This article was downloaded by: [University of Edinburgh]

On: 07 February 2014, At: 08:51

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Advances in Building Energy Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/taer20

Cool roofs as a strategy to tackle global

warming: economical and technical
opportunities
a a a a b
F. Rossi , F. Cotana , M. Filipponi , A. Nicolini , S. Menon & A.
b
Rosenfeld
a
CIRIAF, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
b
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
Published online: 20 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: F. Rossi, F. Cotana, M. Filipponi, A. Nicolini, S. Menon & A. Rosenfeld (2013)
Cool roofs as a strategy to tackle global warming: economical and technical opportunities,
Advances in Building Energy Research, 7:2, 254-268, DOI: 10.1080/17512549.2013.865555

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512549.2013.865555

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Advances in Building Energy Research, 2013
Vol. 7, No. 2, 254–268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512549.2013.865555

Cool roofs as a strategy to tackle global warming: economical and technical

opportunities
F. Rossia*, F. Cotanaa, M. Filipponia, A. Nicolinia, S. Menonb and A. Rosenfeldb
a
CIRIAF, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy; bLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA,
USA

There is a growing consensus within the scientific community that the Earth’s climate system is
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

unequivocally warming and it is very likely (according to the formal uncertainty language used
in the AR4, the term “very likely” refers to >90% assessed probability of occurrence) due to the
increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Urgent solutions need to be adopted,
which are environmentally sustainable, in order to tackle global warming in the short term. At
present, the most accredited global warming mitigation methods are represented by the
emissions reduction technologies. Such technologies include energy from renewable sources
such as solar and wind. A potential alternative is to modify the Earth’s albedo by reflective
surfaces (pavements and roofs), which are already employed to reduce building energy
consumption and to mitigate heat island effects.
In this paper a procedure is proposed which evaluates the influence of changes in the
Earth’s albedo on the Earth’s temperature and, as a consequence, quantifies the high albedo
surface size required to compensate or offset global warming from changes in CO2.
Additionally, a technical-economical comparison is carried out here between the proposed
albedo system and the main technologies for the production of electric and thermal energy
from renewable sources in order to evaluate its effectiveness in terms of cost of carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) emission reduction.
Keywords: albedo; cool roofs; global warming; high albedo surface; CO2 offset

1. Introduction
The rapid increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations over the last 250 years has produced a
0.67°C rise in global mean temperatures (IPCC, 2007d). IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report predicts
that continued GHG emissions (current rate) would cause, by the end of the twenty-first century, a
globally average surface warming between 1.8°C and 3.4°C (IPCC, 2007f). The most worrisome
effects of global warming include severe weather (spells of very high temperatures, change in the
amount and pattern of precipitation, and torrential rains) and related hydro-geological events
(flooding, droughts, glacier retreat, landslides, sea level rise), many of which have been
already occurring.
European Directives (following Kyoto targets) reserve a particular focus to the improvement
of environmental policies and strategies for Member States in order to cope with Climate Change
(European Parliament, 2003). In this context, Albedo Control technologies (e.g. cool roofs) could
be proposed as a complementary strategy for GW mitigation to fulfill International commitments
against Climate Changes.

*Corresponding author. Email: federico.rossi@unipg.it

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Advances in Building Energy Research 255

Cool roofs are systems characterized by high solar reflectance and high thermal emittance;
these characteristics lead to a clear and strong tendency of cool roof materials to stay cooler,
when subjected to continuous solar irradiation, than the materials conventionally used in tra-
ditional roofing constructions (Santamouris, Synnefa, Zinzi, & Carnielo, 2007).
Albedo Control technologies/cool roofs may introduce three separate environmental-positive
effects: (i) the direct contribution to the mitigation of global warming by reflecting out of the
atmosphere the component of short wave radiation coming from the Sun, (ii) the indirect contri-
bution generated by the energy saving for reducing cooling requirements of buildings, (iii) the
indirect contribution for mitigating the urban heat island phenomenon.
It is science proven that the large diffusion of cool roofs can be useful to achieve energy savings
and energy efficiency in buildings (Santamouris, 2007). Benefits generated by cool roof technol-
ogies are today mainly related to the secondary benefit on the microclimate and the corresponding
reduction in electricity demand. Synnefa, Santamouris, and Akbari (2007) and Synnefa, Santa-
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

mouris, and Apostolakis (2007) evaluated a decrease of 8–48 kWh/m2 in energy loads for
summer air conditioning in residential buildings, after cool roof installation (increasing solar reflec-
tance by 0.65), as a function of several climatic conditions. Kolokotsa, Diakaki, Papantoniou, and
Vlissidis (2012) confirmed the effectiveness of cool roof technology in terms of improvement of the
thermal conditions also in non-air-conditioned buildings by monitoring the case study of a labora-
tory building in Iraklion; Synnefa, Saliari, and Santamouris (2012) predicted by transient system
(TRNSYS) simulator the thermal behavior of a case-study scholar building in Athens: the
results, also experimentally validated, showed a decrease in the annual cooling load by 40%
after the installation of cool roofs; Doya, Bozonnet, and Allard (2012) showed the positive effect
of cool roofs against urban heat island by monitoring a micro-scale experimental arrangement by
reproducing typical urban canyoning geometries: the work showed the positive impacts of cool
roofs for both indoor and outdoor thermal conditions.
Relevant reductions in residential energy loads (corresponding to an increase in solar reflec-
tance of coatings of 0.65) have been quantified by Synnefa et al. (2007) by using TRNSYS
thermal simulator software for 27 different cities around the world representative of different cli-
matic conditions (e.g. Mediterranean, humid continental, subtropical arid, desert): the study
demonstrated that the heating penalty (0.2–17 kWh/m2 year) is less important compared to the
cooling load reduction (9–48 kWh/m2 year) for the climates studied.
With respect to the direct compensatory effect of cool roofs against Global Warming, a recent
study of Akbari and Matthews (2012) quantified the long-term effects of increasing urban albedo
(in terms of CO2eq offsetting potential) by applying the University of Victoria Earth System
Climate Model (UVic ESCM) that is an intermediate complexity global climate model.
The present work focuses on the quantification of the direct positive compensatory effect of
such materials by proposing a new energy balance model.
A modification to the Earth’s albedo by surfaces that are more reflective would reduce the portion
of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth, and consequently decrease average global temperature
(AGT). Such decrease in AGT could also be interpreted as a decrease in radiative forcing (RF).
Some studies assert that the technologies for the enhancement of surface albedo are limited in
their potential and would cause a net warming effect on global climate. Irvine, Ridgwell, and Lunt
(2011), e.g. have estimated, from the results of atmosphere–ocean general circulation model simu-
lations, that the cooling effect of surface albedo modification is strongly seasonal and mostly con-
fined to the areas of application. Jacobson and Ten Hoeve (2012) conclude that a conversion of
rooftops worldwide to white roofs would cool population-weighted global temperatures by
∼0.02 K but warm the Earth overall by ∼0.07 K. For comparison, a recent study by Millstein
and Menon (2011) quantified the response of surface heating and air temperatures to the installa-
tion of white roofs, demonstrating that increasing the surface reflectance reduces net radiation
 256 F. Rossi et al.

