00

11/21/89

0:00

12/1/89

0:00

12/11/89

0:00

12/21/89

0:00

12/31/89

0:00

1/10/90

0:00

1/20/90

0:00

1/30/90

0:00

Time

Tide (ft)

Figure B-2 Predicted hourly tidal history in West Palm Beach
70

Tidal history in Miami in 1989

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

12/31/88

0:00

2/19/89

0:00

4/10/89

0:00

5/30/89

0:00

7/19/89

0:00

9/7/89 0:00 10/27/89

0:00

12/16/89

0:00

2/4/90 0:00 3/26/90

0:00

Time

Height (ft)

Predicted tide in Miami between Nov. 1989 and Jan. 1990

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

11/1/89 0:00 11/11/89 0:00 11/21/89 0:00 12/1/89 0:00 12/11/89 0:00 12/21/89 0:00 12/31/89 0:00

Time

Tide (ft)

Figure B-3 Predicted hourly tidal history in Miami
Appendix C: Heating energy requirements 

This appendix provides heating energy required to maintain refuge temperatures at 22o

C 100% 

of the time in two types of refuges at three different locations with constant and variable water 

turn over rates. This means that the heating equipment turns on when the refuge temperature is 

below setpoint. 

The twelve tables follow the same format for two types of refuges at three different locations 

assuming two different water turn over (tidal) impact. The first column identifies the case 

number. The second column is a brief description of the case. The third column provides 

estimates of annual heating energy required in kWh from May 1, 1989 to April 30, 1990. The 

fourth column provides estimates of monthly heating energy required in Dec. 1989, the coldest 

month in the study period. The last two columns provide estimates of heating energy required 

for the coldest day and the coldest hour in the coldest day in Dec. 1989. All the units of heating 

energy use are kWh. 

Table C-1: Heating energy required in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge with a constant tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 169097.4 76377.8 6539.5 334.53 

2 No cond 166923.1 75787.7 6503.8 332.86 

3 No solar 272147.8 92824.2 7304.6 344.84 

4 No sky 151636.4 70860.4 6196.9 320.16 

5 No conv 123374.2 57173.9 4919.7 249.97 

6 No evap 100348.9 54352.2 5080.9 260.18 

7 No TOR 56145.2 32368.3 3395.8 228.66 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 113862.1 45376.3 4467.9 213.35 

9 No evap, sky, conv 48570.9 30856.8 3723.7 205.84 

10 1⁄2 TOR 112595.9 54279.3 4794.5 281.59 

11 2 TOR 281735.4 120699.7 10164.8 496.36 

12 5 TOR 622722.9 254780.1 23489.8 1109.76 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 49020.5 32465.5 3335.9 185.4 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

56257.9 22947.1 2247.1 107.01 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 78303.1 43234.6 4065.2 233.06 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 113053.6 54400.4 4798.6 281.76 

17 Base + LT 169569.2 76499.8 6543.6 334.7 

18 2 TOR + LT 282242.4 120824.3 10168.8 496.53 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 49311.9 32577.3 3340 185.57 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 78683.4 43350.1 4069.3 233.23 

21 9 ft Deep 220600 98605.3 8297.7 396.01 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 170065.5 67951.4 6697 319.82 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 93110.5 52260 5952.8 308.55 

24 1m Opaque cover 180500 66218.2 5338.8 242.65 

25 1m Trans cover 103298.8 53006.6 4723.4 248.87 

71 
Table C-2: Heating energy required in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge with a constant tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 1011041 456990.4 39144.9 2003.55 

2 No cond 1001539 454726.1 39023 1997.16 

3 No solar 1629018 555667 43735.6 2065.05 

4 No sky 906335.1 423888.6 37089.2 1917.31 

5 No conv 736809.4 341771.2 29460.9 1496.48 

6 No evap 598949.6 324854.3 30393.3 1557.77 

7 No TOR 333803 192930.2 20296.7 1368.35 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 679589.4 271014.4 26750.1 1279.24 

9 No evap, sky, conv 289055.3 184120 22284.8 1231.7 

10 1⁄2 TOR 672069.4 324398.8 28675 1685.95 

11 2 TOR 1686759 722920.3 60931.2 2974.82 

12 5 TOR 3732681 1527425 140881.3 6655.21 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 291483.3 193539.8 19923.4 1108.17 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

333923.5 136423.4 13425.1 641.18 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 466690.3 258140.3 24299.2 1394.74 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 674597.8 325067.2 28697.5 1686.89 

17 Base + LT 1013646 457663.8 39167.4 2004.49 

18 2 TOR + LT 1689556 723608.3 60953.7 2975.76 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 293053.4 194156.5 19945.9 1109.11 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 468789.1 258778.2 24321.7 1395.68 

21 9 ft Deep 1318251 589713.7 49647.9 2369.72 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 1015032 405843.6 40095.9 1917.61 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 554381 311728.4 35630.5 1846.29 

24 1m Opaque cover 1079239 396031.5 31975.1 1452.59 

25 1m Trans cover 616590.9 316777.1 28283 1489.86 

72
Table C-3: Heating energy required in West Palm Beach for a small refuge with a constant tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 26743.9 17407.7 4596.9 300.54 

2 No cond 26235.6 17165.7 4568.7 299.25 

3 No solar 51699.7 27001.1 5382.1 300.54 

4 No sky 22358.2 14742 4267.3 285.8 

5 No conv 13554.9 8089.1 2696.3 180.75 

6 No evap 8332.7 7217 2989.4 209.79 

7 No TOR 24700.1 18271.8 3080.6 226.56 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 4924 3402.4 1504.9 92.75 

9 No evap, sky, conv 702 702 625.9 85.02 

10 1⁄2 TOR 25122.8 17216.1 3838.8 263.55 

11 2 TOR 30969.3 19371.4 6113.1 374.51 

12 5 TOR 47399.9 29404.8 10661.8 596.45 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 5381.3 5180.7 2231.3 172.8 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

1942.8 1519 759.4 46.83 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 12752.7 10237.3 3035 218.17 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 25279.8 17291.8 3842.8 263.72 

17 Base + LT 26870.4 17470.5 4600.9 300.71 

18 2 TOR + LT 31066.7 19416 6117.2 374.68 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 5425 5217.1 2235.4 172.97 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 12842.7 10295.1 3039.1 218.34 

21 9 ft Deep 26083.8 17337.4 5366.2 338.05 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 7324.8 5079.6 2250.3 138.91 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 1727.7 1727.7 1229.6 127.31 

24 1m Opaque cover 20158.5 11565.1 3298.5 180.53 

25 1m Trans cover 8817.5 6707.1 2678 187.9 

73
Table C-4: Heating energy required in West Palm Beach for a large refuge with a constant tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 159599 103877.1 27503.2 1799.56 

2 No cond 157413.8 102993.9 27412.4 1795.5 

3 No solar 309148.1 161384.4 32214.5 1799.56 

4 No sky 133342.4 87924.9 25526 1711.14 

5 No conv 80633.5 48092.7 16099.4 1080.85 

6 No evap 49509.9 42928.8 17858.2 1255.09 

7 No TOR 146982.5 108958.9 18405.7 1355.7 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 29060.2 20073.9 8983.3 554.92 

9 No evap, sky, conv 4073.4 4073.4 3739.5 508.24 

10 1⁄2 TOR 149763.8 102674 22954.4 1577.63 

11 2 TOR 185086 115757.2 36600.6 2243.43 

12 5 TOR 283807.8 176055.9 63892.9 3575.03 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 31823.2 30676.9 13309.8 1033.16 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

11177 8787.1 4531.9 279.35 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 75782.8 60878.5 18132 1305.39 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 150627.8 103091.5 22977 1578.57 

17 Base + LT 160296.1 104223.3 27525.7 1800.5 

18 2 TOR + LT 185623.9 116003.2 36623.1 2244.37 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 32064.8 30878.1 13332.3 1034.1 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 76279.5 61197.5 18154.5 1306.33 

21 9 ft Deep 155367.5 103290 32080 2022.81 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 43224.3 29966.7 13443.5 831.07 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 10020.6 10020.6 7341.1 761.06 

24 1m Opaque cover 120148.9 68886 19713 1079.54 

25 1m Trans cover 52385.3 39868.2 15990.2 1123.76 

74
Table C-5: Heating energy required in Miami for a small refuge with a constant tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 17872.3 12636.2 4258.3 286.13 

2 No cond 17471.6 12441.9 4231.8 284.89 

3 No solar 38709.2 20895.5 5098.9 293.61 

4 No sky 14562.3 10575.6 3947.2 271.65 

5 No conv 9605.3 6604.8 2537.3 176.38 

6 No evap 6301.4 5743.7 2734.3 200.27 

7 No TOR 12565.8 10654.3 2742.3 216.28 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 4908 3390.3 1501.4 92.73 

9 No evap, sky, conv 611 611 642.5 84.97 

10 1⁄2 TOR 15109.3 11347.8 3500.1 249.68 

11 2 TOR 23729.7 15791.9 5774.5 360.93 

12 5 TOR 41651.4 26912.2 10323.2 585.33 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 3645.2 3645.2 1979.4 162.87 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

1926.6 1507.4 758.3 46.8 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 7774.3 6908.5 2738.4 205.8 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 15217.1 11409.8 3504.2 249.85 

17 Base + LT 17971.1 12686.2 4262.3 286.3 

18 2 TOR + LT 23809.5 15827 5778.6 361.1 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 3667.8 3667.8 1983.4 163.04 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 7832.2 6945 2742.5 205.97 

21 9 ft Deep 18916.9 13627.6 5026.7 324.03 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 7300.9 5061.4 2245.1 138.88 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 1641.6 1641.6 1233.3 127.24 

24 1m Opaque cover 16015.8 9592.5 3165.3 173.85 

25 1m Trans cover 6454 5367.5 2480.2 181.09 

75
Table C-6: Heating energy required in Miami for a large refuge with a constant tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 106574 75383.7 25477.3 1713.29 

2 No cond 104829.4 74651.6 25390.7 1709.34 

3 No solar 231416.1 124879.6 30520.9 1758.15 

4 No sky 86802.4 63058.2 23610.7 1626.42 

5 No conv 57147.8 39298.1 15151.5 1054.78 

6 No evap 37399.4 34155.5 16333.3 1198.15 

7 No TOR 74626.6 63363.3 16381.9 1294.2 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 29020.4 20043.7 8980.6 554.86 

9 No evap, sky, conv 3539.2 3539.2 3840 508.13 

10 1⁄2 TOR 89952.1 67602.4 20928.6 1494.56 

11 2 TOR 141809 94397.6 34574.8 2162.09 

12 5 TOR 249405 161153.1 61867.1 3508.49 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 21599.1 21599.1 11804.7 973.75 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

11136.7 8758.4 4529.3 279.3 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 46166.9 41097.9 16358.4 1231.32 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 90544.3 67944.9 20951.1 1495.5 

17 Base + LT 107119.1 75659.8 25499.8 1714.23 

18 2 TOR + LT 142248.6 94590.4 34597.3 2163.03 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 21723 21723 11826.9 974.69 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 46486.5 41299.2 16380.9 1232.26 

21 9 ft Deep 112761.8 81259.6 30052.1 1938.95 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 43164.6 29921.2 13439.6 830.99 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 9573 9573 7368.5 760.88 

24 1m Opaque cover 95459.7 57166.8 18919.4 1039.6 

25 1m Trans cover 38281.5 31883.5 14809.4 1083.03 

76
Table C-7: Heating energy required in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge with a variable tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 110493.7 53400.1 4434.5 411.94 

2 No cond 108050.3 52689.9 4390.1 410.55 

3 No solar 217795.3 69545.2 5199.6 411.94 

4 No sky 94138.5 47945.8 4091.9 399.71 

5 No conv 66461.1 34267.3 2585.2 375.63 

6 No evap 48214.9 31544.4 2975.9 381.53 

7 No TOR 54452.8 32351.8 3401.4 228.92 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 56015 22005.1 2369.3 332.99 

9 No evap, sky, conv 12733.3 9858 1650.1 332.99 

10 1⁄2 TOR 67681.3 37646.4 3595.9 231.7 

11 2 TOR 282952.3 117339.8 10195.3 1406.65 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 17220.9 15012.1 2148.1 158.81 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

15349.6 6012.9 614.4 84.33 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 38408.2 26615.1 2872 192.95 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 68125.4 37769.2 3600.1 231.87 

16 Base + LT 110959.7 53523.1 4438.7 412.11 

17 2 TOR + LT 283478.8 117467.4 10199.6 1406.82 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 17384.8 15133.3 2152.3 158.99 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 38704.3 26736.2 2876.2 193.13 

20 9 ft Deep 106445.1 53436.8 4447.7 412.36 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 55739.7 22170.3 2376.9 333.41 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 11988.7 9582.6 1657 333.41 

