Estimating solar access of typical residential rooftops: A case study in San Jose, CA

Shadows cast by trees and buildings can limit the solar access of rooftop solar-energy systems, including photovoltaic panels and thermal collectors. This study characterizes rooftop shading in a residential neighborhood of San Jose, CA, one of four regions analyzed in a wider study of the solar access of California homes.High-resolution orthophotos and LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) measurements of surface height were used to create a digital elevation model of all trees and buildings in a 4 km2 residential neighborhood. Hourly shading of roofing planes (the flat elements of roofs) was computed geometrically from the digital elevation model. Parcel boundaries were used to determine the extent to which roofing planes were shaded by trees and buildings in neighboring parcels.In the year in which surface heights were measured (2005), shadows from all sources ("total shading") reduced the insolation received by S-, SW-, and W-facing residential roofing planes in the study area by 13 - 16percent. Shadows cast by trees and buildings in neighboring parcels reduced insolation by no more than 2percent. After 30 years of simulated maximal tree growth, annual total shading increased to 19 - 22percent, and annual extraparcel shading increased to 3 - 4percent

Heat Island Mitigation Assessment and Policy Development for the Kansas City Region

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory partnered with Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) to quantify the costs and benefits from the adoption of urban heat island (UHI) countermeasures in the Kansas City region (population 1.5 million), and identify the best regional implementation pathway for MARC. The team selected cool (high-albedo) roofs and increased vegetation as the two countermeasures to evaluate. For vegetation, there were two strategies: (1) planting new trees to shade building surfaces, and (2) increasing urban irrigation (a surrogate for the use of vegetation to manage stormwater) to increase evapotranspiration. Using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model we simulated selected weeks during summer time, across five years (2011 2015) representing a range of normal summer conditions. We also simulated six of the most intense heatwaves that occurred between 2004 and 2016. We found under typical summer conditions (non-heatwave) average daytime (07:00 19:00 local standard time) regional near-ground air temperature reductions of 0.08 and 0.28 C for cool roofs and urban irrigation, respectively. We calculated the building electricity, electricity cost, and emission savings that result from the reduction in outdoor air temperature (indirect savings) and found maximum regional annual indirect electricity savings of 42.8 GWh for cool roofs and 85.6 GWh for urban irrigationyielding maximum regional annual indirect electricity cost savings of $5.6M ($0.05/m2 roof) and $11.1M ($0.01/m2 irrigated land), respectively, and maximum regional annual CO2 savings of 43.4 kt and 80 kt, respectively.We next evaluated the building energy, energy cost, and emission savings from reducing direct absorbed radiation on the building surfaces using cool roofs and shade trees (direct savings). For cool roofs, we found regional annual direct energy cost savings of $10.9M ($0.15/m2 roof) with regional annual CO2 savings of 66.4 kt. For shade trees, the regional annual direct energy cost savings were $21M ($21/tree) with regional annual CO2 savings of 126 kt. We investigated cool roof cost premiums (the additional cost for selecting a cool roof product in lieu of a conventional roof product, estimated to be zero to $2.15/m2) and shade tree first costs (assumed to be$100 per tree). The regional cool roof cost premium was calculated using the regional roof area per roofing material type and the range of cool roof product premiums for each material type. The extra cost of selecting cool roofs across the region ranged from $4.33M to$87.1M, while the additional shade trees planted across the region were assumed to cost $102M. When we compared the regional annual direct cost savings to the regional cool-roof cost premium and the regional shade-tree first cost, we found regional simple payback times up to 8.0 years for cool roofs and 4.9 years for trees, respectively.Since this comprehensive assessment of UHI countermeasures is a valuable methodology for other local governments to apply, we developed a step-by-step guide for others to follow. Based on the benefits and costs of the UHI countermeasures, MARC will pursue the inclusion of these countermeasures in existing regional plans where they can complement other regional priorities for transportation, climate resiliency, clean air, and hazard mitigation. They hosted a local workshop in 2016 for stakeholders to introduce the topic and will continue to share these resources to further appropriate adoption of UHI countermeasures

Cooler reflective pavements give benefits beyond energy savings: durability and illumination

City streets are usually paved with asphalt concrete because this material gives good service and is relatively inexpensive to construct and maintain. We show that making asphalt pavements cooler, by increasing their reflection of sunlight, may lead to longer lifetime of the pavement, lower initial costs of the asphalt binder, and savings on street lighting and signs. Excessive glare due to the whiter surface is not likely to be a problem

Cooler reflective pavements give benefits beyond energy savings: durability and illumination