absorbed by the Earth. Other studies that have examined the impacts from worldwide conversion
of urban surfaces to white by Oleson, Bonan, and Feddema (2010) and Akbari, Menon, and
Rosenfeld (2009) indicate similar and significant reductions in net absorbed radiation from the
global application of white surfaces in urban environments. To conclude, white roofs provide a
sensible, low-cost solution that significantly reduces energy need and costs in a wide variety of
climates, and a growing body of work suggests that selective use of white roofs may also
reduce heating of the Earth’s surface.
A quantification of the reflective surface effectiveness was previously estimated by Rossi and
Cotana (2007) through a mathematical procedure, based on two energy balances (visible and
infrared spectrum) between the sky, atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. The procedure consists
of three steps: first, the decrease in RF due to Earth’s albedo enhancement is calculated. Then, the
change in RF produced by the growth of CO2eq atmospheric concentration is estimated. Finally, a
comparison of these two RFs allows one to relate the changes in the Earth’s albedo to the changes
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

in the atmospheric CO2eq content. The correlation between the albedo change and the GHG offset
has been obtained by the hypothesis that the temperature increase in the last two centuries has
been caused exclusively by the GHG concentration variation that occurred in the same period.
Using the mathematical procedure, a CO2eq equivalency of −1.60 kg of CO2eq per m2 of Earth
area for a 0.01 change in albedo has been calculated (Rossi & Cotana, 2007).
Previous calculations apply for the average cloud cover over the Earth and for a global mean
RF. Indeed the RF is a strong function of cloud cover, place of installation (latitude L) of high
albedo surfaces and also of their installation peculiarities (tilt angle β and azimuth angle γ).
In the present paper a new procedure is proposed to upgrade the basic version, which evalu-
ates the influence of latitude, tilt and azimuth angles of high albedo surface on CO2 offset. A com-
pensating economical value is also specifically assigned to the high albedo surfaces. A GHG
“abatement” cost through high albedo surfaces has been compared to the one obtained from
the main renewable energy sources. The technologies for renewable energy sources considered
in this study are solar panels for the generation of thermal energy, photovoltaic panels, wind gen-
erators and hydroelectric power plants. The emissions avoided by each type of renewable energy
source have been calculated as a difference between the emissions produced for the generation of
1 electric or thermal kWh from the best traditional source technology. The abatement cost is then
calculated as the ratio of the cost difference for the energy unit generation between renewable and
traditional sources to the value of the corresponding avoided emissions.
The possible income resulting from selling the electric energy has not been considered in the
evaluation of the abatement costs from the different technologies. This is because such offsets
may be spread over decades, are distorted by governmental incentives and do not fully include
the cost of associated environmental damage. Similarly, albedo increases may reduce building
cooling costs (Akbari et al., 2009), and costs associated with increasing reflectance of surfaces
may be nearly “free” if designed into new construction. Thus, while somewhat simplified, this
model allows for a relative technology comparison.

2. The procedure
2.1. The basic procedure
The basic procedure is based on the combined contribution of a mathematical relation and histori-
cal data on CO2eq atmospheric concentration and the Earth’s RF. The mathematical relation, based
on energy balance between outer space, atmosphere and the Earth’s surface (see Figure 1), calcu-
lates the dependence between Earth’s albedo in the solar and infrared spectrum, the RF and the
global mean temperature (Rossi & Cotana, 2007).
 Advances in Building Energy Research 257
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

Figure 1. Scheme of the irradiation heat exchange.

