4.7 Article

Spatial resolution of anthropogenic heat fluxes into urban aquifers

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 524, 期 -, 页码 427-439

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.003

关键词

Urban heat island; Heat flux; Groundwater temperatures; Anthropogenic heat flux; Urban energy balance

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [BL 1015/4-1]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [200021L 144288]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021L_144288] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urban heat islands in the subsurface contain large quantities of energy in the form of elevated groundwater temperatures caused by anthropogenic heat fluxes (AHF(S)) into the subsurface. The objective of this study is to quantify these AHFS and the heat flow they generate in two German cities, Karlsruhe and Cologne. Thus, statistical and spatial analytical heat flux models were developed for both cities. The models include the spatial representation of various sources of AHFS: (1) elevated ground surface temperatures, (2) basements, (3) sewage systems, (4) sewage leakage, (5) subway tunnels, and (6) district heating networks. The results show that the district heating networks induce the largest AHFS with values greater than 60W/m(2) and one order of magnitude higher than fluxes from other sources. A covariance analysis indicates that the spatial distribution of the total flux depends mainly on the thermal gradient in the unsaturated zone. On a citywide scale, basements and elevated ground surface temperatures are the dominant sources of heat flow. Overall, 2.1 PJ/a and 1.0 PJ/a of heat are accumulated on average in Karlsruhe and the western part of Cologne, respectively. Extracting this anthropogenically originated energy could sustainably supply significant parts of the urban heating demand. Furthermore, using this heat could also keep groundwater temperatures from rising further. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据