skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Inclusion of cool roofs in nonresidential Title 24 prescriptive requirements

Abstract

Roofs that have high solar reflectance (high ability to reflect sunlight) and high thermal emittance (high ability to radiate heat) tend to stay cool in the sun. The same is true of low-emittance roofs with exceptionally high solar reflectance. Substituting a cool roof for a noncool roof tends to decrease cooling electricity use, cooling power demand, and cooling-equipment capacity requirements, while slightly increasing heating energy consumption. Cool roofs can also lower the ambient air temperature in summer, slowing ozone formation and increasing human comfort. DOE-2.1E building energy simulations indicate that use of a cool roofing material on a prototypical California nonresidential building with a low-sloped roof yields average annual cooling energy savings of approximately 300 kWh/1000 ft2 [3.2 kWh/m2], average annual natural gas deficits of 4.9 therm/1000 ft2 [5.6 MJ/m2], average source energy savings of 2.6 MBTU/1000 ft2 [30 MJ/m2], and average peak power demand savings of 0. 19 kW/1000 ft2 [2.1 W/m2]. The 15-year net present value (NPV) of energy savings averages $450/1000 ft2 [$4.90/m2] with time dependent valuation (TDV), and $370/1000 ft2 [$4.00/m2] without TDV. When cost savings from downsizing cooling equipment are included, the average total savings (15-year NPV + equipment savings) rises to $550/1000 ft2 [$5.90/m2]more » with TDV, and to $470/1000 ft2 [$5.00/m2] without TDV. Total savings range from 0.18 to 0.77 $/ft2 [1.90 to 8.30 $/m2] with TDV, and from 0.16 to 0.66 $/ft2 [1.70 to 7.10 $/m2] without TDV, across California's 16 climate zones. The typical cost premium for a cool roof is 0.00 to 0.20 $/ft2 [0.00 to 2.20 $/m2]. Cool roofs with premiums up to $0.20/ft2 [$2.20/m2] are expected to be cost effective in climate zones 2 through 16; those with premiums not exceeding $0.18/ft2 [$1.90/m2] are expected to be also cost effective in climate zone 1. Hence, this study recommends that the year-2005 California building energy efficiency code (Title 24, Pa rt 6 of the California Code of Regulations) for nonresidential buildings with low-sloped roofs include a cool-roof prescriptive requirement in all California climate zones. Buildings with roofs that do not meet prescriptive requirements may comply with the code via an ''overall-envelope'' approach (non-metal roofs only), or via a performance approach (all roof types).« less

Authors:
; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
PG& E Agreement S-99-09; Pacific Gas & Electric (US)
OSTI Identifier:
813562
Report Number(s):
LBNL-50451
R&D Project: 80DD01; TRN: US200316%%257
DOE Contract Number:
AC03-76SF00098
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: PBD: 15 Dec 2002
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
03 NATURAL GAS; 29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY; 32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATION; CAPACITY; CLIMATES; ELECTRICITY; ENERGY CONSUMPTION; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; HEATING; NATURAL GAS; OZONE; PEAK LOAD; PERFORMANCE; POWER DEMAND; REGULATIONS; ROOFS; BUILDING ENERGY CODES COOL ROOFS SOLAR REFLECTANCE HEATING AND COOLING LOADS ENERGY ANALYSIS ROOFING MARKET CALIFORNIA TITLE 24

