UC Berkeley

Summer urban heat island (UHI) refers to the phenomenon of having higher urban temperatures compared to the those in surrounding suburban and rural areas. Higher urban air temperatures lead to increased cooling demand, accelerates the formation of smog, and contributes to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions. Dark-colored impervious surfaces cover a significant fraction of an urban fabric, and as hot and dry surfaces, are a major contributor to the UHI effect. Adopting solar-reflective (“cool”) roofs and cool pavements, and increasing the urban vegetation, are strategies proven to mitigate urban heat islands. These strategies often have an “indirect” effect (ambient cooling) and “direct” effect (change in solar energy flux entering the conditioned space) on the energy use of buildings. This work investigates some elements of the UHI mitigation strategies, specifically the annual direct effect of a cool roof, and the direct and indirect effects of cool pavements.

The first topic researched in this paper consists in an experimental assessment of the direct effects from replacing a conventional dark roof with a highly energy-efficient cool roof. The study measures and calculates the annual benefits of the cool roof on the cooling and heating energy uses, and the associated emission reductions. The energy savings attributed to the cool roof are validated by measuring the difference between the homes in the heat loads that entered the conditioned space through the ceiling and HVAC ducts. Fractional annual cooling energy savings (26%) were 2.6 times the 10% daily cooling energy savings measured in a previous study that used a white coating to increase the albedo of an asphalt shingle roof by the same amount (0.44). The improved cooling energy savings (26% vs. 10%) may be attributed to the cool tile’s above-sheathing ventilation, rather than to its high thermal mass. The roof also provided energy savings during the heating season, yielding fractional annual gas heating savings of 4% and electric heating savings of 3%. The slightly positive fractional annual heating energy savings likely resulted from the tile roof’s high thermal capacitance, which increased the overnight temperature of the attic air. Thus cool tile roofs should be perceived as a technology that provides energy and environmental benefits during the cooling season as well as the heating season.

The second topic investigates the direct and indirect effects of cool pavements on the energy use of California’s building stock. First, a simple urban canyon model was developed to calculate the canyon albedo after the user provides the solar position, canyon orientation, and dimensions of the canyon walls, road, and setbacks. Next, a method is presented to correct the values of temperature changes obtained from previous urban climate models to values that would be obtained from canyon geometries that distinguish between road and setbacks (e.g. sidewalk, front yard).

The new canyon model is used to scale the temperature changes obtained from a recent urban climate model that simulated the climatological impact of cool pavements on various California cities. The adjusted temperature changes are then combined with building energy simulations to investigate the effect of cool pavements on the cooling, heating, and lighting energy uses of buildings as well as the environmental impact related to these energy uses.

Net (direct + indirect) conditioning (cooling + heating) energy savings and environmental savings from cool pavements were smaller in residential buildings than in commercial buildings. Additionally, residential buildings strongly dominate the building stock in all of the evaluated cities. Therefore, even though most cities yielded conditioning energy and environmental savings, they were small due to the minuscule savings from the residential buildings. When increasing the albedo by 0.20 of all public pavements in different California cities, Los Angeles was the city with the largest savings, yielding only 0.60% in Primary Energy Demand and 0.30% in Global Warming Potential (GWP). Some of the cities experienced even a small net penalty in GWP of up to 0.20%.