23 1m Opaque cover 123274.9 42934.5 3138.8 366.35 

24 1m Trans cover 49897.3 30195.2 2556.7 372.46 

77
Table C-8: Heating energy required in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge with a variable tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 658413.6 318676.6 26484.3 2468.21 

2 No cond 648301.6 316139.7 26340.6 2463.28 

3 No solar 1301589 415532.2 31074.9 2468.21 

4 No sky 560386.4 285955.2 24428.5 2394.83 

5 No conv 394467.9 203888.5 15439.5 2250.37 

6 No evap 286150.3 187565.1 17732.7 2285.74 

7 No TOR 322844.5 192510.7 20310.7 1369 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 331353.3 130333.2 14144.4 1994.52 

9 No evap, sky, conv 74618.7 57967.4 9829.8 1994.52 

10 1⁄2 TOR 401774.8 224218.2 21475.2 1385.65 

11 2 TOR 1692632 702185.8 61094 8436.73 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 101187.7 88400.1 12788.6 947.68 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

87492.7 34422.5 3617.7 502.43 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 227241.8 158035.9 17131.9 1153.19 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 404175 224881.9 21498.1 1386.6 

16 Base + LT 660923.7 319336.8 26507.2 2469.16 

17 2 TOR + LT 1695452 702867.4 61117.1 8437.68 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 102075.9 89054.7 12811.5 948.64 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 228828.9 158688.9 17154.8 1154.14 

20 9 ft Deep 632417 318259.6 26517.4 2469.26 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 327949.6 130685.3 14163.3 1995.57 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 69408.7 55772.7 9845.3 1995.57 

23 1m Opaque cover 734561.1 255869 18710.3 2194.67 

24 1m Trans cover 295893.6 179462.9 15261.4 2231.36 

78
Table C-9: Heating energy required in West Palm Beach for a small refuge with a variable tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 22945.8 16449.9 3550.1 230.67 

2 No cond 22336.5 16110.6 3516.2 229.02 

3 No solar 66249.3 29477.4 4335.3 234.41 

4 No sky 18246.4 13293.6 3220.6 218.15 

5 No conv 9397.3 6049.7 1649.3 186.32 

6 No evap 4253.2 4190.1 1942.6 182.05 

7 No TOR 22984 17907.6 3086.2 226.82 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 1155 875.1 780.1 138.74 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 1 

10 1⁄2 TOR 22685 17379.1 3202.2 226.9 

11 2 TOR 28541 17538.1 4941.2 633.9 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 2862.1 2862.1 1530.4 136.15 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

0 0 209.1 35.51 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 9427.7 8739 2398.5 181.53 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 22862 17479.2 3206.5 227.08 

16 Base + LT 23100.9 16537.2 3554.3 230.85 

17 2 TOR + LT 28648.3 17587.7 4945.5 634.07 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 2895.5 2895.5 1554.5 136.33 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 9534.5 8826.2 2402.7 181.7 

20 9 ft Deep 20956.7 15570.6 3561.3 231.2 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 742.7 709.9 784.8 139.02 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 1 

23 1m Opaque cover 21087.1 11231.6 2251.7 175.48 

24 1m Trans cover 4365.4 3885.2 1630.8 179.83 

79
Table C-10: Heating energy required in West Palm Beach for a large refuge with a variable tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 136526.6 97882.8 21202.2 1379.11 

2 No cond 134019.2 96663.5 21097 1374.13 

3 No solar 395913.9 176026 25913.6 1403 

4 No sky 108405.7 79003.6 19225 1306.68 

5 No conv 55492.7 35652.6 9797.1 1115.77 

6 No evap 24956.9 24658.9 11557.2 1090.14 

7 No TOR 136668.4 106609.3 18419.8 1356.35 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 6269.6 4801.8 4642.4 830.28 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 1 

10 1⁄2 TOR 134868 103438.8 19115.5 1356.55 

11 2 TOR 170300.5 104606.1 29548.4 3801.49 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 16729.8 16729.8 8905.1 812.08 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv 

+ 1⁄2 TOR 

0 0 1224.4 210.8 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 55597 51615 14293 1084.32 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 135827.5 103980.6 19138.4 1357.51 

16 Base + LT 137333.4 98355.1 21225.1 1380.07 

17 2 TOR + LT 170883.3 104874.8 29571.3 3802.42 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 16912 16912 9037 813.04 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 56176.8 52088.6 14315.9 1085.27 

20 9 ft Deep 124186.9 92290.1 21230.3 1380.43 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 3695.3 3629.8 4652.1 830.98 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 1 

23 1m Opaque cover 125216.8 66597.2 13412 1050.7 

24 1m Trans cover 25564.3 22818.7 9686.2 1076.83 

80
Table C-11: Heating energy required in Miami for a small refuge with a variable tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 13291.7 10208.9 3201.5 276.87 

2 No cond 12870.8 9947 3170.1 275.47 

3 No solar 47484.9 22046.5 4042.1 276.87 

4 No sky 9995.1 7907.2 2890.4 265.91 

5 No conv 5009.7 3723.8 1476.6 189.46 

6 No evap 2712.3 2712.3 1392.9 182.55 

7 No TOR 11456.2 10084.3 2747.5 216.53 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 1066.6 831.1 760.3 135.53 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 1 

10 1⁄2 TOR 11836.5 10013.1 2860.7 231.45 

11 2 TOR 20859.3 13670.4 4564.8 630.37 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 1189.6 1189.6 537.1 78.13 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv 

+ 1⁄2 TOR 

0 0 202.8 34.66 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 4439.7 4439.7 2098 186.43 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 11964.1 10102.7 2864.9 231.62 

16 Base + LT 13393.6 10276.5 3205.7 277.04 

17 2 TOR + LT 20942.2 13704 4569 630.54 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 1220.8 1220.8 538.7 78.3 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 4496.8 4496.8 2102.2 186.6 

20 9 ft Deep 11584.7 9265 3211.8 277.33 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 660.9 655 764.9 135.78 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 1 

23 1m Opaque cover 14661.5 8111.2 2108.5 176.36 

24 1m Trans cover 2343.4 2343.4 1243.6 181.18 

81
Table C-12: Heating energy required in Miami for a large refuge with a variable tide 

Case Desc Year Dec Peak Day Peak Hour 

1 Base 78954.9 60652.3 19119.4 1657.18 

2 No cond 77225 59681.9 19020.5 1652.84 

3 No solar 283702.6 131621.2 24163 1657.18 

4 No sky 59222.9 46895.9 17252.8 1591.45 

5 No conv 29443.7 21895 8769.5 1134.84 

6 No evap 15948.6 15948.6 8172.5 1093.36 

7 No TOR 67753.6 59798.5 16394.5 1294.83 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 5848.5 4604 4521.8 811.24 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 1 

10 1⁄2 TOR 70113.1 59386.2 17074.2 1384.65 

11 2 TOR 124479.8 81611.8 27300.2 3780.62 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 6735.8 6735.8 3183.7 464.73 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 00 1191.3205 

1⁄2 TOR .92 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 26086.5 26086.5 12498.1 1114.52 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 70805 59871.9 17097 1385.6 

16 Base + LT 79501.1 61011.7 19142.2 1658.13 

17 2 TOR + LT 124930.4 81794 27323.1 3781.55 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 6904.2 6904.2 3192.3 465.68 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 26396.9 26396.9 12521 1115.47 

20 9 ft Deep 68430.5 54790.4 19145.4 1658.35 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 3390.7 3390.7 4533.5 811.89 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 1 

23 1m Opaque cover 86918 48044 12561.5 1056.26 

24 1m Trans cover 13743.4 13743.4 7284.3 1085.18 

82
Appendix D: Solar collector size requirements 

This appendix provides solar collector sizes requirement to meet 95% of time in Dec. 1989 in 

three locations, two typed of refuges, and two different tidal impacts. The solar collector type 

consists of unglazed, glazing and evacuated collectors. 

All twelve tables listed below have the same format. The first two columns show case number 

and a brief description. The last three columns present required solar collector sizes in three 

different types in units of m2

. In general, a typical solar collector size for unglazed and glazed 

flat panel is 4ft x10ft (3.716 m2

), while for evacuated panel is 2.2mx 1.4m (2.85 m2). Using the 

required solar collector size divided by 4x10 can obtain how many panels of solar collector are 

needed. 

Table D-1: Required solar collector size in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge with a constant 

tide 

Small refuge in Cape Canaveral Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

1 Base 927.72 1013.52 1149.28 

2 No cond 920.6 1005.71 1140.42 

3 No solar 1122.68 1229.55 1395.2 

4 No sky 861.16 940.53 1066.43 

5 No conv 695.26 759.17 860.69 

6 No evap 661.28 721.86 818.33 

7 No TOR 394.47 430.22 487.58 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 551.03 602.24 682.94 

9 No evap, sky, conv 375.86 410.08 464.8 

10 1⁄2 TOR 660.67 720.97 817.27 

11 2 TOR 1460.16 1598.69 1814.01 

12 5 TOR 3044.66 3356.04 3815.42 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 395.51 431.46 489.01 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 279.38 304.91 345.63 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 526.47 574.43 651.11 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 662.13 722.57 819.09 

17 Base + LT 929.2 1015.13 1151.11 

18 2 TOR + LT 1461.65 1600.33 1815.88 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 396.87 432.94 490.7 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 527.87 575.96 652.84 

21 9 ft Deep 1198.05 1308.74 1483.98 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 825.18 901.87 1022.7 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 636.18 694.32 787.05 

24 1m Opaque cover 802.7 878.1 996.03 

25 1m Trans cover 644.91 703.99 798.08 

83
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Table D-2: Required solar collector size in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge with a constant tide 

Large refuge in Cape Canaveral Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

Base 5550.91 6064.21 6876.5 

No cond 5523.59 6034.26 6842.5 

No solar 6720.72 7360.44 8352.01 

No sky 5151.57 5626.32 6379.41 

No conv 4156.13 4538.15 5145.02 

No evap 3952.44 4314.45 4891.02 

No TOR 2351.3 2564.35 2906.24 

No solar, evap, sky, conv 3291.14 3596.98 4078.92 

No evap, sky, conv 2242.79 2446.92 2773.45 

1⁄2 TOR 3948.51 4308.89 4884.43 

2 TOR 8745.6 9575.26 10864.92 

5 TOR 18253.09 20119.77 22873.78 

No evap+1/2 TOR 2357.58 2572.02 2915.16 

No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 1660.94 1812.74 2054.8 

1⁄2 TOR & evap 3143.48 3429.77 3887.59 

1⁄2 TOR + LT 3956.6 4317.75 4894.47 

Base + LT 5559.04 6073.12 6886.61 

2 TOR + LT 8753.82 9584.32 10875.22 

No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 2365.33 2580.31 2924.51 

1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 3151.21 3438.22 3897.18 

9 ft Deep 7165.07 7827.03 8875.03 

Case 8 + 9ft 4928.5 5386.49 6108.19 

Case 9 + 9ft 3794.82 4141.64 4694.75 

1m Opaque cover 4800.76 5251.67 5956.96 

1m Trans cover 3854.18 4207.22 4769.49 

84
Table D-3: Required solar collector size in West Palm Beach for a small refuge with a constant 

tide 

Small refuge in West Palm Beach Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

1 Base 182.16 212.72 246.83 

2 No cond 179.67 209.79 243.41 

3 No solar 282.19 329.77 382.72 

4 No sky 154.34 180.19 209.06 

5 No conv 84.68 98.87 114.71 

6 No evap 75.48 88.17 102.32 

7 No TOR 191.34 223.35 259.12 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 35.66 41.61 48.27 

9 No evap, sky, conv 7.35 8.58 9.96 

10 1⁄2 TOR 180.09 210.34 244.07 

11 2 TOR 202.62 236.68 274.64 

12 5 TOR 306.56 358.72 416.48 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 54.26 63.34 73.48 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 15.92 18.58 21.55 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 107.12 125.1 145.15 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 180.97 211.31 245.18 

17 Base + LT 182.81 213.49 247.71 

18 2 TOR + LT 203.08 237.22 275.27 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 54.64 63.78 74 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 107.72 125.81 145.97 

21 9 ft Deep 181.51 211.92 245.87 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 53.24 62.12 72.06 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 18.1 21.12 24.51 

24 1m Opaque cover 121.05 141.35 164 

25 1m Trans cover 70.16 81.95 95.09 

85
Table D-4: Required solar collector size in West Palm Beach for a large refuge with a constant 

tide 

Large refuge in West Palm Beach Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

