Content uploaded by Ke Liu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ke Liu on Jan 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
buildings
Article
Low-Carbon Design Path of Building Integrated Photovoltaics:
A Comparative Study Based on Green Building Rating Systems
Ke Liu 1,2 , Beili Zhu 1,2 and Jianping Chen 1,2,3,*
Citation: Liu, K.; Zhu, B.; Chen, J.
Low-Carbon Design Path of Building
Integrated Photovoltaics: A
Comparative Study Based on Green
Building Rating Systems. Buildings
2021,11, 469. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings11100469
Academic Editors: Ayyoob Sharifi,
Baojie He, Chi Feng and Jun Yang
Received: 11 September 2021
Accepted: 8 October 2021
Published: 13 October 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Suzhou University of Science and Technology,
Suzhou 215009, China; lk@mail.usts.edu.cn (K.L.); 1911011016@post.usts.edu.cn (B.Z.)
2Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Intelligent Building Energy Efficiency,
Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215009, China
3Chongqing Innovation Center for Industrial Big Data, Department of Scientific Research,
Chongqing 400700, China
*Correspondence: alan@mail.usts.edu.cn
Abstract:
CO
2
emissions of buildings have a critical impact on the global climate change, and various
green building rating systems (GBRS) have suggested low-carbon requirements to regulate building
emissions. Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), as an integrated technology of photovoltaics
and buildings, is an important way to reduce building CO
2
emissions. At present, the low-carbon
design path of BIPV from architecture is still not unified and clear, and there is a lack of BIPV research
regarding GBRS or from the perspective of architectural design in China. The objective of this study
is to propose a framework of indicators related to carbon emission control in BIPV, guiding the path
of BIPV low-carbon design. This study makes comparisons among the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM), and Assessment Standard for Green Buildings (ASGB), mainly in terms of the scope
weight, induction, and measure features. The BIPV low-carbon design involves energy, materials,
environmental adaptability, management, and innovation, in which energy and materials are the
main scopes with weights of 10.98% and 7.46%, respectively. The five scopes included 17 measures.
Following the measures, the path of the BIPV low-carbon design was defined with six aspects.
Keywords:
building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV); low-carbon design; green building rating
systems (GBRS); CO2emissions; comparative study
1. Introduction
Global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have caused several problems, including
social problems, global warming, and energy supply shortage [1]. Countries and districts
have proposed carbon-neutral goals and related policies. China faces a serious carbon
emission problem, accounting for 27.9% of the world’s total emissions [
2
]. China has an-
nounced its ambitious goal to peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and achieves carbon
neutrality before 2060 in the upgraded Nationally Determined Contributions [
3
] to respond
to climate change positively. To achieve these goals, decarbonization of the building indus-
try is important. Buildings account for 36% of the global final energy consumption and
almost 40% of the total direct and indirect CO
2
emissions [
4
]. Building energy consumption
accounted for 46.5% of the total energy consumption in China in 2018, resulting in carbon
emissions accounting for approximately 51.3% of the total [
5
]. Low-carbonization of the
building industry is essential to determine whether China can meet its international targets.
Optimisation of building energy consumption structure is an important means of reducing
building carbon emissions, and the deployment of renewable energy sources in the built
environment is a key step towards the reduction of fossil fuel consumption in the building
sector [
6
]. Renewable energy sources can occupy a growing share of the total energy
consumption of the building. [
7
] Among these, building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV),
Buildings 2021,11, 469. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11100469 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2021,11, 469 2 of 17
as a cutting-edge technology that combines photovoltaics with buildings, is generally
considered to be the mainstream direction for sustainable building development [
8
]. In
terms of BIPV, photovoltaic (PV) technology is particularly suitable as a renewable energy
source owing to its stable market increase and price reduction [
9
]; in addition to generating
electricity, BIPV modules perform at least one additional function, such as insulation,
weather barrier, or sun shading [8].