A wide range of direct and indirect measurements confirm that the atmospheric mixing ratio of
CO2 has increased globally by about 105 ppm over the last 250 years, from a range of 275 to 285
ppm in the pre-industrial era (AD 1000–1750) to 385 ppm in the present day (IPCC, 2007b).
The global atmospheric concentration of CH4 has increased from a pre-industrial value of
about 715–1774 ppb in 2005 (IPCC, 2007c). N2O concentration has increased from 270 to
319 ppb (IPCC, 2007c). Montreal gases (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs), chlorocarbons, bromocarbons and halons) and other Kyoto gases (hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)) have increased from a zero pre-
industrial concentration to a value of about 1.5 ppb (IPCC, 2007c). Then total CO2eq concen-
tration increase is obtained by the sum of all GHG concentrations multiplied for the corresponding
global warming potential (GWP). In the same period, global mean temperature has increased by
about + 0.67°C. By means of a mathematical relation (Rossi & Cotana, 2007) it has been esti-
mated that the increase in RF necessary to cause such a temperature growth is equal to 1.88
W/m2 (ΔRF). By multiplying ΔRF by the Earth’s surface area, and dividing by ΔCO2eq, it
follows that changing the atmospheric CO2eq concentration results in a change in RF of 0.79
kW/ton CO2eq. This value is very close to the one used by Akbari et al. (2009) (0.91 kW/tCO2eq).
The decrease in RF caused by an increase in the Earth’s albedo by means of high albedo sur-
faces can be also estimated with the same mathematical relation (Rossi & Cotana, 2007). It pro-
vides an adjusted top of the atmosphere RF of −1.27 Wm−2 for increasing the albedo by 0.01.
Using the estimated kW RF per ton of atmospheric CO2eq, an equivalency of −1.60 kg of
CO2eq per m2 of Earth area for a 0.01 change in albedo has been calculated. Using the IPCC
RF equivalent (IPCC, 2007e), with an albedo change of 0.50, the emitted CO2eq offset is then
estimated at −145 kg CO2 per m2 (i.e. 6.9 m2 of high albedo area to offset 1 ton of emitted CO2).

2.2. The new procedure

Previous calculations apply for the average cloud cover over the Earth and for the global mean RF.
Indeed the RF is a strong function of cloud cover, place of installation (latitude L) of high albedo
surfaces and also of their installation peculiarity (tilt angle β and azimuth angle γ). Models can
both predict the CO2 offset in global mean conditions and in the case of surfaces with specific
latitude, tilt and azimuth angle.
To evaluate the effect of L, β and γ on CO2eq offset the following hypothesis has been used:
the amount of CO2eq offset by a high albedo surface is directly proportional to the total solar
 258 F. Rossi et al.

radiation reaching the surface itself. Thus, according to the hypothesis, by doubling the irradiation
energy captured by the surface, the reflected amount is also doubled and it takes half the area to
offset the same amount of CO2.
The total solar radiation I received by a flat-plate collector is a combination of direct beam radi-
ation Ib, diffuse radiation Id and radiation reflected from the surface in front of the collector Ir:

I = Ib · cos u + Id + Ir , (1)

where θ is the incident angle of the Sun’s rays to the collector. The incident angle is a function of the
Sun’s position in the sky and the orientation of the collector. Equations presented by Benrod and
Bock (1934), Kondratyev (1969) and Coffari (1977) were used to compute the incident angle θ.
Equation (1) can be used to find the total irradiation energy incident on a tilted plane H during a
whole day by integrating with respect to time, using the sunrise and sunset angles as limits.
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

The total irradiation energy reaching a horizontal plane at the location on the Earth’s surface
throughout a whole day is calculated as:

Hb = H0b · KT , (2)

where H0b is the extraterrestrial irradiation on a horizontal plane above the location and KT is the
clearness index.
The diffuse sky radiation Id received by the collector is calculated through an anisotropic radi-
ation model developed by Perez, Ineichen, Seals, Michalsky, and Stewart (1990):

B
Id = Idh · [0.5 · (1 − F1 ) · (1 + cos b) + F1 · + F2 · sin b], (3)
D

where Idh is the diffuse solar horizontal radiation, F1 the circumsolar anisotropy coefficient, F2 the
horizon/zenith anisotropy coefficient, β the tilt of the collector from the horizontal, B is equal to 0
or to the cosine of the incident angle whichever is greater and D is equal to 0.087 or to the cosine
of the solar zenith angle whichever is greater. The ground-reflected radiation received by a col-
lector is a function of the global horizontal radiation Ih, the tilt β and the surface reflectivity or
albedo as (Marion & Wilcox, 1994):

Ir = 0.5 · as · Ih · (1 − cos b). (4)

2.3. Literature model comparison

The proposed methodology has been compared with other published models for the prediction of
the reflective surface effectiveness. In fact, there are many evidences that the expectation of
regional cooling from surface albedo increases is robust across a variety of different mechanisms
of surface albedo change.
Myhre and Myhre (2003) developed a model to estimate the RF associated with surface
albedo increases as a result of anthropogenic land cover change. They estimated a negative RF
reduction of 0.52–1.2 Wm−2 for a 0.01 increase in surface albedo.
Akbari, Matthews, and Seto (2012) calculated an emitted CO2 equivalency of −2.5 kg of CO2
per m2 of urban area for a 0.01 change in albedo.
For cool roofs with a proposed albedo change of 0.50, the emitted CO2 offset is estimated as
−125 kg CO2 per m2 of roof area (i.e. 8 m2 of cool roof area to offset 1 ton of emitted CO2).
 Advances in Building Energy Research 259

A surface of about 7 m2 for our methodology offsets 1 ton of emitted CO2. The Myhre model
obtains, for the same conditions, a value of 8.3 m2. The three models provide results very
close to each other.
All these methodologies include various sources of uncertainties, especially due to long-term
effects and local climatic conditions, for example, the variability of cloud cover. The proposed
procedure, on the contrary, proves to be precautionary and versatile because it can take into
account important variables like time and position, specifying the site’s conditions as input data.

2.4. Economical opportunities

The surface albedo modification has relatively low technological needs and could be easily
implemented by local actors with low costs. In this respect, our procedure shows that, on
average, 7 m2 of high reflective surface can compensate, in terms of global mean temperature
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

increase, the effect of about 1 ton of CO2 emissions. The inclusion of the albedo amplification
method in the technological options for global warming mitigation and for the assignment of
an economic value, e.g. Emissions Credits, from high reflective roofs could be strategic for ter-
ritories in the tropical and mid-latitude areas, low cloudiness areas, and in general all low
albedo surfaces. Interesting economical opportunities could arise for all the developing and
newly industrialized countries in such areas that could gain from the trading of emission credits.
To evaluate the economic advantage from reflective roofs, it would be useful to compare rela-
tive costs for implementing reflective treatments versus costs from renewable energy generation,
because ultimately both abate or in some case offset, to some extent, CO2 emissions.

