Quantifying the added value of BiPV as a shading solution in atria

Abstract Building integration of photovoltaics (PV) has long been acknowledged as a key application for PV in developed countries. The avoided use of comparably priced alternatives such as polished or cut stone in commercial facades enables PV to be applied often at little or no additional cost. The use of semi-transparent PV modules within commercial atria represents an interesting application in this respect as they can be used to replace traditional shading solutions which often have a high maintenance burden. However, compared to standard double glazing, an element incorporating either mono or poly crystalline PV cells in a glass–glass construction comes at a cost premium. To justify such an application there must be significant added value in the PV solution. This paper critically appraises a semi-transparent PV atrium which links two administration buildings at the University of Southampton, enclosing the main campus reception desk. Choosing PV laminates for the atrium roof has multiple benefits for the building users and the wider University, such as electricity generation, solar shading, environmental and technology statements, enhanced comfort and prestigious office workspace. This paper compares alternative shading solutions for the atrium and discusses user perception of the building and the atrium’s impact on their personal workspace. It is shown that PV in commercial atria does not always have to be considered as a ‘luxury’ option. With appropriate consideration of added value factors its selection can be justified in terms of both cost and carbon footprint.

[1]  Jesse Henson Integrating BIPV: How the market for building integrated photovoltaics is being created in the USA , 2005 .

[2]  Wilfried Koch Baustilkunde : das Standardwerk zur europäischen Baukunst von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart , 1998 .

[3]  Patrick James,et al.  A climatic envelope extension of an office building - perception and reality of the change in environmental conditions , 2006 .

[4]  Mary M Guzowski,et al.  Daylighting for Sustainable Design , 1999 .

[5]  Adrian Leaman,et al.  Assessing building performance in use 1: the Probe process , 2001 .

[6]  AbuBakr S. Bahaj,et al.  PV array <5kWp + single inverter = grid connected PV system : are multiple inverter alternatives economic? , 2006 .

[7]  Emmanuel Rey,et al.  Office building retrofitting strategies: multicriteria approach of an architectural and technical issue , 2004 .

[8]  AbuBakr S. Bahaj,et al.  The importance of sensors in the determination of BIPV parameters and installation energy yield , 2003, 3rd World Conference onPhotovoltaic Energy Conversion, 2003. Proceedings of.

[9]  Adrian Leaman,et al.  Making feedback and post-occupancy evaluation routine 1: A portfolio of feedback techniques , 2005 .

[10]  Tariq Muneer,et al.  Life cycle assessment of a medium-sized photovoltaic facility at a high latitude location , 2006 .

[11]  Adrian Leaman,et al.  Productivity in buildings: the ‘killer’ variables , 1999 .

[12]  Derek Clements-Croome Creating the Productive Workplace , 1999 .

[13]  Gregory A. Keoleian,et al.  Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications , 2003 .

[14]  William M. C. Lam Sunlighting As Formgiver for Architecture , 1986 .

[15]  Evert Nieuwlaar,et al.  Energy viability of photovoltaic systems , 2000 .