At present, there is no unified concept for the BIPV. The International Standard
Organization (ISO) shows that BIPV is a photovoltaic material that is used to replace con-
ventional building materials in parts of the building envelope [
10
], and the International
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) shows that BIPV is a PV module that is considered to
be building-integrated if the PV modules form a building component providing additional
functions [
11
]. In Korea, building-integrated photovoltaic modules are considered to be
building components installed as parts of the building envelope, such as glazing, curtain
walls, and roofs, which are simultaneously photovoltaic electricity generators [
12
]. The
Spanish Technical Building Code mentioned architectural integration of photovoltaic mod-
ules in which solar installations should be aligned with the main axes of the building [
13
].
There are various topics in BIPV research, such as aesthetics [
14
], adaptation [
15
], ecol-
ogy [
16
], enhancement of materials [
17
,
18
], glare assessment [
19
] and energy savings [
20
,
21
].
Kapsis and Athenitis focused on the optical performance of BIPV [
22
], and Skandalos and
Karamanis investigated the thermal performance of semi-transparent PV technologies.
Although there are a number of examples of BIPV, the concept of integration into the
building and its design process have not yet been clearly defined [
23
]. As BIPV has a
broad market prospect and many manufacturers are involved in the production of BIPV
products, a considerable part of the products is manufactured by simple modifications of
ordinary photovoltaic modules, and such products are unable to meet the requirements of
the building ontology [24].
Though dye-sensitized solar cells have been integrated into glass devices as a trans-
parent building component, the related studies paid more attention to the improvement of
material properties from the perspective of physics and chemistry, and rarely mentioned
reasonable use [
25
,
26
]. It is obvious that the current BIPV-related standards are mostly
from the perspective of photovoltaic technology and electrical or product quality standards
and lack design guidance from an architectural perspective. The studies related to BIPV
paid more attention to the building physical environment and attributes of equipment
efficiency and little on the architectural design. Lack of interest is correlated to various
bottlenecks, and one of them is a lack of knowledge among architects on the possibilities
and approaches to adopt architectural photovoltaic applications (APA) [
27
]. Although
issues concerning BIPV in architectural design are discussed in China [
28
], the low-carbon
design of BIPV is seldom mentioned. BIPV is not only a photovoltaic power technology,
but also a concrete measure of green building design [
29
]. Facing the urgent requirement
of building carbon neutrality, it is necessary to define a low-carbon design path framework
from an architectural perspective.
There is an increasing number of studies on CO
2
emissions from buildings because
aggravated climate changes have placed CO
2
emissions at the centre of green building
rating system (GBRS) evaluations of building sustainability [
30
]. The promotion of green
building concepts is essential for all countries, especially in developing countries, green
buildings are developed through the use of GBRS [
31
]. As one of the most effective
solutions for creating green buildings, the indicators of the low-carbon design of BIPV
can be summarised based on the studies on GBRS. Here, we comparatively studied CO
2
-
related indicators of BIPV in three GBRS—Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)
and Assessment Standard for Green Buildings (ASGB), and a framework of indicators
related to carbon emission control in BIPVs was developed based on ASGB-2019. The study
provides suggested scopes, order of importance, related measures, and the path of BIPV
Buildings 2021,11, 469 3 of 17
low-carbon design, which is the first such attempt from the architectural perspective in
this field.
2. Methodology
The primary objective of this paper is to study the related indicators of CO
2
emission
control in BIPV from different GBRS. First, the characteristics of each GBRS were clarified
through a literature survey. To make the comparison referential, the latest versions of the
GBRS were used in this study: LEEDv4.1, BREEAM INC 2016, and ASGB-2019. The follow-
ing comparative analysis of the related indicators in the GBRS included four factors: scope
of coverage, evaluation content, weight, and contribution rate. Based on the comparison,
the similarities and differences of indicators among the different GBRS were discussed, a
framework of BIPV CO
2
emissions control measures was introduced, and the normal form
of the BIPV low-carbon design path was proposed. The study schema is shown in Figure 1.
Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 18
provides suggested scopes, order of importance, related measures, and the path of BIPV
low-carbon design, which is the first such attempt from the architectural perspective in
this field.
