4.7 Article

Multi-criteria analysis for PV integrated in shading devices for Mediterranean region

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 117, Issue -, Pages 128-137

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.02.007

Keywords

Shading devices; BIPV systems; Multi-criteria analysis; PROMETHEE method

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sustainable energy planning includes various requirements, conflicting or not. Thus, any decision making is directly related to analytical procedures and management of a wide range of information (technological, environmental, economic and social). Multi-criteria analysis is a valuable tool, which is suitable to assemble and to manage many variables (quantitative as well as qualitative ones), assessed in different ways, thus offering reliable support for decision making. This analysis scopes to facilitate the photovoltaic (PV) integration in buildings, which combines benefits from shading, power generation, and esthetics. This paper performs a multi-criteria analysis of monocrystalline PV panels mounted on typical south facing shading devices of office buildings in the Mediterranean region. In total, thirteen different options of shading devices were assessed against a series of criteria which include PV panels' energy production, buildings' energy optimization criteria (heating-cooling-lighting loads) and users' comfort criteria (outdoor view-glare-esthetic aspects). Six different rankings were obtained by the analysis, each one reflecting the priorities and interests of different economic and social groups involved in the design and promotion of integrated PV systems in buildings. The analysis revealed that Brise soleil full facade is the most proper shading device when the PV system is mounted on it; in contrary Canopy inclined double or Louvers horizontal inwards inclined or Simple window seem to be the least suitable. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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