3. Embedded emissions of renewable energy sources

3.1. Photovoltaic panels
Commercial PV modules may be divided into two broad categories: wafer-based c-Si and thin
films. Thin films is the technology with the lowest price1 (around 1.4 €/W; International
Energy Agency [IEA], 2010a) and lowest emissions per energy unit manufactured (35 gCO2eq/
kWhe; Fthenakis, Kim, & Alsema, 2008); on the other hand their energetic efficiency (with a
value of photovoltaic panel efficiency between 6% and 12%; IEA, 2010a) is lower than both
monocrystalline silicon cells (photovoltaic panel efficiency between 14% and 20%; IEA,
2010a) and multicrystalline silicon cells (value of photovoltaic panel efficiency between 13%
and 15%; IEA, 2010a). Emissions of CO2eq related to the manufacturing, maintenance and dis-
posal phases for each type of panel technology have been calculated for the following conditions
(Fthenakis et al., 2008):

. ground-mounted systems;
. Southern European insolation (1700 kWh/m2/year);
. performance ratio of 0.8;
. lifetime of 30 years;
. upstream electricity for the average grid mixture for continental Europe (Union of the Co-
ordination of Transmission of Electricity).

Since panels have a lower albedo than the Earth’s surface, causing an increase in the average
radiating temperature, the corresponding emissions should be added to that produced by life-cycle
phases. However, such a contribution can be neglected: the albedo of typical standard roofing
materials ranges from 0.10 to 0.25; the albedo of grassland and cropland varies in the same
 260 F. Rossi et al.

range. One can conservatively assume that the average albedo of surfaces that could be replaced
by PV panels does not exceed 0.20. By assuming an albedo of 0.10 for panel surface the emitted
CO2 is then estimated at 30 kg per m2.
Mono- and multicrystalline cells, despite their higher energetic efficiencies, have prices
(around 1.8 €/W; IEA, 2010a) and related emissions (around 45 gCO2eq/kWhe; Fthenakis
et al., 2008) higher than those of ribbon silicon cells. The carbon intensity of power generation
in the EU is 316 gCO2eq/kWhe (Capros, Mantzos, Tasios, De Vita, & Kouvaritakis, 2010).
Taking as a reference the above-mentioned system, avoided emissions by a photovoltaic panel
is equal to 280 gCO2eq/kWhe for thin films and 270 gCO2eq/kWhe for crystalline silicon modules.

3.2. Solar thermal flat plate collector

Solar collectors have a nominal peak capacity of about 0.7 kWt/m2 (Cédric, 2005). Similar to
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

photovoltaic panels, the thermal energy performance of a flat-plate thermal collector depends
on the latitude of the installation site. In the event of an installation at a site in southern
Europe, the thermal energy produced could be considered equal to 1000 kWht/m2 year. To
produce the same heat energy by means of a boiler stoked with natural gas2 (Lower Heating
Value LHV of 10 kWh/m3 with 80% efficiency) a fuel volume of 125 Nm3/year is necessary.
In terms of emission, this is equal to a saving of 230 kgCO2/year (230 gCO2/kWht).
The emissions due to the radiating temperature increase caused by the lower albedo of the
collector are not neglected: the warming produced by 1 m2 panel (surface albedo of 0.05) is
the same as the one caused by the release in the atmosphere of 44 kilos of CO2eq. Emissions
from the collector’s whole lifespan (15 years) are nearly 310 kgCO2eq/m2 (20 gCO2eq/kWht)
(Ardente, Beccali, Cellura, & Lo Brano, 2004) and the avoided emissions for a solar flat collector
are equal to 205 gCO2eq/kWht.

3.3. Wind generator

CO2eq emissions of a wind generator plant during its whole life cycle (manufacturing and trans-
portation of materials and components, operation and maintenance of the plant, disposal) strictly
depend on the wind generator size. One kilowatt hour of electricity generated by a 1.65 MW
onshore turbine generates 7.0 g of CO2eq (20 years lifetime) (Vestas Wind Systems, 2006a). As
wind turbine technology improves and larger turbines are used, the lifetime CO2 emissions gen-
erated per kWh are reduced. For example, 1 kWh of electricity generated by a 3 MW onshore
turbine generates 5.7 g of CO2eq (Vestas Wind Systems, 2006b). Taking as a reference a mean
value of 6 gCO2eq/kWhe, avoided emissions are equal to 310 gCO2eq/kWhe.

3.4. Hydroelectric plant

Most of the CO2eq emissions of a hydroelectric plant typically arise during the production and
construction of the power plant (especially for reservoir dams). Those emissions roughly lie
between 2 and 9 gCO2eq/kWhe (Weisser, 2007). However, in some cases hydro-power plants
that use reservoirs can emit significant quantities of GHGs that easily surpass all other GHG emis-
sions in the energy chain, due to land-clearance prior to construction but especially due to flood-
ing of biomass and soil.
Overall, the life-cycle CO2eq emissions of a hydroelectric plant depend on the type of plant
(run-off or reservoir), its size and usage (e.g. pumped hydro), as well as the electricity mix
(and hence emissions) used for its operation. In fact, the life-cycle GHG emissions from
pumped hydro can be significantly larger than the values quoted here when the electricity mix
 Advances in Building Energy Research 261

used to pump/store water is generated from fossil fuel-based technologies. In Europe GHG emis-
sions range from the lowest value for Norway of 27 gCO2eq/kWh (mix based predominantly on
hydro) to 1620 gCO2eq/kWh for Poland (mix based mostly on coal) (Dones, Heck, & Hirschberg,
2003). For the sake of simplicity only dam and pumped-storage plants have been considered.
Mean avoided emissions for such typology of plants are 300 gCO2eq/kWhe.