2. Methodology
The primary objective of this paper is to study the related indicators of CO2 emission
control in BIPV from different GBRS. First, the characteristics of each GBRS were clarified
through a literature survey. To make the comparison referential, the latest versions of the
GBRS were used in this study: LEEDv4.1, BREEAM INC 2016, and ASGB-2019. The fol-
lowing comparative analysis of the related indicators in the GBRS included four factors:
scope of coverage, evaluation content, weight, and contribution rate. Based on the com-
parison, the similarities and differences of indicators among the different GBRS were dis-
cussed, a framework of BIPV CO2 emissions control measures was introduced, and the
normal form of the BIPV low-carbon design path was proposed. The study schema is
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The study schema.
2.1. Definition of BIPV from the Perspective of Architectural Design
Most definitions of BIPV are from the perspective of electrical specialty, components,
and materials, while consideration of architectural design is rare. The problem of BIPV
product design exposes the lack of integration between photovoltaic (PV) and building
industries, and the low participation of architects, which hinders the promotion and de-
velopment of BIPV. Many building practitioners admit that there is a gap in the
knowledge of the potential and supporting technologies of BIPV [32]. It is difficult to in-
tegrate PV technology into building projects [33]. PV technology used in buildings has
proven to be an effective technological approach to reduce the carbon emissions of build-
ing operations. Integration of PV technology and other renewable energy technologies has
an important role in providing a long-term energy supply with little emissions [34]. More-
over, there is a growing consensus that BIPV systems will be the backbone of the zero-
energy building (ZEB) European target by 2020 [35]. Studies have confirmed that the elec-
tricity provided by BIPV can reduce a considerable amount of CO2 per year [36]. BIPV
systems could be used in different contexts and building types [37]. However, if the low-
carbon design of the BIPV cannot be realised, the contribution of BIPV to carbon emission
reduction will be significantly reduced. This study defines BIPV from the perspective of
the architectural design of a green building that integrates the design of a photovoltaic
system with building elements, ensuring that the use of photovoltaic systems will not af-
fect the functionality, safety, and artistry of the building.
Figure 1. The study schema.
2.1. Definition of BIPV from the Perspective of Architectural Design
Most definitions of BIPV are from the perspective of electrical specialty, components,
and materials, while consideration of architectural design is rare. The problem of BIPV
product design exposes the lack of integration between photovoltaic (PV) and building
industries, and the low participation of architects, which hinders the promotion and devel-
opment of BIPV. Many building practitioners admit that there is a gap in the knowledge
of the potential and supporting technologies of BIPV [
32
]. It is difficult to integrate PV
technology into building projects [
33
]. PV technology used in buildings has proven to be
an effective technological approach to reduce the carbon emissions of building operations.
Integration of PV technology and other renewable energy technologies has an important
role in providing a long-term energy supply with little emissions [
34
]. Moreover, there is a
growing consensus that BIPV systems will be the backbone of the zero-energy building
(ZEB) European target by 2020 [
35
]. Studies have confirmed that the electricity provided
by BIPV can reduce a considerable amount of CO
2
per year [
36
]. BIPV systems could be
used in different contexts and building types [
37
]. However, if the low-carbon design of
the BIPV cannot be realised, the contribution of BIPV to carbon emission reduction will be
significantly reduced. This study defines BIPV from the perspective of the architectural
design of a green building that integrates the design of a photovoltaic system with building
Buildings 2021,11, 469 4 of 17
elements, ensuring that the use of photovoltaic systems will not affect the functionality,
safety, and artistry of the building.
2.2. Literature Surveys of Selected Assessment Systems
The selection of GBRS is based on its development relationships, worldwide recog-
nition, and the global building market. BREEAM, as the world’s first green building
assessment standard, has a moderate structure and hierarchy and a proper number of
standard items, making sure the standard is operable and scientific. LEED was developed
on the basis of BREEAM, and it is one of the most widely used and influential green build-
ing identification certification systems, which has become a reference model for various
countries. The primary references in the initial revision of the ASGB were LEED and
BREEAM. ASGB is the foundation of the environmental rating systems in China which has
the largest construction market in the world [
38
]. We selected the latest versions of each
GBRS, which are BREEAM INC 2016, LEEDv4.1 BD + C, and ASGB-2019.