1 Base 1087.09 1269.42 1472.91 

2 No cond 1078.01 1258.71 1460.45 

3 No solar 1686.63 1971.04 2287.53 

4 No sky 920.51 1074.68 1246.87 

5 No conv 503.47 587.84 682.01 

6 No evap 448.97 524.48 608.6 

7 No TOR 1140.14 1331.41 1544.86 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 210.38 245.49 284.78 

9 No evap, sky, conv 42.68 49.81 57.78 

10 1⁄2 TOR 1074.07 1254.45 1455.63 

11 2 TOR 1210.8 1414.33 1641.17 

12 5 TOR 1835.52 2147.77 2493.6 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 321.31 375.06 435.11 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 92.12 107.48 124.67 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 637.03 743.94 863.2 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 1078.43 1259.54 1461.54 

17 Base + LT 1090.65 1273.62 1477.79 

18 2 TOR + LT 1213.35 1417.32 1644.65 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 323.41 377.51 437.96 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 640.35 747.84 867.71 

21 9 ft Deep 1081.39 1262.53 1464.81 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 314.06 366.48 425.12 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 104.97 122.52 142.13 

24 1m Opaque cover 721 841.93 976.86 

25 1m Trans cover 417.06 487.15 565.26 

86
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Table D-5: Required solar collector size in Miami for a small refuge with a constant tide 

Small refuge in Miami Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

Base 122.86 145.78 170.28 

No cond 120.98 143.54 167.67 

No solar 203.08 241.03 281.57 

No sky 102.89 122.04 142.55 

No conv 64.19 76.18 89 

No evap 55.84 66.26 77.4 

No TOR 103.62 122.93 143.59 

No solar, evap, sky, conv 33.01 39.14 45.71 

No evap, sky, conv 5.95 7.05 8.24 

1⁄2 TOR 110.39 130.94 152.95 

2 TOR 153.47 182.14 212.78 

5 TOR 260.94 310.07 362.37 

No evap+1/2 TOR 35.47 42.07 49.13 

No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 14.68 17.41 20.33 

1⁄2 TOR & evap 67.19 79.71 93.11 

1⁄2 TOR + LT 110.99 131.66 153.78 

Base + LT 123.34 146.35 170.96 

2 TOR + LT 153.8 182.54 213.25 

No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 35.69 42.33 49.44 

1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 67.54 80.13 93.6 

9 ft Deep 132.57 157.26 183.68 

Case 8 + 9ft 49.28 58.44 68.24 

Case 9 + 9ft 15.98 18.95 22.13 

1m Opaque cover 93.35 110.71 129.31 

1m Trans cover 52.2 61.93 72.34 

87
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Table D-6: Required solar collector size in Miami for a large refuge with a constant tide 

Large refuge in Miami Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

Base 732.96 869.66 1015.87 

No cond 725.88 861.24 1006.02 

No solar 1213.68 1440.48 1682.78 

No sky 613.56 727.71 849.97 

No conv 381.95 453.3 529.53 

No evap 332.05 394.02 460.27 

No TOR 616.24 731.08 853.95 

No solar, evap, sky, conv 195.17 231.41 270.25 

No evap, sky, conv 34.46 40.86 47.72 

1⁄2 TOR 657.63 780.07 911.15 

2 TOR 917.37 1088.76 1271.92 

5 TOR 1562.52 1856.74 2169.93 

No evap+1/2 TOR 210.09 249.23 291.11 

No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 85.31 101.13 118.1 

1⁄2 TOR & evap 399.7 474.2 553.89 

1⁄2 TOR + LT 660.95 784.02 915.77 

Base + LT 735.63 872.84 1019.59 

2 TOR + LT 919.23 1090.97 1274.52 

No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 211.36 250.7 292.81 

1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 401.65 476.52 556.6 

9 ft Deep 790.51 937.7 1095.26 

Case 8 + 9ft 291.36 345.46 403.43 

Case 9 + 9ft 93.18 110.5 129.05 

1m Opaque cover 556.3 659.81 770.63 

1m Trans cover 310.06 367.87 429.7 

88
Table D-7: Required solar collector size in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge with a variable 

tide 

Small refuge in Cape Canaveral Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

1 Base 650.37 709.59 804.29 

2 No cond 641.75 700.17 793.61 

3 No solar 844.73 923.07 1046.7 

4 No sky 584.04 637.18 722.19 

5 No conv 417.56 455.5 516.25 

6 No evap 384.34 419.28 475.2 

7 No TOR 394.41 430.08 487.4 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 268.13 292.51 331.53 

9 No evap, sky, conv 120.13 131.04 148.52 

10 1⁄2 TOR 458.84 500.41 567.13 

11 2 TOR 1422.07 1555.94 1764.96 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 183.04 199.6 226.2 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 73.37 79.98 90.62 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 324.47 353.85 401 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 460.33 502.04 568.97 

16 Base + LT 651.86 711.22 806.14 

17 2 TOR + LT 1423.6 1557.62 1766.87 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 184.52 201.21 228.03 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 325.94 355.45 402.82 

20 9 ft Deep 651.21 710.29 805.01 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 270.28 294.77 334.07 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 116.83 127.41 144.39 

23 1m Opaque cover 522.41 570.34 646.56 

24 1m Trans cover 367.95 401.37 454.9 

89
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Table D-8: Required solar collector size in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge with a variable tide 

Large refuge in Cape Canaveral Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

Base 3881.3 4234.68 4799.79 

No cond 3850.53 4201.04 4761.63 

No solar 5047.32 5515.36 6254.04 

No sky 3483.03 3800.07 4307.12 

No conv 2484.53 2710.23 3071.66 

No evap 2285.39 2493.09 2825.61 

No TOR 2347 2559.26 2900.32 

No solar, evap, sky, conv 1588.1 1732.54 1963.64 

No evap, sky, conv 706.43 770.57 873.34 

1⁄2 TOR 2732.85 2980.44 3377.77 

2 TOR 8510.1 9311.15 10561.93 

No evap+1/2 TOR 1077.89 1175.41 1332.03 

No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 420.01 457.85 518.81 

1⁄2 TOR & evap 1926.69 2101.1 2381.09 

1⁄2 TOR + LT 2740.91 2989.25 3387.76 

Base + LT 3889.3 4243.43 4809.72 

2 TOR + LT 8518.28 9320.14 10572.14 

No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 1085.85 1184.1 1341.88 

1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 1934.64 2109.77 2390.92 

9 ft Deep 3878.56 4230.42 4794.53 

Case 8 + 9 ft 1593.19 1737.59 1969.21 

Case 9 + 9 ft 679.97 741.54 840.38 

1m Opaque cover 3113.34 3398.97 3853.17 

1m Trans cover 2186.95 2385.53 2703.67 

90
Table D-9: Required solar collector size in West Palm Beach for a small refuge with a variable 

tide 

Small refuge in West Palm Beach Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

1 Base 172.19 201.05 233.26 

2 No cond 168.64 196.9 228.46 

3 No solar 308.23 360.1 417.88 

4 No sky 139.17 162.48 188.52 

5 No conv 63.32 73.94 85.79 

6 No evap 43.85 51.21 59.41 

7 No TOR 187.58 218.93 253.99 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 9.18 10.71 12.42 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 181.85 212.37 246.41 

11 2 TOR 183.41 214.26 248.63 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 29.99 35 40.6 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0 0 0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 91.48 106.81 123.92 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 182.89 213.59 247.83 

16 Base + LT 173.1 202.11 234.5 

17 2 TOR + LT 183.93 214.87 249.33 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 30.35 35.41 41.08 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 92.39 107.88 125.16 

20 9 ft Deep 163.06 190.34 220.83 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 7.44 8.68 10.07 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 

23 1m Opaque cover 117.61 137.3 159.3 

24 1m Trans cover 40.67 47.49 55.1 

91
Table D-10: Required solar collector size in West Palm Beach for a large refuge with a variable 

tide 

Large refuge in West Palm Beach Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

1 Base 1024.6 1196.31 1388.01 

2 No cond 1011.86 1181.42 1370.73 

3 No solar 1840.62 2150.38 2495.42 

4 No sky 827.12 965.65 1120.36 

5 No conv 373.17 435.75 505.57 

6 No evap 258.04 301.36 349.66 

7 No TOR 1116.07 1303 1511.78 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 50.35 58.74 68.13 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 1082.38 1264 1466.62 

11 2 TOR 1094 1277.99 1482.96 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 175.33 204.59 237.33 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0 0 0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 540.31 630.86 731.94 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 1088.03 1270.61 1474.3 

16 Base + LT 1029.53 1202.08 1394.7 

17 2 TOR + LT 1096.8 1281.27 1486.77 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 177.24 206.82 239.92 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 545.26 636.65 738.65 

20 9 ft Deep 966.52 1128.22 1308.91 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 38.06 44.4 51.5 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 

23 1m Opaque cover 697.43 814.16 944.55 

24 1m Trans cover 238.79 278.87 323.56 

92
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Table D-11: Required solar collector size in Miami for a small refuge with a variable tide 

Small refuge in Miami Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

Base 99.33 117.82 137.61 

No cond 96.79 114.8 134.08 

No solar 214.34 254.34 297.11 

No sky 76.98 91.28 106.6 

No conv 36.21 42.97 50.19 

No evap 26.37 31.29 36.55 

No TOR 98.11 116.37 135.92 

No solar, evap, sky, conv 8.1 9.6 11.21 

No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 

1⁄2 TOR 97.41 115.55 134.96 

2 TOR 132.89 157.7 184.21 

No evap+1/2 TOR 11.59 13.74 16.04 

No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0 0 0 

1⁄2 TOR & evap 43.23 51.25 59.86 

1⁄2 TOR + LT 98.28 116.58 136.17 

Base + LT 100 118.6 138.52 

2 TOR + LT 133.22 158.08 184.67 

No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 11.89 14.1 16.46 

1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 43.78 51.91 60.63 

9 ft Deep 90.2 106.96 124.91 

Case 8 + 9 ft 6.38 7.56 8.83 

Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 

1m Opaque cover 78.94 93.63 109.35 

1m Trans cover 22.78 27.03 31.58 

93
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Table D-12: Required solar collector size in Miami for a large refuge with a variable tide 

Large refuge in Miami Unglazed Glazing Evacuated 

Case Desc m^2 m^2 m^2 

Base 590.17 699.98 817.55 

No cond 580.74 688.79 804.48 

No solar 1279.64 1518.47 1773.78 

No sky 456.58 541.38 632.25 

No conv 212.93 252.63 295.08 

No evap 155.06 183.99 214.92 

No TOR 581.77 690.09 806.01 

No solar, evap, sky, conv 44.85 53.17 62.08 

No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 

1⁄2 TOR 577.76 685.32 800.45 

2 TOR 793.36 941.46 1099.76 

No evap+1/2 TOR 65.61 77.78 90.83 

No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0 0 0 

1⁄2 TOR & evap 254 301.16 351.71 

1⁄2 TOR + LT 582.48 690.92 806.99 

Base + LT 593.66 704.12 822.39 

2 TOR + LT 795.13 943.56 1102.21 

No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 67.25 79.72 93.1 

1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 257.01 304.74 355.89 

9 ft Deep 533.44 632.53 738.69 

Case 8 + 9 ft 33.04 39.16 45.72 

Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 

1m Opaque cover 467.6 554.56 647.68 

1m Trans cover 133.59 158.53 185.19 

94
Appendix E: Number of solar panels and flow rate requirements 

This appendix provides number of solar collector panels based on a typical size in three different 

types and totally required water flow rates to meet 95% of time in Dec. 1989 in three locations, 

two typed of refuges, and two different tidal impacts. The solar collector type consists of 

Unglazed, glazing and evacuated collectors. 

All twelve tables listed below have the same format. The first two columns show case number 

and a brief description. The next three columns present required number of solar collector panels 

based on a typical panel size for each type of collector. The last three columns present totally 

required water flow rate for each type of collector. 

