4.7 Article

Energy performance comparison among see-through amorphous-silicon PV (photovoltaic) glazings and traditional glazings under different architectural conditions in China

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 83, Issue -, Pages 267-275

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.023

Keywords

See-through amorphous-silicon; PV (photovoltaic) glazings; Traditional glazings; Architectural conditions; Energy performance

Funding

  1. National Nature Science Fund of China [51008136]
  2. Graduates' Innovation and Enterprise fund of HUST [HF-11-12-2013]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the emergence and rapid deployment of PV (photovoltaic) facades, a comparison among see-through amorphous silicon (a-Si) PV glazings and traditional glazings under different architectural conditions could provide us a broader perspective for comprehending the energy performance and utilisation of see-through a-Si PV glazing in BIPV (building integrated photovoltaic) applications. In this paper, two see-through a-Si PV glazings of different transmittance are investigated and compared with three traditional glazings in terms of PV electricity generation and energy consumption during lighting, cooling, and heating in China. The impacts of the architectural conditions are considered in the study, particularly with respect to five factors: room depth, room height, room width, window height, and WWR (window-to-wall ratio). A calculation model for a see-through a-Si PV glazing is developed and validated with field experiments to perform simulations using Energy Plus. The results indicate that see-through a-Si PV glazings have great potential and exhibit better energy performance than single and double glazings, where cooling energy consumption is the dominant factor. The results also suggest that see-through a-Si PV glazings are more beneficial than traditional glazings when they are applied in shallow rooms with large windows or high ceilings. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available