2.2.1. BREEAM International New Construction 2016 (BREEAM INC 2016)
The BREEAM International New Construction 2016 scheme can be used to assess
the environmental life-cycle impacts of new buildings at the design and construction
stages [
39
]. It includes 10 criteria: Management, Health and Well-being, Energy, Transport,
Water, Materials, Waste, Land Use and Ecology, Pollution, Innovation (Table 1). The total
score should be calculated using Equation (1). Among the criteria, the six aspects related
to BIPV CO
2
emission control are management, health and well-being, energy, materials,
waste, and innovation.
QBREEAM =
10
∑
i=1
WiQi
BREEAM
Toti
(1)
Here,
QBREEAM
is the total score of the BREEAM indicators;
W1−W10
are the weights
of the ten indicators;
Q1
BREEAM −Q10
BREEAM
are scoring item scores of the ten indicators;
and Tot1−Tot10 are the total scores of the ten indicators.
Table 1. Criteria of BREEAM INC 2016.
Criteria Score Weighting
Management * 21 11%
Health and Well-being * 25 10.5%
Energy * 34 15%
Transport 13 10%
Water 10 7.5%
Materials * 12 14.5%
Waste * 10 9.5%
Land use and ecology 10 11%
Pollution 13 11%
Total 100%
Innovation * 10 10%
* Aspects related to BIPV CO2emission control.
2.2.2. LEED Building Design and Construction Version 4.1 (LEEDv4.1 BD + C)
LEED v4.1 is the next-generation standard for green building design, construction, op-
eration, and performance, and LEED for Building Design and Construction (LEED BD + C)
provides a framework for building a holistic green building that has options to fit every
project [
40
]. It includes nine criteria: Integrative Process, Location and Transportation,
Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources,
Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation, and Regional Priority (Table 2). The total score
should be calculated using Equation (2). Among the criteria, the six aspects related to BIPV
CO
2
emission control are Integrative Process, Sustainable Sites, Energy and Atmosphere,
Buildings 2021,11, 469 5 of 17
Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation. From the very be-
ginning of the LEED system, a common assumption was that it would reduce the energy
consumption of buildings and limit GHG emissions [41–43].
QLEED =Q1
LEED +Q2
LEED +Q3
LEED +Q4
LEED +Q5
LEED +Q6
LEED +Q7
LEED +Q8
LEED +Q9
LEED (2)
Here,
QLEED
is the total score of LEED indicators and
Q1
LEED −Q9
LEED
are scores of
the nine indicators.
Table 2. Criteria of LEEDv4.1 BD + C.
Criteria Score
Integrative Process ∗Q1
LEED )1
Location and Transportation Q2
LEED )16
Sustainable Sites ∗Q2
LEED )10
Water Efficiency Q4
LEED )11
Energy and Atmosphere ∗Q5
LEED )33
Materials and Resources ∗Q6
LEED )13
Indoor Environmental Quality ∗Q7
LEED )16
Innovation ∗Q8
LEED )6
Regional Priority Q9
LEED )4
Total QLEED ) 110
* Aspects related to BIPV CO2emission control.
2.2.3. Assessment Standard for Green Buildings GB/T 50378-2019 (ASGB-2019)
The latest version of the Assessment Standard for Green Buildings is GB/T 50378-
2019, which is ASGB-2019 [
44
]. ASGB-2019 includes five required indicators: Safety and
Durability, Health and Comfort, Occupant Convenience, Resources Saving, Environment
Livability, and one bonus indicator, Promotion and Innovation (Table 3). The total score
should be calculated using Equation (3). Among the criteria, the five aspects related to
BIPV CO
2
emission control are Safety and Durability, Health and Comfort, Occupant
Convenience, Resources Saving, and Promotion and Innovation.