Table E-1: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge 

with a constant tide 

Small Refuge in Cape Canaveral Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 209 228 403 834.6 273.9 319.6 

2 No cond 207 227 400 828.2 271.8 317.1 

3 No solar 253 277 490 1010.0 332.3 388.0 

4 No sky 194 212 374 774.7 254.2 296.5 

5 No conv 157 171 302 625.5 205.2 239.3 

6 No evap 149 163 287 594.9 195.1 227.6 

7 No TOR 89 97 171 354.9 116.3 135.6 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 124 136 240 495.7 162.7 189.9 

9 No evap, sky, conv 85 92 163 338.1 110.8 129.2 

10 1⁄2 TOR 149 162 287 594.3 194.8 227.3 

11 2 TOR 329 360 636 1313.6 432.0 504.4 

12 5 TOR 686 756 1339 2739.0 906.9 1061.0 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 89 97 172 355.8 116.6 136.0 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 63 69 121 251.3 82.4 96.1 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 119 129 228 473.6 155.2 181.1 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 149 163 287 595.7 195.3 227.8 

17 Base + LT 209 229 404 835.9 274.3 320.1 

18 2 TOR + LT 329 360 637 1314.9 432.5 505.0 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 89 98 172 357.0 117.0 136.5 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 119 130 229 474.9 155.6 181.5 

21 9 ft Deep 270 295 521 1077.8 353.7 412.7 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 186 203 359 742.3 243.7 284.4 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 143 156 276 572.3 187.6 218.9 

24 1m Opaque cover 181 198 349 722.1 237.3 277.0 

25 1m Trans cover 145 159 280 580.2 190.2 221.9 

95
Table E-2: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge 

with a constant tide 

Large Refuge in Cape Canaveral Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 1250 1366 2413 4993.7 1638.8 1912.2 

2 No cond 1244 1359 2401 4969.1 1630.7 1902.7 

3 No solar 1514 1658 2931 6046.0 1989.1 2322.5 

4 No sky 1160 1267 2238 4634.4 1520.5 1774.0 

5 No conv 936 1022 1805 3738.9 1226.4 1430.7 

6 No evap 890 972 1716 3555.7 1165.9 1360.1 

7 No TOR 530 578 1020 2115.3 693.0 808.2 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 741 810 1431 2960.8 972.1 1134.2 

9 No evap, sky, conv 505 551 973 2017.6 661.3 771.2 

10 1⁄2 TOR 889 970 1714 3552.1 1164.4 1358.2 

11 2 TOR 1970 2157 3812 7867.7 2587.6 3021.3 

12 5 TOR 4111 4531 8026 16420.7 5437.2 6360.6 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 531 579 1023 2120.9 695.1 810.6 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 374 408 721 1494.2 489.9 571.4 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 708 772 1364 2827.9 926.9 1081.0 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 891 972 1717 3559.4 1166.8 1361.0 

17 Base + LT 1252 1368 2416 5001.0 1641.2 1915.0 

18 2 TOR + LT 1972 2159 3816 7875.0 2590.1 3024.1 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 533 581 1026 2127.9 697.3 813.2 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 710 774 1367 2834.9 929.1 1083.7 

21 9 ft Deep 1614 1763 3114 6445.8 2115.2 2467.9 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 1110 1213 2143 4433.7 1455.6 1698.5 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 855 933 1647 3413.9 1119.2 1305.5 

24 1m Opaque cover 1081 1183 2090 4318.8 1419.2 1656.5 

25 1m Trans cover 868 948 1674 3467.3 1137.0 1326.3 

96
Table E-3: Number of panels and required water flow rate in West Palm Beach for a small 

refuge with a constant tide 

Small Refuge in West Palm Beach Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 41 48 87 163.9 57.5 68.6 

2 No cond 40 47 85 161.6 56.7 67.7 

3 No solar 64 74 134 253.9 89.1 106.4 

4 No sky 35 41 73 138.8 48.7 58.1 

5 No conv 19 22 40 76.2 26.7 31.9 

6 No evap 17 20 36 67.9 23.8 28.5 

7 No TOR 43 50 91 172.1 60.4 72.1 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 8 9 17 32.1 11.2 13.4 

9 No evap, sky, conv 2 2 3 6.6 2.3 2.8 

10 1⁄2 TOR 41 47 86 162.0 56.8 67.9 

11 2 TOR 46 53 96 182.3 64.0 76.4 

12 5 TOR 69 81 146 275.8 96.9 115.8 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 12 14 26 48.8 17.1 20.4 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 4 4 8 14.3 5.0 6.0 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 24 28 51 96.4 33.8 40.4 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 41 48 86 162.8 57.1 68.2 

17 Base + LT 41 48 87 164.5 57.7 68.9 

18 2 TOR + LT 46 53 97 182.7 64.1 76.5 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 12 14 26 49.2 17.2 20.6 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 24 28 51 96.9 34.0 40.6 

21 9 ft Deep 41 48 86 163.3 57.3 68.4 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 12 14 25 47.9 16.8 20.0 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 4 5 9 16.3 5.7 6.8 

24 1m Opaque cover 27 32 58 108.9 38.2 45.6 

25 1m Trans cover 16 18 33 63.1 22.1 26.4 

97
Table E-4: Number of panels and required water flow rate in West Palm Beach for a large refuge 

with a constant tide 

Large Refuge in West Palm Beach Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 245 286 517 978.0 343.0 409.6 

2 No cond 243 283 512 969.8 340.2 406.1 

3 No solar 380 444 803 1517.3 532.7 636.1 

4 No sky 207 242 437 828.1 290.4 346.7 

5 No conv 113 132 239 452.9 158.9 189.7 

6 No evap 101 118 214 403.9 141.7 169.2 

7 No TOR 257 300 542 1025.7 359.8 429.6 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 47 55 100 189.3 66.3 79.2 

9 No evap, sky, conv 10 11 20 38.4 13.5 16.1 

10 1⁄2 TOR 242 283 511 966.2 339.0 404.8 

11 2 TOR 273 319 576 1089.3 382.2 456.4 

12 5 TOR 413 484 875 1651.3 580.4 693.4 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 72 84 153 289.1 101.4 121.0 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 21 24 44 82.9 29.0 34.7 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 143 168 303 573.1 201.0 240.0 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 243 284 513 970.2 340.4 406.4 

17 Base + LT 246 287 519 981.2 344.2 410.9 

18 2 TOR + LT 273 319 577 1091.5 383.0 457.3 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 73 85 154 290.9 102.0 121.8 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 144 168 304 576.1 202.1 241.3 

21 9 ft Deep 244 284 514 972.8 341.2 407.3 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 71 83 149 282.5 99.0 118.2 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 24 28 50 94.4 33.1 39.5 

24 1m Opaque cover 162 190 343 648.6 227.5 271.6 

25 1m Trans cover 94 110 198 375.2 131.6 157.2 

98
Table E-5: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Miami for a small refuge with a 

constant tide 

Small Refuge in Miami Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 28 33 60 110.5 39.4 47.4 

2 No cond 27 32 59 108.8 38.8 46.6 

3 No solar 46 54 99 182.7 65.1 78.3 

4 No sky 23 27 50 92.6 33.0 39.6 

5 No conv 14 17 31 57.7 20.6 24.7 

6 No evap 13 15 27 50.2 17.9 21.5 

7 No TOR 23 28 50 93.2 33.2 39.9 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 7 9 16 29.7 10.6 12.7 

9 No evap, sky, conv 1 2 3 5.4 1.9 2.3 

10 1⁄2 TOR 25 29 54 99.3 35.4 42.5 

11 2 TOR 35 41 75 138.1 49.2 59.2 

12 5 TOR 59 70 127 234.7 83.8 100.8 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 8 9 17 31.9 11.4 13.7 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 3 4 7 13.2 4.7 5.7 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 15 18 33 60.4 21.5 25.9 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 25 30 54 99.8 35.6 42.8 

17 Base + LT 28 33 60 111.0 39.5 47.5 

18 2 TOR + LT 35 41 75 138.4 49.3 59.3 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 8 10 17 32.1 11.4 13.7 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 15 18 33 60.8 21.7 26.0 

21 9 ft Deep 30 35 64 119.3 42.5 51.1 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 11 13 24 44.3 15.8 19.0 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 4 4 8 14.4 5.1 6.2 

24 1m Opaque cover 21 25 45 84.0 29.9 36.0 

25 1m Trans cover 12 14 25 47.0 16.7 20.1 

99
Table E-6: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Miami for a large refuge with a 

constant tide 

Large Refuge in Miami Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 165 196 356 659.4 235.0 282.5 

2 No cond 163 194 353 653.0 232.7 279.7 

3 No solar 273 324 590 1091.8 389.3 467.9 

4 No sky 138 164 298 552.0 196.7 236.4 

5 No conv 86 102 186 343.6 122.5 147.2 

6 No evap 75 89 161 298.7 106.5 128.0 

7 No TOR 139 165 300 554.4 197.6 237.5 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 44 52 95 175.6 62.5 75.1 

9 No evap, sky, conv 8 9 17 31.0 11.0 13.3 

10 1⁄2 TOR 148 176 320 591.6 210.8 253.4 

11 2 TOR 207 245 446 825.3 294.2 353.7 

12 5 TOR 352 418 761 1405.7 501.8 603.4 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 47 56 102 189.0 67.4 81.0 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 19 23 41 76.7 27.3 32.8 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 90 107 194 359.6 128.1 154.0 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 149 177 321 594.6 211.9 254.7 

17 Base + LT 166 197 358 661.8 235.9 283.5 

18 2 TOR + LT 207 246 447 827.0 294.8 354.4 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 48 56 103 190.1 67.7 81.4 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 90 107 195 361.3 128.8 154.8 

21 9 ft Deep 178 211 384 711.2 253.4 304.6 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 66 78 142 262.1 93.4 112.2 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 21 25 45 83.8 29.9 35.9 

24 1m Opaque cover 125 149 270 500.5 178.3 214.3 

25 1m Trans cover 70 83 151 278.9 99.4 119.5 

100
Table E-7: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Cape Canaveral for a small refuge 

with a variable tide 

Small Refuge in Cape Canaveral Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 146 160 181 585.1 191.8 143.6 

2 No cond 145 158 179 577.3 189.2 141.7 

3 No solar 190 208 236 759.9 249.5 186.8 

4 No sky 132 144 163 525.4 172.2 128.9 

5 No conv 94 103 116 375.6 123.1 92.1 

6 No evap 87 94 107 345.8 113.3 84.8 

7 No TOR 89 97 110 354.8 116.2 87.0 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 60 66 75 241.2 79.0 59.2 

9 No evap, sky, conv 27 30 33 108.1 35.4 26.5 

10 1⁄2 TOR 103 113 128 412.8 135.2 101.2 

11 2 TOR 320 350 398 1279.3 420.5 315.0 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 41 45 51 164.7 53.9 40.4 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 17 18 20 66.0 21.6 16.2 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 73 80 90 291.9 95.6 71.6 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 104 113 128 414.1 135.7 101.6 

16 Base + LT 147 160 182 586.4 192.2 143.9 

17 2 TOR + LT 321 351 398 1280.7 420.9 315.4 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 42 45 51 166.0 54.4 40.7 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 73 80 91 293.2 96.1 71.9 

20 9 ft Deep 147 160 181 585.8 191.9 143.7 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 61 66 75 243.1 79.7 59.6 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 26 29 33 105.1 34.4 25.8 

23 1m Opaque cover 118 128 146 470.0 154.1 115.4 

24 1m Trans cover 83 90 102 331.0 108.5 81.2 

101
Table E-8: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Cape Canaveral for a large refuge 

with a variable tide 

Large Refuge in Cape Canaveral Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 874 954 1081 3491.7 1144.4 856.7 

2 No cond 867 946 1072 3464.0 1135.3 849.9 

3 No solar 1137 1242 1409 4540.6 1490.5 1116.3 

4 No sky 784 856 970 3133.4 1026.9 768.8 

5 No conv 560 610 692 2235.1 732.4 548.3 

6 No evap 515 562 636 2056.0 673.7 504.4 

7 No TOR 529 576 653 2111.4 691.6 517.7 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 358 390 442 1428.7 468.2 350.5 

9 No evap, sky, conv 159 174 197 635.5 208.2 155.9 

10 1⁄2 TOR 616 671 761 2458.5 805.4 602.9 

11 2 TOR 1917 2097 2379 7655.8 2516.3 1885.2 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 243 265 300 969.7 317.6 237.8 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 95 103 117 377.8 123.7 92.6 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 434 473 536 1733.3 567.8 425.0 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 617 673 763 2465.8 807.8 604.7 

16 Base + LT 876 956 1083 3498.9 1146.7 858.5 

17 2 TOR + LT 1919 2099 2381 7663.2 2518.7 1887.1 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 245 267 302 976.8 320.0 239.5 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 436 475 538 1740.4 570.1 426.8 

20 9 ft Deep 874 953 1080 3489.2 1143.2 855.8 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 359 391 444 1433.3 469.6 351.5 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 153 167 189 611.7 200.4 150.0 

23 1m Opaque cover 701 766 868 2800.8 918.5 687.8 

24 1m Trans cover 493 537 609 1967.4 644.7 482.6 

102
Table E-9: Number of panels and required water flow rate in West Palm Beach for a small 

refuge with a variable tide 

Small Refuge in West Palm Beach Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 39 45 82 154.9 54.3 64.9 

2 No cond 38 44 80 151.7 53.2 63.5 

3 No solar 69 81 147 277.3 97.3 116.2 

4 No sky 31 37 66 125.2 43.9 52.4 

5 No conv 14 17 30 57.0 20.0 23.9 

6 No evap 10 12 21 39.4 13.8 16.5 

7 No TOR 42 49 89 168.7 59.2 70.6 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 2 2 4 8.3 2.9 3.5 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 41 48 86 163.6 57.4 68.5 

11 2 TOR 41 48 87 165.0 57.9 69.1 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 7 8 14 27.0 9.5 11.3 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 21 24 43 82.3 28.9 34.5 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 41 48 87 164.5 57.7 68.9 