3.5. Reflective surface

In the hypothesis of producing high albedo surfaces through simple coating of paint, GHG emis-
sions strictly depend on coating type. A surface coated with water-based paint emits about 3
kgCO2eq/m2 over a period of 10 years (Vandenberghe & Berthet, 2004). When the coating is
made of solvent-based paint, the GHG emissions double (Vandenberghe & Berthet, 2004).
However, such a contribution can be neglected; the laying of a surface which produces an increase
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

in albedo of 0.5 compensates for, during its life cycle, the release in the atmosphere of 145
kgCO2eq/m2.
The values of avoided emissions for each technology discussed are shown in the following
tables.

4. Technical-economical effectiveness
The above tables do not immediately allow for the comparison of renewable energy sources with
white reflective technology in terms of avoided CO2, as the former are systems that produce
energy whereas the latter is a system to mitigate Earth AGT. However, if the main goal of renew-
able energy sources is the emission reduction in the atmosphere of climate-affecting gases, a com-
parison with white reflective system may be proposed, based on the cost necessary to avoid the
same amount of emitted CO2eq. Additionally, to the extent that there is a carbon offset trading
market in place, such calculations allow albedo increases to be traded alongside fossil fuel
avoidance.
As far as photovoltaic, thermal solar, wind and hydroelectric power plants are concerned, the
cost of GHG emission reduction CCO2 has been evaluated as the ratio of the production cost differ-
ence compared with the best successful traditional technology to the value of the corresponding
avoided emissions, for the generation of an electric or thermal energy unit:

CR − CF
CCO2 = , (5)
EF − ER

where CR is the energy unit production cost in c€/kWh for renewable sources, CF is the energy
unit production cost in c€/kWh for traditional sources, ER are CO2eq emissions (gCO2eq/kWh)
with renewable energy sources, EF are CO2eq (gCO2eq/kWh) emissions with traditional energy
sources.
Most of the technologies described below are compared with the average after tax electricity
price for Europe that is 11.0 c€/kWhe (Capros, Mantzos, Tasios, De Vita, & Kouvaritakis, 2010).
Values of 316 gCO2eq/kWhe and 11.0 c€/kWhe are used for EF and CF and values for ER and CR
for the different technologies considered are given in Tables 1–3.

4.1. Photovoltaic plants

Electric energy production cost of photovoltaic panels depends heavily on two factors: the amount
of yearly sunlight irradiation (and associated capacity factor) and the interest/discount rate.
 262 F. Rossi et al.

Table 1. CO2eq avoided emissions using renewable energy sources.

Total emissions ER Avoided emissions
Technology gCO2eq/kWh gCO2eq/kWh
Photovoltaic thin films 35 280
Photovoltaic mono-/multicrystalline silicon 45 270
Thermal solar (flat collector) 25 205
Wind generator 6 310
Hydroelectric 17 300

Table 2. CO2eq emissions offset using white reflective technology.

Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

Offset emissions
Technology kgCO2eq/m2
High albedo surfaces 145

Table 3. Comparison of avoided (or offset for the reflective roofs) CO2eq emission costs between different
renewable sources and reflective roof technology.
CR Current abatement costs
Technology c€/kWh €/t CO2eq
Thin film 22.5 516
Photovoltaic mono-/multicrystalline silicon 22.5 535
Thermal solar (flat collector) 11 366
Wind generator 6.5 −145
Hydroelectric 6.0 −165
Reflective roofs – 0

Assuming an interest rate of 10%, the PV electricity generation costs for utility-scale applications
range from 17 c€/kWh in locations with very high irradiation and capacity factor (2000 kWh/kW,
i.e. a 23% capacity factor) (Nicolini, Cotana, & Rossi, 2011) to 34 c€/kWh in sites with moderate/
low irradiation (1000 kWh/kW, corresponding to a capacity factor of 11%; IEA, 2010a). Com-
pared to the average EU electricity price, the cost difference between such technologies is
about 11.5 c€/kWhe. Relation (5) gives the average CO2eq abatement cost of 51.5 c€/kgCO2eq
for thin films. For multicrystalline and monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic panels the CO2eq
abatement cost is 53.5 c€/kgCO2eq.

4.2. Thermal solar (flat collector)

Thermal energy production cost of solar panels depends on the plant size. For a large domestic
hot water system, the average production cost is 9–13 c€/kWht (IPCC, 2007a). The average
production cost of thermal energy through a methane house boiler is about 3.5 c€/kWht (U.
S. Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2011a). Thus the cost difference between such
technologies is 7.5 c€/kWht. Relation (5) gives a CO2eq average abatement cost of 37 c
€/kgCO2eq.
 Advances in Building Energy Research 263

4.3. Wind generator

Electric energy production cost of wind plants range from approximately 8–10 c€/kWhe at sites
with low average wind speeds to approximately 5–6 c€/kWhe at windy coastal sites, with an
average of approximately 6.5 c€/kWhe at a wind site with average wind speeds (European
Wind Energy Association, 2011). Compared to the EU price of electricity, the production cost
of wind plants is lower by 4.5 c€/kWhe. Thus, the average cost of CO2eq abatement is negative:
−14.5 c€/kgCO2eq.

4.4. Hydroelectric plant

Electric energy production cost of hydroelectric power plants depends on the plant size and on the
elevation type. The average cost of conventional hydro and pumped storage is about 6.0 c€/kWhe
(EIA, 2011b). Compared to the EU price of electricity, the production cost of wind plants of 5.0 c
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

€/kWhe is lower. Thus, as for wind power plants, the cost of CO2eq abatement is negative: −16.5 c
€/kgCO2eq.