City streets are usually paved with asphalt concrete because this material gives good service and is relatively inexpensive to construct and maintain. We show that making asphalt pavements cooler, by increasing their reflection of sunlight, may lead to longer lifetime of the pavement, lower initial costs of the asphalt binder, and savings on street lighting and signs. Excessive glare due to the whiter surface is not likely to be a problem

Solar access of residential rooftops in four California cities

Shadows cast by trees and buildings can limit the solar access of rooftop solar-energy systems, including photovoltaic panels and thermal collectors. This study characterizes residential rooftop shading in Sacramento, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego, CA. Our analysis can be used to better estimate power production and/or thermal collection by rooftop solar-energy equipment. It can also be considered when designing programs to plant shade trees. High-resolution orthophotos and LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) measurements of surface height were used to create a digital elevation model of all trees and buildings in a well-treed 2.5-4 km{sup 2} residential neighborhood. On-hour shading of roofing planes (the flat elements of roofs) was computed geometrically from the digital elevation model. Values in future years were determined by repeating these calculations after simulating tree growth. Parcel boundaries were used to determine the extent to which roofing planes were shaded by trees and buildings in neighboring parcels. For the subset of S+SW+W-facing planes on which solar equipment is commonly installed for maximum solar access, absolute light loss in spring, summer and fall peaked about two to four hours after sunrise and about two to four hours before sunset. The fraction of annual insolation lost to shading increased from 0.07-0.08 in the year of surface-height measurement to 0.11-0.14 after 30 years of tree growth. Only about 10% of this loss results from shading by trees and buildings in neighboring parcels

Heat Island Mitigation Assessment and Policy Development for the Kansas City Region

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory partnered with Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) to quantify the costs and benefits from the adoption of urban heat island (UHI) countermeasures in the Kansas City region (population 1.5 million), and identify the best regional implementation pathway for MARC. The team selected cool (high-albedo) roofs and increased vegetation as the two countermeasures to evaluate. For vegetation, there were two strategies: (1) planting new trees to shade building surfaces, and (2) increasing urban irrigation (a surrogate for the use of vegetation to manage stormwater) to increase evapotranspiration. Using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model we simulated selected weeks during summer time, across five years (2011 – 2015) representing a range of normal summer conditions. We also simulated six of the most intense heatwaves that occurred between 2004 and 2016. We found under typical summer conditions (non-heatwave) average daytime (07:00 – 19:00 local standard time) regional near-ground air temperature reductions of 0.08 and 0.28 °C for cool roofs and urban irrigation, respectively. We calculated the building electricity, electricity cost, and emission savings that result from the reduction in outdoor air temperature (“indirect” savings) and found maximum regional annual indirect electricity savings of 42.8 GWh for cool roofs and 85.6 GWh for urban irrigation—yielding maximum regional annual indirect electricity cost savings of $5.6M ($0.05/m2 roof) and $11.1M ($0.01/m2 irrigated land), respectively, and maximum regional annual CO2 savings of 43.4 kt and 80 kt, respectively. We next evaluated the building energy, energy cost, and emission savings from reducing direct absorbed radiation on the building surfaces using cool roofs and shade trees (“direct” savings). For cool roofs, we found regional annual direct energy cost savings of $10.9M ($0.15/m2 roof) with regional annual CO2 savings of 66.4 kt. For shade trees, the regional annual direct energy cost savings were $21M ($21/tree) with regional annual CO2 savings of 126 kt. We investigated cool roof cost premiums (the additional cost for selecting a cool roof product in lieu of a conventional roof product, estimated to be zero to $2.15/m2) and shade tree first costs (assumed to be$100 per tree). The regional cool roof cost premium was calculated using the regional roof area per roofing material type and the range of cool roof product premiums for each material type. The extra cost of selecting cool roofs across the region ranged from $4.33M to$87.1M, while the additional shade trees planted across the region were assumed to cost $102M. When we compared the regional annual direct cost savings to the regional cool-roof cost premium and the regional shade-tree first cost, we found regional simple payback times up to 8.0 years for cool roofs and 4.9 years for trees, respectively. Since this comprehensive assessment of UHI countermeasures is a valuable methodology for other local governments to apply, we developed a step-by-step guide for others to follow. Based on the benefits and costs of the UHI countermeasures, MARC will pursue the inclusion of these countermeasures in existing regional plans where they can complement other regional priorities for transportation, climate resiliency, clean air, and hazard mitigation. They hosted a local workshop in 2016 for stakeholders to introduce the topic and will continue to share these resources to further appropriate adoption of UHI countermeasures