16 Base + LT 39 46 82 155.7 54.6 65.2 

17 2 TOR + LT 41 48 87 165.5 58.1 69.3 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 7 8 14 27.3 9.6 11.4 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 21 24 44 83.1 29.2 34.8 

20 9 ft Deep 37 43 77 146.7 51.4 61.4 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 2 2 4 6.7 2.3 2.8 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

23 1m Opaque cover 26 31 56 105.8 37.1 44.3 

24 1m Trans cover 9 11 19 36.6 12.8 15.3 

103
Table E-10: Number of panels and required water flow rate in West Palm Beach for a large 

refuge with a variable tide 

Large Refuge in West Palm Beach Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 231 269 487 921.7 323.3 386.0 

2 No cond 228 266 481 910.3 319.3 381.2 

3 No solar 415 484 876 1655.8 581.1 693.9 

4 No sky 186 217 393 744.1 261.0 311.5 

5 No conv 84 98 177 335.7 117.8 140.6 

6 No evap 58 68 123 232.1 81.4 97.2 

7 No TOR 251 293 530 1004.0 352.1 420.4 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 11 13 24 45.3 15.9 18.9 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 244 285 515 973.7 341.6 407.8 

11 2 TOR 246 288 520 984.2 345.4 412.4 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 39 46 83 157.7 55.3 66.0 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 122 142 257 486.1 170.5 203.5 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 245 286 517 978.8 343.4 410.0 

16 Base + LT 232 271 489 926.2 324.9 387.8 

17 2 TOR + LT 247 289 522 986.7 346.3 413.4 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 40 47 84 159.4 55.9 66.7 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 123 143 259 490.5 172.0 205.4 

20 9 ft Deep 218 254 459 869.5 304.9 364.0 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 9 10 18 34.2 12.0 14.3 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

23 1m Opaque cover 157 183 331 627.4 220.0 262.7 

24 1m Trans cover 54 63 114 214.8 75.4 90.0 

104
Table E-11: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Miami for a small refuge with a 

variable tide 

Small Refuge in Miami Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 22 27 48 89.4 31.8 38.3 

2 No cond 22 26 47 87.1 31.0 37.3 

3 No solar 48 57 104 192.8 68.7 82.6 

4 No sky 17 21 37 69.3 24.7 29.6 

5 No conv 8 10 18 32.6 11.6 14.0 

6 No evap 6 7 13 23.7 8.5 10.2 

7 No TOR 22 26 48 88.3 31.4 37.8 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 2 2 4 7.3 2.6 3.1 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 22 26 47 87.6 31.2 37.5 

11 2 TOR 30 36 65 119.5 42.6 51.2 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 3 3 6 10.4 3.7 4.5 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 10 12 21 38.9 13.8 16.6 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 22 26 48 88.4 31.5 37.9 

16 Base + LT 23 27 49 90.0 32.1 38.5 

17 2 TOR + LT 30 36 65 119.8 42.7 51.4 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 3 3 6 10.7 3.8 4.6 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 10 12 21 39.4 14.0 16.9 

20 9 ft Deep 20 24 44 81.1 28.9 34.7 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 1 2 3 5.7 2.0 2.5 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

23 1m Opaque cover 18 21 38 71.0 25.3 30.4 

24 1m Trans cover 5 6 11 20.5 7.3 8.8 

105
Table E-12: Number of panels and required water flow rate in Miami for a large refuge with a 

variable tide 

Large Refuge in Miami Number of panels Flow rate (gpm) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evacuated Unglazed Glazed Evacuated 

1 Base 133 158 287 530.9 189.2 227.3 

2 No cond 131 155 282 522.4 186.1 223.7 

3 No solar 288 342 622 1151.2 410.4 493.2 

4 No sky 103 122 222 410.7 146.3 175.8 

5 No conv 48 57 104 191.6 68.3 82.1 

6 No evap 35 41 75 139.5 49.7 59.8 

7 No TOR 131 155 283 523.4 186.5 224.1 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 10 12 22 40.3 14.4 17.3 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 130 154 281 519.8 185.2 222.6 

11 2 TOR 179 212 386 713.7 254.4 305.8 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 15 18 32 59.0 21.0 25.3 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 TOR 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 57 68 123 228.5 81.4 97.8 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 131 156 283 524.0 186.7 224.4 

16 Base + LT 134 159 289 534.1 190.3 228.7 

17 2 TOR + LT 179 213 387 715.3 255.0 306.5 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 15 18 33 60.5 21.5 25.9 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 58 69 125 231.2 82.4 99.0 

20 9 ft Deep 120 142 259 479.9 170.9 205.4 

21 Case 8 + 9 ft 7 9 16 29.7 10.6 12.7 

22 Case 9 + 9 ft 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

23 1m Opaque cover 105 125 227 420.7 149.9 180.1 

24 1m Trans cover 30 36 65 120.2 42.8 51.5 

106
Appendix F: Initial cost of solar panels and water pumps 

This appendix provides initial costs for solar collectors, water pumps, and gas fired boilers. It 

involves three types of solar collectors, two types of tidal impact. The initial costs of gas fired 

boilers are included in the Cape Canaveral site only, because they are unnecessary in both West 

Palm Beach and Miami. 

All twelve tables listed below have the same format. The first two columns show case number 

and a brief description. The next three columns present initial investment for three different solar 

collectors. Columns 6-8 present initial costs of water pumps and associated pipe costs 

corresponding to the water flow requirement for each type of solar collector. Column 9 presents 

initial costs of backup gas boilers, including equipment and installation costs. Columns 10-12 are 

values of total initial cost by adding costs of collectors, water pumps and boilers together. 

107
Table F-1: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with a constant tide 

Small refuge in Cape Canaveral Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 149091 402016 1309454 9360 3072 3584 10456 168907 2 No cond 147946 398918 1299360 9288 3048 3557 10419 167653 3 No solar 180422 487705 1589648 11327 3726 4351 10689 202438 4 No sky 138394 373064 1215058 8688 2851 3326 10132 157215 5 No conv 111733 301127 980644 7015 2301 2684 8538 127285 6 No evap 106272 286328 932380 6672 2188 2552 8771 121715 7 No TOR 63394 170648 555534 3980 1304 1521 8051 75424 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 88554 238881 778121 5559 1825 2130 7700 101813 9 No evap, sky, conv 60403 162660 529579 3792 1243 1450 7527 71722 

10 1⁄2 TOR 106174 285975 931172 6666 2185 2549 9258 122098 11 2 TOR 234657 634126 2066827 14732 4845 5657 14059 263448 12 5 TOR 489297 1331185 4347173 30718 10171 11899 26895 546910 13 No evap+1/2 TOR 63561 171140 557163 3990 1308 1525 7056 74608 14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

44898 120944 393800 2819 924 1078 5239 52955 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 84607 227850 741855 5312 1741 2031 8151 98070 16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 106409 286610 933246 6680 2190 2554 9262 122351 17 Base + LT 149328 402655 1311540 9375 3077 3590 10460 169164 18 2 TOR + LT 234897 634776 2068958 14747 4850 5663 14063 263706 19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 63780 171727 559089 4004 1312 1530 7060 74844 20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 84832 228456 743826 5326 1746 2036 8155 98313 21 9 ft Deep 192534 519116 1690801 12087 3966 4628 11836 216458 22 Case 8 + 9ft 132612 357730 1165233 8325 2733 3189 10124 151062 23 Case 9 + 9ft 102238 275404 896741 6418 2104 2454 9870 118526 24 1m Opaque cover 128999 348301 1134846 8099 2661 3106 8371 145468 25 1m Trans cover 103641 279240 909308 6507 2134 2489 8513 118661 

108
Table F-2: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral with a constant tide 

Large refuge in Cape Canaveral Initial investment of collector ($) Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Tota

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 892067 2405390 7834874 56004 18379 21445 43276 991347 2 No cond 887677 2393510 7796135 55728 18288 21339 43169 986574 3 No solar 1080064 2919544 9516025 67806 22308 26047 44302 1192172 4 No sky 827891 2231699 7268505 51975 17052 19895 41816 921681 5 No conv 667917 1800073 5862078 41932 13754 16045 34321 744170 6 No evap 635183 1711341 5572679 39877 13076 15253 35450 710510 7 No TOR 377869 1017158 3311281 23723 7772 9063 31918 433509 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 528908 1426754 4647397 33205 10902 12721 30213 592325 9 No evap, sky, conv 360431 970579 3159984 22628 7416 8649 29292 412351 

10 1⁄2 TOR 634551 1709136 5565170 39837 13059 15233 37771 712159 11 2 TOR 1405475 3798059 12379157 88235 29020 33883 57954 1551664 12 5 TOR 2933391 7980575 26061685 184158 60978 71334 84056 3201604 13 No evap+1/2 TOR 378878 1020200 3321444 23786 7795 9091 26864 429528 14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

266924 719029 2341176 16757 5494 6408 17207 300888 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 505178 1360430 4429401 31715 10395 12124 32417 569310 16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 635851 1712650 5576609 39919 13086 15264 37788 713558 17 Base + LT 893374 2408924 7846393 56086 18406 21477 43292 992752 18 2 TOR + LT 1406796 3801653 12390893 88318 29048 33916 57967 1553081 19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 380124 1023489 3332097 23864 7820 9120 26882 430870 20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 506420 1363782 4440328 31793 10420 12154 32435 570648 21 9 ft Deep 1151473 3104618 10111938 72289 23722 27678 49192 1272954 22 Case 8 + 9ft 792042 2136570 6959485 49724 16325 19049 41821 883587 23 Case 9 + 9ft 609852 1642796 5349054 38286 12552 14641 40594 688732 24 1m Opaque cover 771513 2083093 6787178 48435 15916 18577 33504 853453 25 1m Trans cover 619392 1668808 5434211 38885 12751 14874 34198 692475 

109
Table F-3: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in West Palm Beach with a constant tide 

Small refuge in West Palm Beach Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 29274 84376 281231 1838 645 770 0 31112 2 No cond 28874 83214 277334 1813 636 759 0 30687 3 No solar 45350 130804 436059 2847 999 1194 0 48197 4 No sky 24803 71473 238197 1557 546 652 0 26361 5 No conv 13609 39217 130697 854 300 358 0 14463 6 No evap 12130 34973 116580 762 267 319 0 12892 7 No TOR 30750 88593 295233 1930 677 808 0 32680 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 5731 16505 54997 360 126 151 0 6091 9 No evap, sky, conv 1181 3403 11348 74 26 31 0 1255 

10 1⁄2 TOR 28942 83432 278086 1817 637 761 0 30759 11 2 TOR 32562 93880 312916 2044 717 856 0 34607 12 5 TOR 49266 142288 474525 3093 1087 1299 0 52359 13 No evap+1/2 TOR 8720 25124 83721 547 192 229 0 9267 14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

2558 7370 24553 161 56 67 0 2719 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 17215 49621 165379 1081 379 453 0 18296 16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 29083 83817 279351 1826 640 765 0 30909 17 Base + LT 29379 84682 282233 1844 647 773 0 31223 18 2 TOR + LT 32636 94094 313634 2049 719 858 0 34685 19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 8781 25299 84313 551 193 231 0 9332 20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 17311 49903 166314 1087 381 455 0 18398 21 9 ft Deep 29170 84059 280137 1831 642 767 0 31001 22 Case 8 + 9ft 8556 24640 82103 537 188 225 0 9093 23 Case 9 + 9ft 2909 8377 27926 183 64 76 0 3091 24 1m Opaque cover 19454 56067 186857 1221 428 511 0 20675 25 1m Trans cover 11275 32506 108343 708 248 297 0 11983 

110
Table F-4: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in West Palm Beach with a constant tide 

Large refuge in West Palm Beach Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 174702 503520 1678189 10968 3847 4593 0 185670 2 No cond 173243 499272 1663992 10876 3815 4555 0 184119 3 No solar 271052 781820 2606342 17017 5974 7134 0 288069 4 No sky 147932 426275 1420646 9287 3257 3888 0 157219 5 No conv 80911 233169 777061 5080 1782 2127 0 85990 6 No evap 72152 208037 693420 4530 1590 1898 0 76682 7 No TOR 183228 528108 1760166 11503 4035 4818 0 194731 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 33809 97374 324470 2123 744 888 0 35932 9 No evap, sky, conv 6859 19757 65833 431 151 180 0 7290 

10 1⁄2 TOR 172610 497582 1658500 10836 3802 4540 0 183446 11 2 TOR 194583 560999 1869899 12216 4286 5118 0 206799 12 5 TOR 294980 851920 2841132 18519 6509 7777 0 313499 13 No evap+1/2 TOR 51637 148769 495751 3242 1137 1357 0 54878 14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