4.5. Reflective roofs

In the hypothesis of producing high albedo surfaces through simple coating of one or more coats of
paint, the surface cost mainly depends on the paint type (Pisello, Brinchi, Nicolini, & Cotana, 2013).
A preferred roof protection technology in the USA for flat-roof buildings was black asphalt due to the
low costs of asphalt and labour. More recently factory-produced roof coatings and membranes that
help increase roof longevity and have low installation costs have become more prevalent. Since
these roofing materials are available in white, the cost differential between white and black roofing
materials has become smaller and range between US$1 and 3 per square foot (Sproul, Wan, & Rosen-
feld, 2012). Additionally, policy measures such as the 2008 California Title 24 Energy Efficient
Building Standard that requires new and replacement roofs in flat-roof buildings be white, have pro-
vided greater incentives for the adoption of white roofs. Similar measures could be expected in
Europe, resulting in zero price differentials for white versus non-white roofs. Thus, our cost estimates
for reflective roofs assume zero costs to make roofs more reflective. The avoided (or offset in the case
of reflective roofs) CO2eq costs are summarized in Table 3.
Table 4 shows the estimated 2035 abatement costs of different renewable technologies and
cool roof technology along with the abatement potential that may be compared to the McKinsey

Table 4. Comparison of avoided CO2eq emissions and abatement potential between different renewable
sources for 2035 and reflective roof technology.
Annual Avoided Annual avoided Abatement Abatement
energy emissions emissions costs potential
Technology kWhe/kW gCO2/kWhe kgCO2/kW €/tCO2eq GtCO2eq/year
Thin film 1600 280 584 −42 0.385
PV mono/multi 1600 270 568 −45 0.385
panels
Thermal solar 1430 205 293 366 0.054
Wind generator 3400 310 1340 −543 0.562
Hydroelectric 5200 300 2002 −512 2.285
Reflective roofs – 145a – 0 1.377
a
kgCO2/m2.
 264 F. Rossi et al.

abatement cost curve (McKinsey & Company, 2010) that lists technical GHG abatement
measures. Values in Table 4 are obtained from Equation (13). Our base price is assumed to be
the cost of electricity production for Europe in 2030 that is 14.4 c€/kWhe and emissions are
approximated as 179 gCO2eq/kWhe (Capros, Mantzos, Tasios, De Vita, & Kouvaritakis, 2010).
Savings are indicated by negative values. The reflective roof technology does not generate
energy nor does it lead to avoided emissions and thus units and numbers are given separately
where applicable.
Assumptions included are also the estimated global capacity electricity generation and the
estimated electricity production costs from the different renewable energy sources in 2035.
These are 8.72×108 kWe (IEA, 2010a) and 13.8 c€/kWhe (IEA, 2010b) from photovoltaic,
1.85×108 kWt (Weisser, 2007) and 11.0 c€/kWht from thermal solar (IPCC, 2007a), 5.33×108
kWe (EIA, 2011c) and 5.0 c€/kWhe (IEA, 2010b) from wind, and 1.46×109 kWe (EIA, 2011c)
and 6.0 c€/kWhe (IEA, 2010b) from hydro.
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

It is also assumed that the energy per unit area produced annually by thin films, photovoltaic
and thermal solar is 256 kWhe/m2, 256 kWhe/m2, and 1000 kWht/m2, respectively. For photovol-
taic panels, a solar irradiation of 1600 kWh/m2/year is assumed for southern European insolation
conditions and the efficiency of panels are assumed to be 16%. For solar thermal panels similar
insolation conditions are assumed but with efficiencies of 60%. For wind generators and hydro-
electric plants, capacity factors of 40% and 60% are assumed. These values represent operating
conditions that maximize energy production for Europe.
For reflective roofs, the global urban roof area that could potentially be made more reflective
is assumed to be half of the total available urban roof surface area of 3.8×1011 m2 and the life of
the roof is assumed to be 20 years. For a 20-year time frame a total abatement potential of CO2eq is
assumed to be 27.5 GtCO2eq.
Figure 2 shows both the abatement potential in GtCO2eq/year and the abatement cost in
€/tCO2eq obtained from values in Table 4. If sources of electricity other than Europe energy mix
are considered the production costs and electricity generated would differ, leading to different abate-
ment potentials for the renewable technologies considered in Table 4. Based on the values shown in
Figure 2, the abatement potential of reflective roofs appears highly promising. For renewables,
hydroelectric plants provide the best options in terms of cost savings and abatement potential.
Although the annual offset from reflective roofs is less than from hydroelectric plants that typically

Figure 2. Abatement type cost curve for renewable technologies considered for 2035. Also included are the
annual emissions offset by reflective roofs, mainly white roofs.
 Advances in Building Energy Research 265

require huge investments for the clean energy generated, reflective roofs are easier to install and
have zero costs. However, we note that the abatement potential from reflective roofs, unlike that
for renewable energy sources, is for CO2 emissions that are offset and not fully avoided.

5. Conclusions
An original procedure to evaluate the influence of changes in the Earth’s surface albedo on atmos-
pheric temperature and, as a consequence, to quantify the reflective surfaces size required to com-
pensate global warming has been proposed. Further, procedure can predict the CO2eq offset in
both global mean conditions and in the case of surfaces with specific latitude, tilt and azimuth
angle.
It has been estimated by the proposed procedure that the high albedo roof area (increase in
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