Citation Formats

Levinson, Ronnen, Akbari, Hashem, Konopacki, Steve, and Bretz, Sarah. Inclusion of cool roofs in nonresidential Title 24 prescriptive requirements. United States: N. p., 2002. Web. doi:10.2172/813562.
Levinson, Ronnen, Akbari, Hashem, Konopacki, Steve, & Bretz, Sarah. Inclusion of cool roofs in nonresidential Title 24 prescriptive requirements. United States. doi:10.2172/813562.
Levinson, Ronnen, Akbari, Hashem, Konopacki, Steve, and Bretz, Sarah. 2002. "Inclusion of cool roofs in nonresidential Title 24 prescriptive requirements". United States. doi:10.2172/813562. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/813562.
@article{osti_813562,
title = {Inclusion of cool roofs in nonresidential Title 24 prescriptive requirements},
author = {Levinson, Ronnen and Akbari, Hashem and Konopacki, Steve and Bretz, Sarah},
abstractNote = {Roofs that have high solar reflectance (high ability to reflect sunlight) and high thermal emittance (high ability to radiate heat) tend to stay cool in the sun. The same is true of low-emittance roofs with exceptionally high solar reflectance. Substituting a cool roof for a noncool roof tends to decrease cooling electricity use, cooling power demand, and cooling-equipment capacity requirements, while slightly increasing heating energy consumption. Cool roofs can also lower the ambient air temperature in summer, slowing ozone formation and increasing human comfort. DOE-2.1E building energy simulations indicate that use of a cool roofing material on a prototypical California nonresidential building with a low-sloped roof yields average annual cooling energy savings of approximately 300 kWh/1000 ft2 [3.2 kWh/m2], average annual natural gas deficits of 4.9 therm/1000 ft2 [5.6 MJ/m2], average source energy savings of 2.6 MBTU/1000 ft2 [30 MJ/m2], and average peak power demand savings of 0. 19 kW/1000 ft2 [2.1 W/m2]. The 15-year net present value (NPV) of energy savings averages $450/1000 ft2 [$4.90/m2] with time dependent valuation (TDV), and $370/1000 ft2 [$4.00/m2] without TDV. When cost savings from downsizing cooling equipment are included, the average total savings (15-year NPV + equipment savings) rises to $550/1000 ft2 [$5.90/m2] with TDV, and to $470/1000 ft2 [$5.00/m2] without TDV. Total savings range from 0.18 to 0.77 $/ft2 [1.90 to 8.30 $/m2] with TDV, and from 0.16 to 0.66 $/ft2 [1.70 to 7.10 $/m2] without TDV, across California's 16 climate zones. The typical cost premium for a cool roof is 0.00 to 0.20 $/ft2 [0.00 to 2.20 $/m2]. Cool roofs with premiums up to $0.20/ft2 [$2.20/m2] are expected to be cost effective in climate zones 2 through 16; those with premiums not exceeding $0.18/ft2 [$1.90/m2] are expected to be also cost effective in climate zone 1. Hence, this study recommends that the year-2005 California building energy efficiency code (Title 24, Pa rt 6 of the California Code of Regulations) for nonresidential buildings with low-sloped roofs include a cool-roof prescriptive requirement in all California climate zones. Buildings with roofs that do not meet prescriptive requirements may comply with the code via an ''overall-envelope'' approach (non-metal roofs only), or via a performance approach (all roof types).},
doi = {10.2172/813562},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2002,
month =
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • Roofs that have high solar reflectance (high ability toreflect sunlight) and high thermal emittance (high ability to radiateheat) tend to stay cool in the sun. The same is true of low-emittanceroofs with exceptionally high solar reflectance. Substituting a cool rooffor a non-cool roof tends to decrease cooling electricity use, coolingpower demand, and cooling-equipment capacity requirements, while slightlyincreasing heating energy consumption. Cool roofs can also lower citywideambient air temperature in summer, slowing ozone formation and increasinghuman comfort.DOE-2.1E building energy simulations indicate that use of acool roofing material on a prototypical California nonresidential (NR)building with a low-sloped roof yields average annual coolingmore » energysavings of approximately 3.2 kW h/m2 (300 kW h/1000 ft2), average annualnatural gas deficits of 5.6 MJ/m2 (4.9 therm/1000 ft2), average annualsource energy savings of 30 MJ/m2 (2.6 MBTU/1000 ft2), and average peakpower demand savings of 2.1 W/m2 (0.19 kW/1000 ft2). The 15-year netpresent value (NPV) of energy savings averages $4.90/m2 ($450/1000 ft2)with time-dependent valuation (TDV), and $4.00/m2 ($370/1000 ft2) withoutTDV. When cost savings from downsizing cooling equipment are included,the average total savings (15-year NPV+equipment savings) rises to$5.90/m2 ($550/1000 ft2) with TDV, and to $5.00/m2 ($470/1000 ft2)without TDV.Total savings range from 1.90 to 8.30 $/m2 (0.18 0.77 $/ft2)with TDV, and from 1.70 to 7.10 $/m2 (0.16 0.66 $/ft2) without TDV,across California's 16 climate zones. The typical cost premium for a coolroof is 0.00 2.20 $/m2 (0.00 0.20 $/ft2). Cool roofs with premiums up to$2.20/m2 ($0.20/ft2) are expected to be cost effective in climate zones 216; those with premiums not exceeding $1.90/m2 ($0.18/ft2) are expectedto be also cost effective in climate zone 1. Hence, this study recommendsthat the year-2005 California building energy efficiency code (Title 24,Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) for NR buildings withlow-sloped roofs include a cool-roof prescriptive requirement in allCalifornia climate zones. Buildings with roofs that do not meetprescriptive requirements may comply with the code via an"overall-envelope" approach (non-metal roofs only), or via a performanceapproach (all roof types).« less