14804 42632 142045 929 326 389 0 15734 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 102375 295086 983504 6427 2255 2692 0 108802 16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 173311 499601 1665234 10880 3817 4558 0 184191 17 Base + LT 175275 505186 1683749 11004 3860 4609 0 186278 18 2 TOR + LT 194993 562185 1873864 12242 4296 5129 0 207235 19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 51974 149741 498998 3263 1144 1366 0 55237 20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 102908 296633 988642 6461 2267 2706 0 109369 21 9 ft Deep 173786 500787 1668960 10910 3826 4568 0 184697 22 Case 8 + 9ft 50471 145366 484369 3169 1111 1326 0 53640 23 Case 9 + 9ft 16869 48598 161939 1059 371 443 0 17928 24 1m Opaque cover 115869 333954 1113004 7274 2552 3046 0 123144 25 1m Trans cover 67024 193230 644040 4208 1476 1763 0 71232 

111
Table F-5: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in Miami with a constant tide 

Small refuge in Miami Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 19744 57824 194012 1240 442 531 0 20984 2 No cond 19442 56936 191038 1221 435 523 0 20663 3 No solar 32636 95605 320812 2049 730 878 0 34685 4 No sky 16535 48408 162417 1038 370 445 0 17573 5 No conv 10316 30217 101404 648 231 278 0 10963 6 No evap 8974 26282 88187 563 201 241 0 9537 7 No TOR 16652 48761 163602 1045 373 448 0 17698 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 5305 15525 52081 333 119 143 0 5638 9 No evap, sky, conv 956 2796 9388 60 21 26 0 1016 

10 1⁄2 TOR 17740 51938 174267 1114 397 477 0 18854 11 2 TOR 24664 72246 242435 1548 552 664 0 26212 12 5 TOR 41935 122990 412873 2633 940 1130 0 44567 13 No evap+1/2 TOR 5700 16687 55977 358 128 153 0 6058 14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

2359 6906 23163 148 53 63 0 2507 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 10798 31617 106087 678 242 290 0 11476 16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 17837 52223 175212 1120 399 480 0 18957 17 Base + LT 19822 58050 194787 1244 444 533 0 21066 18 2 TOR + LT 24717 72405 242971 1552 553 665 0 26268 19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 5736 16790 56330 360 128 154 0 6096 20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 10854 31784 106645 681 243 292 0 11536 21 9 ft Deep 21305 62378 209279 1338 477 573 0 22642 22 Case 8 + 9ft 7920 23180 77751 497 177 213 0 8417 23 Case 9 + 9ft 2568 7517 25214 161 57 69 0 2729 24 1m Opaque cover 15002 43913 147332 942 336 403 0 15944 25 1m Trans cover 8389 24565 82422 527 188 226 0 8916 

112
Table F-6: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in Miami with a constant tide 

Large refuge in Miami Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 117791 344954 1157451 7395 2636 3168 0 125186 2 No cond 116654 341614 1146228 7323 2610 3137 0 123977 3 No solar 195046 571371 1917308 12245 4366 5248 0 207291 4 No sky 98603 288649 968430 6190 2205 2651 0 104793 5 No conv 61382 179803 603330 3854 1374 1651 0 65235 6 No evap 53363 156289 524418 3350 1194 1435 0 56713 7 No TOR 99034 289985 972964 6217 2216 2663 0 105251 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 31365 91790 307915 1969 701 843 0 33334 9 No evap, sky, conv 5538 16207 54371 348 124 149 0 5886 

10 1⁄2 TOR 105685 309417 1038136 6635 2364 2842 0 112320 11 2 TOR 147427 431860 1449187 9255 3300 3967 0 156683 12 5 TOR 251107 736482 2472352 15764 5627 6767 0 266872 13 No evap+1/2 TOR 33763 98858 331682 2120 755 908 0 35882 14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

13710 40114 134560 861 306 368 0 14571 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 64234 188093 631085 4033 1437 1727 0 68267 16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 106219 310984 1043400 6668 2376 2856 0 112887 17 Base + LT 118221 346215 1161690 7422 2645 3180 0 125642 18 2 TOR + LT 147726 432737 1452149 9274 3306 3975 0 157000 19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 33967 99441 333619 2132 760 913 0 36099 20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 64548 189013 634173 4052 1444 1736 0 68600 21 9 ft Deep 127040 371942 1247906 7976 2842 3416 0 135016 22 Case 8 + 9ft 46823 137028 459656 2940 1047 1258 0 49763 23 Case 9 + 9ft 14975 43830 147036 940 335 402 0 15915 24 1m Opaque cover 89401 261716 878032 5613 2000 2403 0 95014 25 1m Trans cover 49829 145917 489587 3128 1115 1340 0 52957 

113
Table F-7: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with a variable tide 

Small refuge in Cape Canaveral Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 104519 281461 916383 6562 2151 1610 12191 123271 2 No cond 103133 277725 904215 6475 2122 1589 12160 121768 3 No solar 135754 366139 1192578 8523 2798 2095 12191 156467 4 No sky 93859 252740 822841 5892 1931 1446 11918 111670 5 No conv 67105 180676 588199 4213 1381 1033 11380 82697 6 No evap 61766 166309 541428 3878 1271 951 11512 77156 7 No TOR 63384 170593 555329 3979 1303 976 8057 75420 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 43090 116025 377735 2705 887 664 10422 56217 9 No evap, sky, conv 19306 51977 169219 1212 397 297 10422 30939 

10 1⁄2 TOR 73739 198489 646171 4629 1517 1135 8120 86488 11 2 TOR 228536 617169 2010941 14347 4716 3533 32642 275525 12 No evap+1/2 TOR 29416 79172 257725 1847 605 453 6442 37705 13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

11791 31724 103250 740 242 181 4709 17240 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 52144 140356 456887 3274 1072 803 7230 62649 15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 73978 199136 648267 4644 1522 1139 8124 86747 16 Base + LT 104758 282108 918491 6577 2156 1614 12195 123530 17 2 TOR + LT 228782 617835 2013118 14363 4721 3537 32645 275790 18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 29654 79811 259810 1862 610 456 6446 37962 19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 52381 140990 458961 3288 1077 806 7235 62904 20 9 ft Deep 104654 281739 917204 6570 2153 1611 12200 123424 21 Case 8 + 9ft 43436 116922 380629 2727 893 669 10431 56594 22 Case 9 + 9ft 18775 50538 164514 1179 386 289 10431 30385 23 1m Opaque cover 83955 226227 736671 5271 1729 1294 11172 100397 24 1m Trans cover 59132 159205 518299 3712 1216 911 11309 74153 

114
Table F-8: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral with a variable tide 

Large refuge in Cape Canaveral Initial investment of collector Initial investment of water Initial Total 

($) pumps ($) cost ($) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 623750 1679700 5468734 39159 12834 9608 50704 713613 2 No cond 618805 1666357 5425256 38848 12732 9532 50629 708283 3 No solar 811137 2187686 7125662 50923 16716 12519 50704 912764 4 No sky 559746 1507311 4907401 35141 11517 8622 49580 644467 5 No conv 399280 1075022 3499755 25067 8214 6149 47314 471661 6 No evap 367277 988893 3219414 23058 7556 5656 47876 438210 7 No TOR 377178 1015139 3304536 23679 7756 5806 31930 432787 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 255218 687218 2237311 16023 5251 3931 43124 314365 9 No evap, sky, conv 113528 305649 995057 7127 2335 1748 43124 163780 

10 1⁄2 TOR 439187 1182202 3848528 27572 9033 6762 32246 499004 11 2 TOR 1367629 3693299 1203394 

0 

85859 28220 21143 79914 1533402 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 173224 466230 1517674 10875 3562 2666 23630 207729 13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 67498 181608 591116 4238 1388 1039 14193 85928 

TOR 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 309632 833408 2712941 19439 6368 4766 27755 356825 15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 440482 1185696 3859910 27653 9060 6782 32263 500399 16 Base + LT 625036 1683171 5480048 39240 12861 9628 50718 714994 17 2 TOR + LT 1368943 3696865 1204557 

3 

85942 28247 21163 79909 1534794 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 174503 469677 1528897 10955 3589 2686 23649 209108 19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 310909 836847 2724141 19519 6394 4786 27774 358202 20 9 ft Deep 623310 1678010 5462741 39131 12821 9598 50720 713161 21 Case 8 + 9ft 256036 689221 2243658 16074 5266 3942 43142 315252 22 Case 9 + 9ft 109276 294134 957503 6860 2247 1682 43142 159278 23 1m Opaque cover 500334 1348213 4390184 31411 10301 7713 46421 578166 24 1m Trans cover 351457 946229 3080479 22064 7230 5412 47011 420532 

115
Table F-9: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in West Palm Beach with a variable tide 

Small refuge in West Palm Beach Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 27524 79747 265769 1737 609 727 0 29261 2 No cond 26956 78101 260300 1701 597 712 0 28658 3 No solar 49269 142835 476120 3110 1091 1303 0 52379 4 No sky 22246 64448 214794 1404 492 588 0 23650 5 No conv 10121 29329 97747 639 224 268 0 10760 6 No evap 7009 20313 67690 442 155 185 0 7452 7 No TOR 29984 86839 289388 1893 664 792 0 31876 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 1467 4248 14151 93 32 39 0 1560 9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 29068 84237 280752 1835 644 768 0 30903 11 2 TOR 29317 84987 283281 1850 649 775 0 31168 12 No evap+1/2 TOR 4794 13883 46258 303 106 127 0 5096 13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 14623 42367 141191 923 324 386 0 15546 15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 29234 84721 282370 1845 647 773 0 31079 16 Base + LT 27669 80168 267182 1746 613 731 0 29416 17 2 TOR + LT 29400 85229 284079 1856 651 778 0 31256 18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 4851 14045 46805 306 107 128 0 5158 19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 14768 42791 142603 932 327 390 0 15700 20 9 ft Deep 26064 75499 251607 1645 577 689 0 27710 21 Case 8 + 9ft 1189 3443 11473 75 26 31 0 1264 22 Case 9 + 9ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1m Opaque cover 18799 54461 181502 1187 416 497 0 19986 24 1m Trans cover 6501 18837 62779 410 144 172 0 6911 

116
Table F-10: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in West Palm Beach with a variable tid

Large refuge in West Palm Beach Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 164660 474520 1581456 10337 3626 4329 0 174997 2 No cond 162612 468614 1561768 10209 3581 4275 0 172821 3 No solar 295800 852956 2843205 18570 6517 7782 0 314370 4 No sky 132924 383028 1276504 8345 2927 3494 0 141268 5 No conv 59971 172842 576031 3765 1321 1577 0 63736 6 No evap 41469 119535 398392 2603 913 1090 0 44072 7 No TOR 179360 516839 1722476 11260 3949 4715 0 190620 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 8092 23299 77625 508 178 212 0 8600 9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 173946 501370 1671022 10920 3831 4574 0 184866 11 2 TOR 175813 506919 1689639 11037 3873 4625 0 186850 12 No evap+1/2 TOR 28177 81151 270407 1769 620 740 0 29946 13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 86831 250233 833950 5451 1912 2283 0 92283 15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 174854 503992 1679772 10977 3851 4598 0 185831 16 Base + LT 165452 476809 1589079 10387 3643 4350 0 175839 17 2 TOR + LT 176263 508220 1693980 11066 3883 4637 0 187329 18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 28484 82036 273358 1788 627 748 0 30272 19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 87627 252529 841595 5501 1930 2304 0 93128 20 9 ft Deep 155326 447512 1491332 9751 3419 4082 0 165077 21 Case 8 + 9ft 6116 17611 58678 384 135 161 0 6500 22 Case 9 + 9ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1m Opaque cover 112082 322939 1076191 7036 2468 2946 0 119118 24 1m Trans cover 38375 110615 368654 2409 845 1009 0 40784 

117
Table F-11: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a small refuge in Miami with a variable tide 

Small refuge in Miami Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 15963 46734 156789 1002 357 429 0 16965 2 No cond 15555 45536 152767 977 348 418 0 16531 3 No solar 34446 100885 338518 2163 771 927 0 36608 4 No sky 12371 36207 121457 777 277 332 0 13148 5 No conv 5819 17044 57185 365 130 157 0 6185 6 No evap 4238 12411 41644 266 95 114 0 4504 7 No TOR 15767 46159 154863 990 353 424 0 16757 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 1302 3808 12772 82 29 35 0 1383 9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 15654 45833 153769 983 350 421 0 16637 11 2 TOR 21356 62552 209883 1341 478 574 0 22697 12 No evap+1/2 TOR 1863 5450 18275 117 42 50 0 1980 13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 6947 20328 68203 436 155 187 0 7383 15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 15794 46242 155148 992 353 425 0 16786 16 Base + LT 16071 47043 157825 1009 359 432 0 17080 17 2 TOR + LT 21409 62703 210407 1344 479 576 0 22753 18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 1911 5593 18754 120 43 51 0 2031 19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 7036 20590 69080 442 157 189 0 7477 20 9 ft Deep 14496 42426 142319 910 324 390 0 15406 21 Case 8 + 9ft 1025 2999 10061 64 23 28 0 1090 22 Case 9 + 9ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1m Opaque cover 12686 37139 124590 796 284 341 0 13483 24 1m Trans cover 3661 10722 35981 230 82 98 0 3891 