albedo of 0.5) required to offset the effect of a change in temperature from 1 ton of emitted
CO2eq is equal to 7 m2.
The paper also quantifies and compares costs of avoided CO2eq emission in the atmosphere
ensuing from the use of the most common renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and
hydro. For each of the above technologies, avoided CO2eq costs have been calculated as a differ-
ence between the kWh cost as produced by a renewable source and as produced by a combined
power plant, normalized with respect to avoided emissions.
Our study demonstrates that the costs of emission reduction resulting from different renew-
able sources vary greatly depending on the chosen technology. For the 2035 scenario considered
in Table 4, the most economically effective renewable technologies are wind generators and
hydroelectric plants for which the cost of avoided emissions is negative, −543 €/tCO2eq and
−512 €/tCO2eq, respectively. Photovoltaic, for instance, with a mean value of −44 €/tCO2eq,
can be considered less affordable. This is due to the high primary energy consumption from
the production of the photovoltaic panels and in particular for monocrystalline silicon.
The use of reflective roofs can be an important alternative to compensate for GHG introduc-
tion in the atmosphere. With a price of 0 €/tCO2eq such a technology has a higher abatement
potential than some of the other renewable sources considered, with the added advantage of
having relatively simple and reduced installation time. Additionally, in a place like California,
where over half of the flat-roof commercial buildings are air-conditioned, energy savings from
reduced air-conditioning use are attractive. For non-air-conditioned buildings although energy
savings are zero, thermal comfort is improved for occupants. Such features make this technology
particularly suitable for countries in the tropical and mid-latitude belts, those not yet technologi-
cally mature, where higher levels of insolation make the system even more effective and valuable
in terms of CO2 offset. In fact a reflective surface installed in the tropical area is expected to have
an effectiveness that is about two times higher than an equivalent surface elsewhere: the laying at
2 degrees latitude (e.g. Mogadishu) of 1 m2 of surface which produces an increase in albedo of 0.5
compensates for, during its life cycle, the release in the atmosphere of approximately 250
kgCO2eq. The same surface, at 48 degrees latitude (e.g. Paris), compensates for the release of
about 170 kgCO2eq. This technology can be considered as an interesting economical opportunity
as well, for the several developing countries located in such areas.

Nomenclature
β tilt angle
γ azimuth angle
θ incident angle of the Sun’s rays
as albedo of reflective surface
 266 F. Rossi et al.

CCO2 CO2eq abatement cost

CF Energy unit production cost for traditional sources
CR Energy unit production cost for renewable sources
EF CO2eq emissions with traditional energy sources
ER CO2eq emissions with renewable energy sources
F1 circumsolar anisotropy coefficient
F2 horizon/zenith anisotropy coefficient
H total irradiation energy incident on a tilted plane
Hb total irradiation energy reaching a horizontal plane on the Earth’s surface throughout
a whole day
H0b total extraterrestrial irradiation energy on a horizontal plane
I total solar radiation received by a flat-plate collector
Ib direct beam radiation
Id diffuse radiation
Idh diffuse solar horizontal radiation
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

Ir radiation reflected from the surface in front of the collector

KT clearness index
L latitude
q1 thermal flux coming from the outer space in infrared spectrum
q2↑ thermal flux emitted upwards by the atmosphere in infrared spectrum
q2↓ thermal flux emitted downwards by the atmosphere in infrared spectrum
q3 thermal flux emitted upwards by the Earth surface in infrared spectrum
w1 thermal flux coming from the outer space (342 W/m2) in visible spectrum
w2↑ thermal flux emitted upwards by atmosphere in visible spectrum
w2↓ thermal flux emitted downwards by atmosphere in visible spectrum
w3↑ thermal flux emitted upwards by Earth’s surface in visible spectrum

Acknowledgements
The work at LBNL was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-
05CH11231. SM acknowledges support from the DOE EERE program managed by Marc La France. We
gratefully acknowledge Aditya Murthi of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) for providing
the graphics for the cost curve.

Notes
1. The price includes cost of manufacture (material, labor, manufacturing overhead and capital deprecia-
tion at 14% per annum) and the research, marketing, and general and administrative costs.
2. Molecular weight equal to 19.5 g/mol, mass density equal to 0.7–0.9 kg/m3.

References
Akbari, H., & Matthews, H. D. (2012). Global cooling updates: Reflective roofs and pavements. Energy and
Buildings, 55, 2–6.
Akbari, H., Matthews, H. D., & Seto, D. (2012). The long-term effect of increasing the albedo of urban areas.
Environmental Research Letters, 7, 024004, 1–10. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/2/024004
Akbari, H., Menon, S., & Rosenfeld, A. (2009). Global cooling: Increasing world-wide urban albedos to
offset CO2. Climatic Change, 94(3-4), 275–286.
Ardente, F., Beccali, G., Cellura, M., & Lo Brano, V. (2004). Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal col-
lector. Renewable Energy, 30, 1031–1054.
Benrod, F., & Bock, J. E. (1934). A time analysis of sunshine. Transactions American Illumination
Engineering Society, 34, 200–218.
Capros, P., Mantzos, L., Tasios, N., De Vita, A., & Kouvaritakis, N. (2010). EU energy trends to 2030 –
update 2009. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2833/21664
Cédric, P. (2005). The present and future use of solar thermal energy as a primary source of energy. Paris: IEA.
 Advances in Building Energy Research 267

Coffari, E. (1977). The sun and the celestial vault. In A. A. M. Sayigh (Ed.), Solar energy engineering
(pp. 5–36). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Dones, R., Heck, T., & Hirschberg, S. (2003). Greenhouse gas emissions from energy systems: Comparison
and overview (PSI Annual Report 2003, Annex IV). Villigen, Switzerland: Paul Scherrer Institut.
Doya, M., Bozonnet, E., & Allard, F. (2012). Experimental measurement of cool facades performance in a
dense urban environment. Energy and Buildings, 55, 42–50.
European Parliament. (2003). 2003/87/EC directive of the European Parliament and of the Council,
Establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the community and amend-
ing council directive 96/61/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L275(46), 32–46.
European Wind Energy Association. (2011). Pure power – wind energy targets for 2020 and 2030. Retrieved
from www.ewea.org
Fthenakis, V. M., Kim, H. C., & Alsema, E. (2008). Emissions from photovoltaic life cycles. Environmental
Science and Technology, 42(6), 2168–2174.
International Energy Agency. (2010a). Technology roadmap: Solar photovoltaic energy. Paris: IEA
Publications.
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

