Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday April 09 2017, @04:21PM   Printer-friendly
from the roofs-with-wings dept.

Scientists at the University of Malaya have designed a roof that can help address an environmental conflict: increasing demands for energy to increase living comfort versus a need to scale back fossil fuel use to address climate change. The conflict has driven interest in more efficient renewable energy sources, especially in emerging economies.

The roof's most visible feature is a V-shaped structure set atop a peaked roof, which guides wind into a series of turbines situated below it to generate energy as they turn. The structure also increases airflow within the building by means of vents built into the peaked roof to enhance natural ventilation. In addition, a rainwater harvester is connected to an automated cooling and cleaning system that washes solar cells embedded in the sloped roof to keep them efficient. Transparent skylights brighten the main rooms inside the building during the daytime, reducing the need for artificial lighting.

The team says that adding the roof to an existing building creates minimal visual impact and can be used in urban and rural settings.

In Malaysia, the average person uses about 4,200 kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy per year. The researchers say their roof could support about six people by generating more than 21,200 kWh of energy a year while saving another 1,840 kWh because of its skylights. Also, the venting system could move about 217 million cubic metres of air and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 17,768 kilos, while the rainwater harvester could collect close to 525 cubic metres of water.

Do they have homeowner's associations in Malaysia?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 10 2017, @11:17AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 10 2017, @11:17AM (#491579) Journal

    A wind turbine mounted on a building would differ from those and might wear more quickly. However, failure of the turbine wouldn't make the roof worthless, as the roof would still be providing water, shelter and electricity--just a bit less electricity, and none at night. If the design were to become popular, it's likely someone would manufacture replacement turbines.

    In other words, a small, lower quality wind turbine mounted on a building would have exactly the differences, particularly maintenance issues, that would break your comparison.

    And you're erroneously valuing the whole based on a few components. This is a Rube Goldberg contraption with a number of problems introduced by those wind turbines, such as maintenance and the unsightly inverted "V" structure which wouldn't be present in a roof which didn't have those turbines. I don't believe the roof compares well to either a normal roof or a roof with solar cells. In other words, the wind turbines don't add value.

  • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 10 2017, @05:24PM (2 children)

    by butthurt (6141) on Monday April 10 2017, @05:24PM (#491757) Journal

    > [...] small, lower quality wind turbine [...]

    Are you saying that it must be of poor quality, perhaps because it is small?

    > [...] you're erroneously valuing the whole based on a few components. [...] the wind turbines don't add value.

    I said that, should the turbines fail, the roof would still have value: it would still provide water, electricity, shelter, and ventilation. It would still be useful. I don't see how that is erroneous.

    How much value the turbines add is certainly questionable:

    A small wind turbine can be installed on a roof. Installation issues then include the strength of the roof, vibration, and the turbulence caused by the roof ledge. Small-scale rooftop turbines suffer from turbulence and rarely generate significant amounts of power, especially in towns and cities.

    -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_wind_turbine#Installation [wikipedia.org]

    In the illustrations, they are close to what I assume are the air vents. That would seem to have a possibility for noise from the turbines to readily enter the building.

    > [...] maintenance [...]

    A conventional roof requires maintenance too. This roof is self-cleaning.

    > [...] unsightly inverted "V" structure [...]

    Clearly you mean the "V"-shaped structure. Some people find the aesthetics of free-standing wind turbines, PV panels, or central power plants displeasing. I don't spend much time looking at roofs. For myself, I wouldn't mind ruining that experience to have a bit more electricity.

    Speaking of an inverted "V", the way the PV panels are arranged isn't optimal for collecting solar energy. A single plane would be better than two surfaces facing in different directions. The article doesn't say that both surfaces are to have PV cells. I have a hunch that with a single, large plane, the extra electricity harvested from the Sun could obviate the turbines. It would be better suited to the use of cheaper, less efficient cells.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 10 2017, @09:42PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 10 2017, @09:42PM (#491949) Journal

      Are you saying that it must be of poor quality, perhaps because it is small?

      Yes. If you have a large wind turbine, that generates a lot of electricity which buys a fair amount of maintenance (expected costs are a few percent of the revenue generated). Meanwhile, these wind turbines simply won't have the revenue stream to justify the maintenance. And any maintenance will be very specialized since one is working at the top of a roof.

      I said that, should the turbines fail, the roof would still have value: it would still provide water, electricity, shelter, and ventilation. It would still be useful. I don't see how that is erroneous.

      So would a roof without the wind turbines. The wind turbines don't make these other features more valuable. In fact, the "V" structure indicates to me that they'll probably make the solar cells less valuable through obstruction of light.

      That's the problem in general with adding more features. Just saying that the other features are still functional even if this one breaks, ignores that they would still be functioning and might even function better without the questionable feature.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 10 2017, @09:47PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 10 2017, @09:47PM (#491951) Journal
      As an aside, the payback time is a good measure of the quality of a capital asset. 10 years is a good duration. 25 years might be, if you still have a significant amount of the investment back at the end, but I'd generally consider it poor as an investment.