118
Table F-12: Initial costs of solar water heating systems for a large refuge in Miami with a variable tide 

Large refuge in Miami Initial investment of collector 

($) 

Initial investment of water 

pumps ($) 

Initial 

cost ($) 

Total 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed 

1 Base 94844 277649 931491 5954 2121 2550 0 100798 2 No cond 93329 273211 916600 5859 2088 2509 0 99188 3 No solar 205646 602306 2020991 12910 4602 5532 0 218557 4 No sky 73375 214740 720366 4606 1641 1972 0 77982 5 No conv 34219 100207 336205 2148 766 920 0 36368 6 No evap 24919 72980 244873 1564 558 670 0 26484 7 No TOR 93494 273727 918343 5870 2091 2514 0 99364 8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 7208 21090 70732 452 161 194 0 7660 9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 1⁄2 TOR 92850 271835 912008 5829 2077 2496 0 98679 11 2 TOR 127498 373433 1253033 8004 2853 3430 0 135502 12 No evap+1/2 TOR 10544 30852 103489 662 236 283 0 11206 13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 1⁄2 

TOR 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 40819 119456 400728 2563 913 1097 0 43382 15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 93608 274056 919460 5877 2094 2517 0 99485 16 Base + LT 95405 279292 937006 5990 2134 2565 0 101395 17 2 TOR + LT 127783 374266 1255824 8022 2860 3437 0 135805 18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 10808 31621 106075 678 242 290 0 11486 19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 41303 120876 405490 2593 924 1110 0 43896 20 9 ft Deep 85727 250895 841641 5382 1917 2304 0 91109 21 Case 8 + 9ft 5310 15533 52092 333 119 143 0 5643 22 Case 9 + 9ft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 1m Opaque cover 75146 219968 737947 4718 1681 2020 0 79864 24 1m Trans cover 21469 62881 211000 1348 480 578 0 22817 

119
Appendix G: Annual O&M and lifetime costs 

This appendix provides annual operating and maintenance costs and lifetime costs. The annual 

O&M costs consist of solar collectors systems, water pumps, and backup gas boilers. The 

lifetime costs are presented as present values. 

The twelve tables follow the same format for two types of refuges at three different locations 

assuming two different water turn over (tidal) impact. The first column identifies the case 

number. The second column is a brief description of the case. Columns 3-6 provide annual O&M 

costs of solar panels and water pumps for three different types of solar collectors. The six 

column provides O&M cost for backup gas boilers. Since there is no need of backup gas boilers 

in West Palm Beach and Miami, the amount of cost is 0. The last three columns provide lifetime 

costs using three different types of solar collectors. 

Table G-1: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with a constant 

tide 

Small refuge in Cape Canaveral O&M cost of solar panels 

& pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost ($) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 17661 41105 131999 358 375587 891123 2841627 

2 No cond 17525 40788 130982 356 372747 884299 2819763 

3 No solar 21372 49866 160244 436 452572 1079077 3447671 

4 No sky 16394 38144 122484 333 349064 827376 2637207 

5 No conv 13236 30789 98854 268 282174 668193 2128786 

6 No evap 12589 29276 93988 255 269032 636006 2024667 

7 No TOR 7509 17448 56000 152 163300 381874 1209168 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 10490 24425 78438 213 226574 532997 1692073 

9 No evap, sky, conv 7155 16631 53384 145 158453 366851 1155527 

10 1⁄2 TOR 12577 29240 93867 255 269278 635720 2022543 

11 2 TOR 27797 64837 208346 566 588773 1403203 4482753 

12 5 TOR 57961 136109 438216 1196 1225429 2943123 9425978 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 7529 17498 56165 152 164715 383958 1213696 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

5319 12366 39697 108 118194 273179 859672 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 10022 23297 74782 203 215353 507282 1612113 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 12605 29305 94076 255 269856 637114 2027031 

17 Base + LT 17689 41170 132209 359 376173 892526 2846138 

18 2 TOR + LT 27825 64904 208561 567 589363 1404632 4487363 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 7555 17558 56359 153 165255 385248 1217863 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 10049 23359 74981 203 215908 508615 1616379 

21 9 ft Deep 22807 53078 170441 463 483361 1149024 3667515 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 15709 36577 117461 319 336898 795776 2531473 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 12111 28159 90396 245 263250 616174 1951709 

24 1m Opaque cover 15281 35613 114398 311 326303 773371 2464022 

25 1m Trans cover 12277 28551 91663 249 265331 623221 1977525 

120
Table G-2: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral with a constant 

tide 

Large refuge in Cape Canaveral O&M cost of solar panels & 

pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost (Million $) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 105672 245942 789792 2145 2.23 5.31 16.98 

2 No cond 105152 244728 785887 2134 2.22 5.29 16.90 

3 No solar 127941 298513 959260 2608 2.69 6.44 20.62 

4 No sky 98070 228183 732700 1989 2.07 4.93 15.76 

5 No conv 79120 184051 590925 1604 1.67 3.98 12.71 

6 No evap 75242 174978 561752 1525 1.59 3.78 12.08 

7 No TOR 44761 104001 333793 905 0.96 2.26 7.19 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 62653 145880 468480 1272 1.34 3.17 10.09 

9 No evap, sky, conv 42696 99238 318541 864 0.93 2.17 6.89 

10 1⁄2 TOR 75167 174753 560995 1522 1.59 3.78 12.07 

11 2 TOR 166489 388338 1247877 3393 3.50 8.38 26.82 

12 5 TOR 347481 815985 2627141 7168 7.27 17.57 56.43 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 44881 104312 334817 908 0.97 2.27 7.22 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

31619 73518 236002 640 0.69 1.61 5.11 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 59842 139099 446505 1211 1.27 3.01 9.61 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 75321 175112 562149 1525 1.59 3.79 12.09 

17 Base + LT 105827 246304 790953 2148 2.23 5.32 17.01 

18 2 TOR + LT 166645 388705 1249060 3396 3.50 8.39 26.85 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 45028 104648 335891 911 0.97 2.28 7.24 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 59989 139442 447606 1214 1.27 3.02 9.63 

21 9 ft Deep 136400 317436 1019331 2767 2.87 6.85 21.91 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 93823 218457 701549 1905 1.99 4.73 15.10 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 72241 167970 539210 1463 1.55 3.66 11.62 

24 1m Opaque cover 91391 212989 684180 1859 1.91 4.59 14.70 

25 1m Trans cover 73371 170630 547794 1487 1.55 3.69 11.78 

121
Table G-3: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in West Palm Beach with a 

constant tide 

Small refuge in West Palm Beach O&M cost of solar panels 

& pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost ($) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 3468 8627 28349 0 70887 183974 607165 

2 No cond 3420 8508 27957 0 69918 181440 598753 

3 No solar 5372 13374 43957 0 109813 285206 941435 

4 No sky 2938 7308 24011 0 60061 155840 514257 

5 No conv 1612 4010 13175 0 32953 85509 282170 

6 No evap 1437 3576 11752 0 29373 76255 251692 

7 No TOR 3643 9058 29761 0 74459 193167 637397 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 679 1688 5544 0 15877 37987 120737 

9 No evap, sky, conv 140 348 1144 0 5860 10421 27500 

10 1⁄2 TOR 3428 8531 28032 0 70081 181915 600376 

11 2 TOR 3857 9599 31543 0 78849 204696 675574 

12 5 TOR 5836 14548 47834 0 119297 310244 1024479 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 1033 2569 8439 0 23115 56780 182750 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

303 754 2475 0 9195 19069 56010 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 2039 5074 16671 0 41685 108194 357048 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 3445 8570 28160 0 70424 182754 603107 

17 Base + LT 3480 8658 28450 0 71140 184640 609330 

18 2 TOR + LT 3866 9621 31616 0 79028 205163 677124 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 1040 2587 8499 0 23263 57161 184029 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 2051 5102 16765 0 41919 108808 359065 

21 9 ft Deep 3455 8595 28239 0 70634 183282 604804 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 1014 2519 8276 0 22718 55725 179257 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 345 857 2815 0 10044 21266 63291 

24 1m Opaque cover 2304 5733 18836 0 49106 124248 405416 

25 1m Trans cover 1336 3324 10921 0 30303 73875 236907 

122
Table G-4: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in West Palm Beach with a 

constant tide 

Large refuge in West Palm Beach O&M cost of solar panels & 

pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost (Million $) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 20695 51483 169169 0 0.42 1.10 3.62 

2 No cond 20522 51049 167738 0 0.42 1.09 3.59 

3 No solar 32108 79938 262732 0 0.66 1.70 5.63 

4 No sky 17524 43585 143208 0 0.36 0.93 3.07 

5 No conv 9584 23841 78331 0 0.20 0.51 1.68 

6 No evap 8547 21271 69900 0 0.17 0.45 1.50 

7 No TOR 21705 53997 177433 0 0.44 1.15 3.80 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 4005 9956 32708 0 0.09 0.22 0.71 

9 No evap, sky, conv 812 2020 6636 0 0.03 0.06 0.16 

10 1⁄2 TOR 20447 50876 167185 0 0.42 1.08 3.58 

11 2 TOR 23050 57360 188495 0 0.47 1.22 4.04 

12 5 TOR 34943 87106 286399 0 0.71 1.86 6.13 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 6117 15211 49974 0 0.14 0.34 1.08 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

1754 4359 14319 0 0.05 0.11 0.32 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 12127 30172 99142 0 0.25 0.64 2.12 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 20530 51082 167863 0 0.42 1.09 3.60 

17 Base + LT 20763 51653 169730 0 0.42 1.10 3.64 

18 2 TOR + LT 23098 57481 188894 0 0.47 1.23 4.05 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 6157 15310 50301 0 0.14 0.34 1.09 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 12190 30330 99660 0 0.25 0.65 2.13 

21 9 ft Deep 20586 51204 168239 0 0.42 1.09 3.60 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 5979 14863 48827 0 0.13 0.33 1.06 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 1998 4969 16324 0 0.06 0.12 0.37 

24 1m Opaque cover 13726 34146 112196 0 0.29 0.74 2.41 

25 1m Trans cover 7940 19757 64922 0 0.18 0.44 1.41 

123
Table G-5: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in Miami with a constant tide 

Small refuge in Miami O&M cost of solar panels 

& pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost ($) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 2339 5912 19557 0 47811 126080 418864 

2 No cond 2303 5821 19258 0 47079 124142 412443 

3 No solar 3866 9775 32339 0 79028 208458 692621 

4 No sky 1959 4950 16372 0 40039 105548 350652 

5 No conv 1222 3090 10222 0 24979 65885 218927 

6 No evap 1063 2687 8890 0 21730 57306 190393 

7 No TOR 1973 4986 16492 0 40323 106318 353210 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 628 1587 5250 0 14846 35851 114440 

9 No evap, sky, conv 113 286 946 0 5315 9097 23269 

10 1⁄2 TOR 2101 5310 17567 0 42958 113245 376234 

11 2 TOR 2922 7387 24439 0 59722 157526 523407 

12 5 TOR 4967 12575 41620 0 101544 268168 891377 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 675 1706 5643 0 15803 38385 122853 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

279 706 2335 0 8713 18057 53009 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 1279 3233 10694 0 26147 68938 229037 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 2113 5340 17662 0 43191 113868 378276 

17 Base + LT 2348 5935 19635 0 47997 126573 420536 

18 2 TOR + LT 2928 7403 24493 0 59851 157872 524563 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 679 1717 5678 0 15889 38610 123615 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 1286 3250 10750 0 26283 69301 230242 

21 9 ft Deep 2524 6378 21096 0 51589 136008 451826 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 938 2370 7838 0 21177 52543 169860 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 304 769 2542 0 9219 19389 57437 

24 1m Opaque cover 1777 4490 14852 0 38327 97749 320083 

25 1m Trans cover 994 2512 8309 0 23313 56561 180946 

124
Table G-6: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in Miami with a constant tide 

Large refuge in Miami O&M cost of solar panels & 

pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost (Million $) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 13953 35270 116677 0 0.29 0.75 2.50 

2 No cond 13818 34929 115545 0 0.28 0.74 2.47 

3 No solar 23105 58421 193274 0 0.47 1.25 4.14 

4 No sky 11680 29513 97622 0 0.24 0.63 2.09 

5 No conv 7271 18384 60819 0 0.15 0.39 1.30 

6 No evap 6321 15980 52864 0 0.13 0.34 1.13 

7 No TOR 11731 29650 98079 0 0.24 0.63 2.10 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 3715 9385 31039 0 0.09 0.21 0.68 