International Energy Agency. (2010b). World energy outlook 2010. Paris: IEA Publications.
IPCC. (2007a). Chapter 6: Residential and commercial buildings. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch,
R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation contribution of working group III to
the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (p. 401). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2007b). Chapter 3: Observations: Surface and atmospheric climate change. In S. Solomon, D. Qin,
M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change
2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report
of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (p. 253). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
IPCC. (2007c). Chapter 10: Global climate projections. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science
basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change (pp. 760–764). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2007d). Chapter 2: Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In S. Solomon, D.
Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change
2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 137–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
IPCC. (2007e). Chapter 2: Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In S. Solomon, D.
Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change
2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change (p. 141). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC. (2007f). Chapter 7: Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In S.
Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor, & H. L. Miller
(Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the
fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 516–517).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Irvine, P. J., Ridgwell, A., & Lunt, D. J. (2011). Climatic effects of surface albedo engineering. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 116, D24112, 1–20. doi:10.1029/2011JD016281
Jacobson, M. Z., & Ten Hoeve, J. E. (2012). Effects of urban surfaces and white roofs on global and regional
climate. Journal of Climate, 25, 1028–1044.
Kolokotsa, D., Diakaki, C., Papantoniou, S., & Vlissidis, A. (2012). Numerical and experimental analysis of
cool roofs application on a laboratory building in Iraklion. Energy and Buildings, 55, 85–93.
Kondratyev, K. Y. (1969). Radiation in the atmosphere. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Marion, W., & Wilcox, S. (1994). Solar radiation data manual for flat-plate and concentrating collectors.
NREL/TP-463-5607, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
McKinsey & Company. (2010). Impact of the financial crisis on carbon economics: Version 2.1 of the
global greenhouse gas abatement cost curve. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company website: http://
www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/Sustainability/cost%20curve%20PDFs/
ImpactFinancialCrisisCarbonEconomicsGHGcostcurveV21.ashx.
Millstein, D., & Menon, S. (2011). Regional climate consequences of large-scale cool roof and photovoltaic
array deployment. Environmental Research Letters, 6, 1–9. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034001
 268 F. Rossi et al.

Myhre, G., & Myhre, A. (2003). Uncertainties in radiative forcing due to surface albedo changes caused by
land-use changes. Journal of Climate, 16, 1511–1524.
Nicolini, A., Cotana, F., & Rossi, F. (2011). Evaluation and optimization of an innovative low-cost photovol-
taic solar concentrator. International Journal of Photoenergy, art. no. 843209, 1–10. doi:10.1155/2011/
843209
Oleson, K. W., Bonan, G. B., & Feddema, J. (2010). Effects of white roofs on urban temperature in a global
climate model. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03701, 1–7. doi:10.1029/2009GL042194
Perez, R., Ineichen, P., Seals, R., Michalsky, J., & Stewart, R. (1990). Modeling daylight availability and
irradiance components from direct and global irradiance. Solar Energy, 44(5), 271–289.
Pisello, A. L., Brinchi, L., Nicolini, A., & Cotana, F. (2013). Experimental investigations for development of
cool coloured materials for steep-sloped roof. Energies, 6(8), 3637–3653. doi:10.3390/en6083637, 2013
Rossi, F., & Cotana, F. (2007, July). Solutions for global warming control and experimental laboratory vali-
dation. Paper presented at the XXIV IUGG General Assembly, Perugia, Italy.
Santamouris, M. (2007). Heat island research in Europe – the state of the art. Advances Building Energy
Research, 1(1), 123–150.
Downloaded by [University of Edinburgh] at 08:51 07 February 2014

Santamouris, M., Synnefa, A., Zinzi, M., & Carnielo, E. (2007). The database of cool roof materials:
Products, testing procedures and results. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference Palenc
2010 jointly organised with EPIC 2010 & 1st Cool Roofs Conference, Rhode Island, Greece.
Sproul, J., Wan, M. P., & Rosenfeld, A. (2012). Economic comparison of white, green and black flat roofs in
the U.S. Paper submitted for publication.
Synnefa, A., Saliari, M., & Santamouris, M. (2012). Experimental and numerical assessment of the impact of
increased roof reflectance on a school building in Athens. Energy and Buildings, 55, 7–15.
Synnefa, A., Santamouris, M., & Akbari, H. (2007). Estimating the effect of using cool coatings on energy
loads and thermal comfort in residential buildings in various climatic conditions. Journal of Energy and
Buildings, 39, 1167–1174.
Synnefa, A., Santamouris, M., & Apostolakis, K. (2007). On the development, optical properties and thermal
performance of cool colored coatings for the urban environment. Journal of Solar Energy, 81, 488–497.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011a). Average power plant operating expenses for major U.
S. investor-owned electric utilities. Electric power annual 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Energy.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011b). Heating fuel comparison calculator developed by EIA
(Version: HEAT-CALC-Vsn-D_1-09.xls). Retrieved from www.eia.doe.gov/neic/experts/heatcalc.xls
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2011c). International energy outlook 2011 (Report Number:
DOE/EIA-0484(2011)). Washington, DC: Office of Energy Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy.
Vandenberghe, Y., & Berthet, E. (2004). Life cycle assessment of acrylic road marking paints. European
Coatings, 2, 23–33.
Vestas Wind Systems. (2006a). Life cycle assessment of electricity produced from onshore sited wind power
plants based on Vestas V82–1.65 MW turbines. Retrieved from Vestas wind Systems A/S website:
http://www.firstwind.com/sites/default/files/LCA_V82-1.65_MW_onshore.pdf
Vestas Wind Systems. (2006b). Life cycle assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind power plants based
on Vestas V90–3 MW turbines. Retrieved from Vestas wind Systems A/S website: http://www.vestas.
com/Files/Filer/EN/Sustainability/LCA/LCAV90_juni_2006.pdf
Weisser, D. (2007). A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies.
Energy, 32(9), 1543–1559.