  • The use of dark roofs affects cooling and heating energy use in buildings and the urban climate. At the building scale, dark roofs are heated by the summer sun and thus raise the summertime air-conditioning (a/c) demand. For highly-absorptive (low-albedo) roofs the difference between the surface and ambient air temperatures may be as high as 90 F on a summer afternoon. While for less absorptive (high-albedo) surfaces with similar insulative properties, such as roofs covered with a white coating, the difference is only about 20 F. For this reason, cool roofs (which absorb little insolation) can be effective in reducingmore » cooling energy use. Earlier studies have suggested that cool roofs incur no additional cost if color changes are incorporated into routine re-roofing and re-surfacing schedules. There is a sizable body of measured data (primarily collected for residential sector) documenting energy-saving effects of cool roofs as shown. Both measured data and simulations clearly demonstrate that increasing the albedo of roofs is an attractive (and cost-effective) way of reducing the net radiative heat gains through the roof and hence, reducing building cooling loads. To change the albedo, the rooftops of buildings may be painted with reflective coatings or covered with a new light-colored material. Since most roofs have regular maintenance schedules or need to be re-roofed or re-coated periodically, the change of the albedo should be done then. In that case, the cost would be limited to the incremental cost associated with the high-albedo material. In buildings and climates with significant air-conditioning use, increasing the albedo of roofs will reduce energy use and produce a stream of savings immediately.« less
  • Dark roofs raise the summertime air-conditioning demand of buildings. For highly-absorptive roofs, the difference between the surface and ambient air temperatures can be as high as 90 F, while for highly-reflective roofs with similar insulative properties, the difference is only about 20 F. For this reason, cool roofs are effective in reducing cooling energy use. Several experiments on individual residential buildings in California and Florida show that coating roofs white reduces summertime average daily air-conditioning electricity use from 2--63%. This demonstration project was carried out to address some of the practical issues regarding the implementation of reflective roofs in amore » few commercial buildings. The authors monitored air-conditioning electricity use, roof surface temperature, plenum, indoor, and outdoor air temperatures, and other environmental variables in three buildings in California: two medical office buildings in Gilroy and Davis and a retail store in San Jose. Coating the roofs of these buildings with a reflective coating increased the roof albedo from an average of 0.20--0.60. The roof surface temperature on hot sunny summer afternoons fell from 175 F--120 F after the coating was applied. Summertime average daily air-conditioning electricity use was reduced by 18% (6.3 kWh/1000ft{sup 2}) in the Davis building, 13% (3.6 kWh/1000ft{sup 2}) in the Gilroy building, and 2% (0.4 kWh/1000ft{sup 2}) in the San Jose store. In each building, a kiosk was installed to display information from the project in order to educate and inform the general public about the environmental and energy-saving benefits of cool roofs. They were designed to explain cool-roof coating theory and to display real-time measurements of weather conditions, roof surface temperature, and air-conditioning electricity use. 55 figs., 15 tabs.« less
  • We have developed initial estimates of the potential benefits of cool roofs on federal buildings and facilities (building scale) as well as extrapolated the results to all national facilities under the administration of the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). In addition, a spreadsheet ''calculator'' is devised to help FEMP estimate potential energy and cost savings of cool roof projects. Based on calculations for an average insulation level of R-11 for roofs, it is estimated that nationwide annual savings in energy costs will amount to $16M and $32M for two scenarios of increased roof albedo (moderate and high increases), respectively. Thesemore » savings, corresponding to about 3.8 percent and 7.5 percent of the base energy costs for FEMP facilities, include the increased heating energy use (penalties) in winter. To keep the cost of conserved energy (CCE) under $0.08 kWh-1 as a nationwide average, the calculations suggest that the incremental cost for cool roofs should not exceed $0.06 ft-2, assuming that cool roofs have the same life span as their non-cool counterparts. However, cool roofs usually have extended life spans, e.g., 15-30 years versus 10 years for conventional roofs, and if the costs of re-roofing are also factored in, the cutoff incremental cost to keep CCE under $0.08 kWh-1 can be much higher. In between these two ends, there is of course a range of various combinations and options.« less
  • Solar-reflective roofs stay cooler in the sun than solar-absorptive roofs. Such ''cool'' roofs achieve lower surface temperatures that reduce heat conduction into the building and the building's cooling load. The California Energy Commission has funded research in which Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has measured the electricity use and peak demand in commercial buildings to document savings from implementing the Commission's Cool Roofs program. The study seeks to determine the savings achieved by cool roofs by monitoring the energy use of a carefully selected assortment of buildings participating in the Cool Roofs program. Measurements were needed because the peak savingsmore » resulting from the application of cool roofs on different types of buildings in the diverse California climate zones have not been well characterized to date. Only a few occupancy categories (e.g., office and retail buildings) have been monitored before this, and those were done under a limited number of climatic conditions. To help rectify this situation, LBNL was tasked to select the buildings to be monitored, measure roof performance before and after replacing a hot roof by a cool roof, and document both energy and peak demand savings resulting from installation of cool roofs. We monitored the effects of cool roofs on energy use and environmental parameters in six California buildings at three different sites: a retail store in Sacramento; an elementary school in San Marcos (near San Diego); and a 4-building cold storage facility in Reedley (near Fresno). The latter included a cold storage building, a conditioning and fruit-palletizing area, a conditioned packing area, and two unconditioned packing areas (counted as one building).« less