9 No evap, sky, conv 656 1657 5481 0 0.03 0.05 0.14 

10 1⁄2 TOR 12519 31637 104649 0 0.26 0.67 2.24 

11 2 TOR 17464 44156 146085 0 0.36 0.94 3.13 

12 5 TOR 29745 75303 249225 0 0.61 1.61 5.34 

13 No evap+1/2 TOR 3999 10108 33435 0 0.09 0.23 0.73 

14 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

1624 4101 13564 0 0.05 0.11 0.31 

15 1⁄2 TOR & evap 7609 19232 63616 0 0.16 0.41 1.36 

16 1⁄2 TOR + LT 12582 31797 105180 0 0.26 0.68 2.25 

17 Base + LT 14004 35399 117104 0 0.29 0.75 2.51 

18 2 TOR + LT 17499 44246 146383 0 0.36 0.94 3.14 

19 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 4024 10167 33630 0 0.09 0.23 0.73 

20 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 7646 19326 63928 0 0.16 0.41 1.37 

21 9 ft Deep 15049 38030 125795 0 0.31 0.81 2.69 

22 Case 8 + 9ft 5547 14011 46335 0 0.13 0.31 1.00 

23 Case 9 + 9ft 1774 4481 14822 0 0.05 0.11 0.34 

24 1m Opaque cover 10590 26760 88510 0 0.23 0.58 1.91 

25 1m Trans cover 5903 14919 49353 0 0.14 0.34 1.07 

125
Table G-7: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in Cape Canaveral with a variable 

tide 

Small refuge in Cape Canaveral O&M cost of solar panels 

& pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost ($) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 12381 28778 92112 251 268155 628763 1989573 

2 No cond 12217 28396 90889 247 264731 620547 1963284 

3 No solar 16081 37436 119874 326 344658 814263 2585551 

4 No sky 11118 25842 82709 225 241776 565572 1787453 

5 No conv 7949 18473 59124 161 175717 407169 1280602 

6 No evap 7317 17004 54423 148 162775 375830 1179811 

7 No TOR 7508 17442 55820 152 163281 381758 1206350 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 5104 11863 37969 103 117948 266587 827502 

9 No evap, sky, conv 2287 5315 17009 46 60701 127284 378564 

10 1⁄2 TOR 8735 20295 64951 177 188703 442933 1402433 

11 2 TOR 27072 63103 202133 551 592352 1384632 4371881 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 3485 8095 25906 70 80480 181877 564564 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

1397 3244 10378 28 36584 77204 230502 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 6177 14351 45925 125 134930 314695 993106 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 8763 20361 65162 177 189293 444353 1406961 

16 Base + LT 12409 28845 92324 251 268745 630183 1994125 

17 2 TOR + LT 27101 63171 202352 551 592958 1386095 4376580 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 3513 8160 26115 71 81066 183280 569068 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 6205 14416 46133 125 135512 316089 997584 

20 9 ft Deep 12397 28807 92194 251 268493 629380 1991352 

21 Case 8 + 9ft 5145 11955 38260 104 118803 268560 833756 

22 Case 9 + 9ft 2224 5167 16536 45 59411 124139 368420 

23 1m Opaque cover 9945 23131 74048 201 218777 508749 1602768 

24 1m Trans cover 7005 16278 52098 142 159121 363064 1132700 

126
Table G-8: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in Cape Canaveral with a variable 

tide 

Large refuge in Cape Canaveral O&M cost of solar panels & 

pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost (Million $) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 73888 171743 549698 1496 1.58 3.73 11.85 

2 No cond 73302 170379 545328 1484 1.57 3.70 11.76 

3 No solar 96085 223683 716247 1950 2.04 4.84 15.43 

4 No sky 66306 154117 493275 1342 1.42 3.35 10.64 

5 No conv 47298 109917 351783 957 1.03 2.40 7.60 

6 No evap 43507 101111 323604 880 0.95 2.21 6.99 

7 No TOR 44679 103794 332161 903 0.96 2.26 7.16 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 30232 70266 224887 612 0.68 1.56 4.88 

9 No evap, sky, conv 13448 31252 100020 272 0.34 0.73 2.21 

10 1⁄2 TOR 52025 120876 386841 1052 1.11 2.62 8.34 

11 2 TOR 162006 377627 1209610 3295 3.43 8.17 26.05 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 20520 47670 152551 415 0.46 1.06 3.31 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

7996 18569 59417 162 0.20 0.43 1.31 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 36678 85213 272695 742 0.79 1.85 5.88 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 52178 121233 387985 1055 1.11 2.63 8.36 

16 Base + LT 74040 172098 550835 1499 1.58 3.74 11.88 

17 2 TOR + LT 162161 377991 1210779 3298 3.43 8.18 26.07 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 20671 48023 153679 418 0.46 1.06 3.33 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 36829 85565 273821 745 0.79 1.86 5.91 

20 9 ft Deep 73836 171571 549096 1494 1.58 3.73 11.84 

21 Case 8 + 9ft 30329 70470 225525 613 0.68 1.56 4.90 

22 Case 9 + 9ft 12944 30074 96245 262 0.33 0.71 2.13 

23 1m Opaque cover 59268 137850 441286 1201 1.28 3.01 9.53 

24 1m Trans cover 41633 96748 309639 842 0.93 2.14 6.71 

127
Table G-9: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in West Palm with a variable tide 

Small refuge in West Palm Beach O&M cost of solar panels 

& pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost ($) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 3263 8154 26791 0 66689 173881 573785 

2 No cond 3196 7986 26240 0 65314 170291 561978 

3 No solar 5841 14604 47995 0 119377 311437 1027923 

4 No sky 2637 6590 21652 0 53900 140523 463731 

5 No conv 1200 2999 9853 0 24524 63948 211031 

6 No evap 831 2077 6823 0 16983 44290 146140 

7 No TOR 3555 8879 29172 0 72649 189344 624778 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 174 434 1426 0 5555 11263 32551 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0 3000 3000 3000 

10 1⁄2 TOR 3446 8613 28301 0 70430 183671 606132 

11 2 TOR 3476 8690 28556 0 71034 185305 611593 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 568 1419 4663 0 13615 32270 101870 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

0 0 0 0 3000 3000 3000 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 1734 4332 14233 0 35430 92376 304825 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 3466 8662 28464 0 70833 184726 609625 

16 Base + LT 3280 8197 26933 0 67041 174797 576835 

17 2 TOR + LT 3486 8714 28637 0 71236 185833 613315 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 575 1436 4718 0 13754 32625 103051 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 1751 4375 14375 0 35782 93301 307875 

20 9 ft Deep 3090 7720 25363 0 63153 164618 543209 

21 Case 8 + 9ft 141 352 1157 0 4881 9507 26771 

22 Case 9 + 9ft 0 0 0 0 3000 3000 3000 

23 1m Opaque cover 2229 5568 18296 0 47550 120746 393854 

24 1m Trans cover 771 1926 6328 0 18751 44072 138538 

128
Table G-10: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in West Palm Beach with a 

variable tide 

Large refuge in West Palm Beach O&M cost of solar panels & O&M Present values of Lifetime 

pumps ($) cost ($) cost (Million $) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 19505 48518 159418 0 0.40 1.03 3.41 

2 No cond 19263 47914 157434 0 0.39 1.02 3.37 

3 No solar 35040 87212 286608 0 0.72 1.86 6.14 

4 No sky 15746 39163 128678 0 0.32 0.84 2.76 

5 No conv 7104 17672 58067 0 0.15 0.38 1.24 

6 No evap 4912 12222 40160 0 0.10 0.26 0.86 

7 No TOR 21246 52845 173634 0 0.43 1.13 3.72 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 959 2382 7825 0 0.03 0.06 0.18 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 

10 1⁄2 TOR 20605 51263 168447 0 0.42 1.09 3.61 

11 2 TOR 20826 51831 170324 0 0.43 1.11 3.65 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 3338 8297 27258 0 0.08 0.19 0.60 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 

1⁄2 TOR 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 10286 25585 84066 0 0.21 0.55 1.80 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 20713 51531 169329 0 0.42 1.10 3.63 

16 Base + LT 19599 48752 160187 0 0.40 1.04 3.43 

17 2 TOR + LT 20880 51964 170761 0 0.43 1.11 3.66 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 3374 8388 27556 0 0.08 0.19 0.60 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 10380 25820 84837 0 0.21 0.55 1.82 

20 9 ft Deep 18399 45757 150333 0 0.38 0.98 3.22 

21 Case 8 + 9ft 725 1801 5915 0 0.03 0.05 0.14 

22 Case 9 + 9ft 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 

23 1m Opaque cover 13277 33019 108485 0 0.28 0.72 2.34 

24 1m Trans cover 4546 11310 37162 0 0.11 0.26 0.81 

129
Table G-11: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a small refuge in Miami with a variable tide 

Small refuge in Miami O&M cost of solar panels 

& pumps ($) 

O&M 

cost ($) 

Present values of Lifetime 

cost ($) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 1891 4778 15805 0 38654 101898 338500 

2 No cond 1843 4656 15400 0 37666 99286 329817 

3 No solar 4080 10315 34124 0 83410 219969 730847 

4 No sky 1465 3702 12243 0 29957 78945 262220 

5 No conv 689 1743 5765 0 14091 37163 123460 

6 No evap 502 1269 4198 0 10262 27062 89908 

7 No TOR 1868 4720 15611 0 38179 100644 334343 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 154 389 1288 0 5152 10303 29575 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0 3000 3000 3000 

10 1⁄2 TOR 1854 4686 15501 0 37907 99935 331982 

11 2 TOR 2530 6396 21157 0 51714 136389 453129 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 221 557 1842 0 6510 13883 41456 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 

1⁄2 TOR 

0 0 0 0 3000 3000 3000 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 823 2079 6875 0 16823 44324 147247 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 1871 4728 15640 0 38245 100826 334958 

16 Base + LT 1904 4810 15910 0 38915 102573 340739 

17 2 TOR + LT 2536 6411 21210 0 51842 136717 454261 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 226 572 1890 0 6627 14195 42489 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 833 2105 6964 0 17037 44895 149141 

20 9 ft Deep 1717 4338 14346 0 35101 92506 307260 

21 Case 8 + 9ft 121 307 1014 0 4483 8538 23720 

22 Case 9 + 9ft 0 0 0 0 3000 3000 3000 

23 1m Opaque cover 1503 3797 12559 0 32719 82977 270985 

24 1m Trans cover 434 1096 3627 0 11865 26377 80682 

130
Table G-12: Annual O&M and lifetime costs for a large refuge in Miami with a variable tide 

Large refuge in Miami O&M cost of solar panels & O&M Present values of Lifetime 

pumps ($) cost ($) cost (Million $) 

Case Desc Unglazed Glazed Evac. boiler Unglazed Glazed Evac. 

1 Base 11235 28389 93899 0 0.23 0.61 2.01 

2 No cond 11055 27935 92398 0 0.23 0.60 1.98 

3 No solar 24360 61584 203725 0 0.50 1.31 4.36 

4 No sky 8692 21956 72616 0 0.18 0.47 1.56 

5 No conv 4054 10246 33891 0 0.08 0.22 0.73 

6 No evap 2952 7462 24684 0 0.06 0.16 0.53 

7 No TOR 11075 27988 92573 0 0.23 0.60 1.98 

8 No solar, evap, sky, conv 854 2156 7130 0 0.03 0.06 0.16 

9 No evap, sky, conv 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 

10 1⁄2 TOR 10999 27794 91935 0 0.22 0.59 1.97 

11 2 TOR 15103 38182 126312 0 0.31 0.81 2.71 

12 No evap+1/2 TOR 1249 3154 10432 0 0.04 0.08 0.24 

13 No solar, evap, sky, conv + 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 

1⁄2 TOR 

14 1⁄2 TOR & evap 4835 12214 40395 0 0.10 0.26 0.87 

15 1⁄2 TOR + LT 11089 28021 92686 0 0.23 0.60 1.99 

16 Base + LT 11301 28557 94455 0 0.23 0.61 2.02 

17 2 TOR + LT 15137 38267 126593 0 0.31 0.82 2.71 

18 No evap + 1⁄2 TOR +LT 1280 3233 10693 0 0.04 0.08 0.24 

19 1⁄2 evap & TOR + LT 4893 12359 40875 0 0.10 0.26 0.88 

20 9 ft Deep 10155 25653 84841 0 0.21 0.55 1.82 

21 Case 8 + 9ft 629 1588 5251 0 0.02 0.05 0.12 

22 Case 9 + 9ft 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.02 

23 1m Opaque cover 8902 22491 74389 0 0.19 0.49 1.61 

24 1m Trans cover 2543 6429 21270 0 0.07 0.16 0.47 

131