QASGB =(Q0+Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+Q5+QA)/10 (3)
Here,
QASGB
is the total score of the ASGB indicators;
Q0
is the required base score,
which is 400 when all prerequisite items are met;
Q1−Q5
are scoring item scores of the
five required indicators; QAis the bonus score of Promotion and Innovation.
Table 3. Criteria of ASGB-2019.
Attribute of Items Criteria Score
Prerequisite items 400
Scoring items
Safety and Durability * 100
Health and Comfort * 100
Occupant Convenience * 100
Resources Saving * 200
Environment Livability 100
Bonus items Promotion and Innovation * 100
Total 1100
* Aspects related to BIPV CO2emission control.
2.3. Criteria-Based Tools Comparison
There are two types of approaches that have been followed for implementing the
rating systems: criteria-based tools and life cycle assessment (LCA) [
45
]. The problem
in using the LCA method for buildings stems from the fact that the production process
is complicated and the life span of a building is long, where future phases are based
Buildings 2021,11, 469 6 of 17
on assumptions [
38
]. The criteria-based tool comparison in this paper mainly makes a
horizontal comparison of three GBRS, divided into overall comparison and the same aspect
of the evaluation in GBRS. Specifically, the comparisons are conducted on the scope of
coverage, weight, evaluation content, and measure features.
2.4. Quantitative Research Method: Weight Calculation (WC)
In terms of the comparison, we not only clarify every indicator instruction qualitatively
but also investigate the CO
2
emission control-related indicators of BIPV in the quantitative
method, which is called weight calculation (WC).
WC is a quantitative analysis of the weight of indicators related to the BIPV low-
carbon design in every GBRS. The purpose of WC is to measure the proportion of indicator
scores related to BIPV low-carbon design in the whole GBRS. Referring to Equation (1),
the indicator scores are influenced by the indicators’ weights in BREEAM. BREEAM INC
2016 provides a weighting system itself, and the proportion of points related to BIPV CO
2
emission control is calculated using Equation (4).
Bi
BREEAM =Pi
BREEAM Wi
BREEAM /Ti
BREEAM (4)
Here,
Bi
BREEAM
is the weight of indicators related to BIPV low-carbon design in
category
i
of BREEAM INC 2016;
Pi
BREEAM
is the maximum score of indicators related to
BIPV CO
2
emission control of category
i
;
Ti
BREEAM
is the total score of criteria in category
i
;
and Wi
BREEAM is the weight of every criterion.
Neither LEED v4.1 nor ASGB-2019 has a weighting system; thus, the weight is cal-
culated by dividing the item score by the total score of the indicators. The weight of
the indicators related to BIPV CO
2
emission control was calculated using Equation (5) in
LEEDv4.1 BD + C.
Bi
LEED =Pi
LEED /TLEED (5)
Here,
Bi
LEED
is the weight of indicators related to the BIPV low-carbon design in
category
i
of LEEDv4.1 BD + C;
Pi
LEED
is the maximum score of indicators related to BIPV
CO
2
emission control of category
i
; and
TLEED
is the total score of indicators in LEEDv4.1
BD + C.
The weight of the indicators related to BIPV CO
2
emission control was calculated
using Equation (6) in ASGB-2019.
Bi
ASGB =Pi
ASGB/(TASGB −400)(6)
Here,
Bi
ASGB
is the weight of indicators related to the BIPV low-carbon design in
category
i
of ASGB-2019;
Pi
ASGB
is the maximum score of indicators related to BIPV CO
2
emission control of category
i
;
and TASGB
is the total score of indicators without division in
ASGB-2019.
3. Results
Following the comparative analysis, the BIPV CO
2
-related indicators in the three
GBRS were listed according to the types stated previously, and the comparison was carried
out based on the following aspects: scope, weight, induction, and measure features.
