Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday May 28 2019, @07:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the sawing-logs dept.

Most of our building practices aren't especially sustainable. Concrete production is a major source of carbon emissions, and steel production is very resource intensive. Once completed, heating and cooling buildings becomes a major energy sink. There are various ideas on how to handle each of these issues, like variations on concrete's chemical formula or passive cooling schemes.

But now, a large team of US researchers has found a single solution that appears to manage everything using a sustainable material that both reflects sunlight and radiates away excess heat. The miracle material? Wood. Or a form of wood that has been treated to remove one of its two main components.

[...] But rather than simply being structurally useful, the wood has some properties that could make it extremely useful as cladding, covering the exterior of a building. While most of the cellulose fibers are aligned along the grain of the wood, that alignment is very rough—there's plenty of variability in their orientation. That means light that strikes the processed wood will bounce around within a dense mesh of cellulose fibers, scattering widely in the process. The end result is a material that looks remarkably white, in the same way a sugar cube looks white even though each sugar crystal in it is transparent.

As a result, the material is really bad at absorbing sunlight, and thus it doesn't capture the heat in the same way regular wood does.

But it gets better. The sugars in cellulose are effective emitters of infrared radiation, and they do so in two areas of the spectrum where none of our atmospheric gases is able to reabsorb it. The end result is that, if the treated wood absorbs some of the heat of a structure, wood can radiate it away so that it leaves the planet entirely. And the wood is able to do so even while it's being blasted by direct sunlight; the researchers confirmed this by putting a small heater inside a box made of the treated wood and then sticking it in the sunlight in Arizona.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:50AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @07:50AM (#848817)

    Do the math carefully, as it is usually more expensive (per unit of heat exchange) to cool a building, rather than to heat one. This means that for most places, even those in higher latitudes, a darker house will cost you more money. Even though they cool for a shorter time than they heat, the difference in unit cost makes a big difference in the break-even spot.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @09:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 29 2019, @09:55AM (#848830)

    My home has exactly zero cooling cost, but decidedly non-zero heating cost. However, I doubt that painting it black would save energy; quite the opposite, it would make it cool down faster in the night.

    OTOH, in regions where air condition is required, it might make sense to paint the pole-facing side of your house black. Unless you're in the tropic zone, where the sun may be on any side of the home.