California Architect Thinks About White Roofs
If every building had a white roof, we would be able to cool the surrounding areas. That is the reasoning behind a California law about to go into effect next month requiring light reflective roofs on all new buildings. It is already the law for new flat roofs here.
Here, architect Richard Meier and his partner Michael Palladino have apparently created a design to go one further. It’s entirely white; roofs, walls, and interiors.
So this luxury design of a cool and airy Southern California beach house is glamorous and climate friendly.
Well, no. The McMansion-sized size of the thing at 4,280-sq.-ft is not so planet friendly; because it takes more energy to heat and cool a larger space. But this house would be well suited for a ground heat exchange to passively heat and cool itself with 55 degree air cooled from 10 feet under the ground.
As architects in California get closer to 2020, they will need to think more about passive cooling and heating and zero energy houses, as that will be the law by 2020. All new building must be zero energy by then.
Incorporate solar roofing on the white roof, and this could be a zero energy house.
The blue of a solar roof would visually extend right out to the ocean. (And conceal that horrible mess of mechanical contraptions on that roof.) White elastomeric cool roof paint under the solar panels would help cool the modules making them more efficient on hot days.
But are architects thinking about these things?
With 2020 almost upon us: “The beams at the roof, located above the horizontal framing, express the structural rhythm and layering of components,” explains the architect. “This cadence is repeated with the joinery of the painted aluminum exterior wall panels and modular windows. The mass of the exterior plaster walls are juxtaposed to the transparent glazed facades, creating a mosaic of layered materials.”
Blah, blah, blah.
Via Digs Digs
Images: Scott Frances/Esto
I still you are wrong about solar. The very fact that you cite one number “does little but lower your electric bill by 100 bucks a month.” suggests that you don’t realize that solar can power a mere 1000th of your electricity or all 100% of it.
It all depends on the size of the system in relation to your usage. Here in the the East Bay, I’ve encountered homeowners with bills as low as $20 (frugal type in 500 sq ft house in Kensington), and as high as $600 (running pool pumps and plazma tvs in Concord).
That Concord homeowner could lower his monthly bill by about $590 with solar to cover 100% of his usage (just pay transmission etc).
So its not some one amount for everyone: $100.
“So its not some one amount for everyone: $100.”
Of course it’s not. It was a generalized example, a rough average, and a generous one at that. I know full well that you can buy systems from $20,000 to $200,000 and beyond. And once again let me say, I am no opponent of PV. I’m merely getting tired of seeing environmentalism take the form of mere dogmatic devotion to sticking PV all over everything. In a general sense, complexity is the wrong direction. Simplicity of systems and refinement of design (in this case, that would mean siting, orientation, prevailing winds, consideration of solar gains and shading, cooling ponds, etc, etc, etc) are at the heart of environmentally sound design. I’ll grant you, Meier didn’t likely take a lot of that into consideration with this house, but I’m willing to bet some of that is in there. And more and more architects are.
We are not at all in disagreement on all the passive stuff, google-see susan kraemer buffalo house and susan kraemer design vernacular …but do I wish more architects were more open to solar. Especially on a house like that with the sea behind it.
I just sense some weird hostility to and ignorance about solar from architects.
While cool ‘white’ roofs are a good idea, people need to look before they leap when it comes to haphazardly mandating things before they know all the facts and consequences from their actions.
Studies have been conducted showing that highly reflective roof surfaces actually attribute to accelerated degradation of the building facades immediately adjacent and above these high albedo surfaces. UV is the main destructive component of any exterior material. When it’s reflected off of a white roof, it intensifies the UV exposure on material that was never rated to withstand such high levels of exposure.
So on the surface, yes; cool reflective roofs are a good idea, but like anything they should only be done if warranted and practical for not only the building it’s going on, but the surrounding buildings as well. I don’t think it speaks to much for sustainability if you’re essentially speeding up the destruction of the buildings surrounding you.
Hi Susan,
I like the house - don’t get me wrong on that point - however with all that glass & high ceilings - zero energy? Even with the best windows & lots of exterior insulation the house still will ‘eat’ energy.
Actually the water temperature at 50 foot depth a given location varies maybe 2 degrees F over the course of a year. The underground temperature in the north east of CA is typically 52 while the San Diego area is listed as 72 degrees. There are charts available about this on the net.
With hydronic cooling you typically end up using fan coils. For ‘in floor cooling’ you need to stay above stay above the condensation temperature which gives little cooling. If you don’t stay above the condensation temperature you will have a horrible mess with wet everywhere. The fan coils require a certain delta T across the unit to function which in turn requires the heat pump - either GSHP (geothermal source) or ASHP (air source). Even 50 degree water is marginal for fan coil cooling - with 60 degree water you can forget it.
As you might guess I have been through this recently in building my new home.
I have seen the data on the amount of energy expended in making solar panels vs. the energy return. In a decent solar location they are very positive. In Seattle, WA probably never.
Passive solar could be used very much more than it is around the world - same with solar air heat.
Have a great day!,
Russ
The level of discussion on this topic has been good. I guess I also have doubts about the solar payback figures. Does this include the degradation in output?
I have not seen a 40 year lifespan claim before.
I suppose many parts of California have optimal conditions and so the payback will be quite good.
I think it is hard to disuse these issues in general because requirements vary so much by location.
I don’t see how a white roof is going to cool the underside of solar panels. The purpose of the white is to reflect energy.
I used the DOE calculator to look at the cost savings from the most reflective surface I could find and for my location it did not pay for itself. (when the roof itself is very well insulated) But I would guess that there would be a cumulative effect in urban areas.
Clearly many architects are thinking about it. I am not an architect but I like passive design and have thought it was cool and underutilized most of my life. I would like to use it more but my clients do not want what I would consider to be good design. In general they only seem to want a house that is more impressive than their neighbors.
When they do talk about ‘green’ they are generally so confused by the hype that their expectations are unrealistic.