Many thanks John,  but please run the  numbers  for a white roof with a 
high noon  sprinkler: same  daily evaporation as in your original case  , 
plus  larger albedo gain.

The question is whether the grass is necessary , if you've got the water. 

While lawns are a good thing, they weigh quite a lot, and require  much the 
same  waterproof membrane  technology as white roofs, plus increased 
structural investment,  and thermal mass.

On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 6:27:29 PM UTC-5, jharte wrote:
>
> I assigned that problem as a homework assignment in a course I teach.
>
>
> 2.  Consider a house in a relatively hot, sunny location such as Southern 
> California.  
>
> a. To keep the house cool without air conditioning, and thereby reduce 
> energy demand, its inhabitants decide to do one of two things:
>
>   i.  They can paint the roof white, increasing its albedo from 0.1 to 
> 0.8, or
>
>   ii.  They can grow a green roof, using a productive species of grass 
> that will increase the albedo of the roof from 0.1 to 0.2 and that, if 
> watered and fertilized adequately, will cool the house by 
> transpiration.  The rate of transpiration can be estimated from the 
> following: for every kg of grass produced, 300 kg of water are transpired, 
> and the grass grows with an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 1%.    
>
> a. Ignoring the issue of water supply, which of these strategies (i. or 
> ii.) will result in a cooler house?  (20 pts.)
>
> Solution: 2. a.  First, let’s examine the effect of painting the roof 
> white.  We’ll assume an average solar flux on the roof of 250 watts/m2 
> (if you assumed anything between 170 and 300 we will accept it.).  By 
> changing the albedo from 0.1 to 0.8, the home is avoiding the absorption of 
> 0.7 (250) = *175 watts/m2*, *which is the benefit of plan i.*  For plan 
> ii., we need to estimate NPP on the roof first.  At 1% of available energy, 
> the plants are converting 2.5 watts/m2 to biomass. Over a year, this is 
> (2.5 joules/sec-m2) x (3.1 x 107 sec) = 77.5 x megajoules/m2 incorporated 
> into biomass.  Using the conversion: of 16 megajoules(dry biomass) per kg, 
> we find that biomass is produced at an annual rate of  77.5/16 = 4.8 kg 
> (dry biomass0/m2.  Now using the 300:1 ratio of transpired water to 
> photosynthesized biomass, we get 4.8 x 300 = 1450 kg(transpired 
> water)/year.  Transpiring a kilogram of water requires about 2.4 x 106 
> joules (see COW Appendix) and so each year about 2.4 x 106 x 1450 = 3.5 x 
> 109 joules/m2 annually are causing transpiration rather than heating the 
> house.  Expressed in power units, this is 3.5 x 109 (joules/m2)/3.1 x 107 
> sec= 
> *113 watts/m2, which is the transpiration benefit of plan ii.    *But 
> there is also a small albedo benefit of grass versus dark shingle, so we 
> get an additional benefit which is 1/7 of the plan i. benefit (due to an 
> albedo increase of 0.1 rather than 0.7), so now we have 113 + (1/7) 175 = 
> *138 
> watts/m2, which is the albedo benefit of plan ii.*  *So plan i. wins by a 
> little.  *
>
>
> The problem went on to evaluate the added benefit if you burn the grass on 
> the roof for fuel.
>
> I actually replaced my dark shingle roof this autumn with light-colored 
> composition shingle.  It makes a huge difference!
>
>
>
> John Harte
> Professor of Ecosystem Sciences
> ERG/ESPM
> 310 Barrows Hall
> University of California
> Berkeley, CA 94720  USA
> [email protected] <javascript:>
>
>
>
> On Nov 11, 2017, at 2:22 PM, Russell Seitz <[email protected] 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> How do green roofs, which cool by evapotransportation  ( rooftop lawns 
> require water much as those on the ground do) compare in cooling efficiency 
>  with higher albedo white roofs combined with  an equal volume of water 
> spraying when the sun is high?
>
> On Saturday, November 11, 2017 at 12:16:10 AM UTC-5, E Durbrow wrote:
>>
>>
>> Perhaps, tangental. Seville planners think they can cool their city 
>> despite significant temperature increase with 204-700 hectares of green 
>> roofs. 
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171110113938.htm
>>
>>
>> Comment: My layperson’s understanding is that it is very difficult to 
>> predict and simulate city-wide changes in temperature when a modification 
>> (e.g. reflective roofs, green space, etc) occurs. I though I remember that 
>> reading that reflective roofs might have no effect on local temperature 
>> (city’s micro-climate). Modelers, is this the case? 
>>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 
> <javascript:>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to