3.1. Analysis of Scopes of Related Indicators
Based on the study of categories involved in BIPV CO
2
emission control in three GBRS,
the scopes of related indicators are summarised. In terms of the indicators related to BIPV
CO
2
emission control, BREEAM INC 2016 includes six categories: Management (Man),
Health and Well-being (Hea), Energy (Ene), Materials (Mat), Waste (Wst), and Innovation
(Inn); LEEDv4.1 BD + C includes five categories, which are Integrative Process (IP), Energy
and Atmosphere (EA), Materials and Resources (MR), Indoor Environmental Quality (EQ),
and Innovation (IN). ASGB-2019 includes five categories, which are Safety and durability
(S&D), Health and comfort (H&C), Occupant convenient (OC), Resource saving (RS), and
Buildings 2021,11, 469 7 of 17
Promotion and innovation (P&I). Among them, Ene in BREEAM, EA and ‘Evaluation and
analysis of energy-related systems’ of IP in LEED, and RS in ASGB could be generalised
to Energy scope. Mat and Wst in BREEAM, MR in LEED, and S&D and ‘Material Saving
and Green Materials’ of RS in ASGB could be generalised to material scope. Man in
BREEAM, ‘Fundamental commissioning and verification’ of EA in LEED, and OC in ASGB
could be generalised to management scope. The indoor air quality (Hea 02) of Hea in
BREEAM, EQ in LEED, and ‘Indoor Thermal Environment’ of H&C in the ASGB could be
generalised to the environmental adaptability scope. Inn in BREEAM, IN in LEED, and P&I
in ASGB could be generalised to the innovation scope. In summary, the indicators related
to BIPV CO
2
emission control mainly involve five aspects: energy, materials, management,
environmental adaptability, and innovation (Figure 2).
Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18
Quality (EQ), and Innovation (IN). ASGB-2019 includes five categories, which are Safety
and durability (S&D), Health and comfort (H&C), Occupant convenient (OC), Resource
saving (RS), and Promotion and innovation (P&I). Among them, Ene in BREEAM, EA and
‘Evaluation and analysis of energy-related systems’ of IP in LEED, and RS in ASGB could
be generalised to Energy scope. Mat and Wst in BREEAM, MR in LEED, and S&D and
‘Material Saving and Green Materials’ of RS in ASGB could be generalised to material
scope. Man in BREEAM, ‘Fundamental commissioning and verification’ of EA in LEED,
and OC in ASGB could be generalised to management scope. The indoor air quality (Hea
02) of Hea in BREEAM, EQ in LEED, and ‘Indoor Thermal Environment’ of H&C in the
ASGB could be generalised to the environmental adaptability scope. Inn in BREEAM, IN
in LEED, and P&I in ASGB could be generalised to the innovation scope. In summary, the
indicators related to BIPV CO2 emission control mainly involve five aspects: energy, ma-
terials, management, environmental adaptability, and innovation (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Scopes of related indicators.
3.2. Analysis of Scope Weights of Related Indicators
The analysis of the scope has clarified the fields that need to be involved in the BIPV
low-carbon design, while it has not given priority among the scopes. The emphasis of each
scope could be considered through an analysis of the scope weights.
In terms of the involved indicators related to BIPV carbon emission control in the
energy scope, BREEAM INC 2016 mainly contains ‘Energy-efficient design features (10
credits)’ of Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions (Ene 01) and ‘Passive design (2
credits)’ and ‘Low or zero-carbon technologies (1 credit)’ of Low carbon design (Ene 04);
the total credits of the energy category are 34, and the category weight is 15%, according
to Equation (4). The energy scope weight (
) is 5.74%. LEEDv4.1 BD + C mainly
contains Evaluation and analysis of energy-related systems (1 credit) of IP, Optimise En-
ergy Performance (18 credits) of EA, Grid Harmonization (2 credits) of EA, and Renewable
Energy (5 credits) of EA, which is 26 in total. The total credits of LEED are 110, and the
energy scope weight (
) is 23.64% according to Equation (5). ASGB-2019 mainly
contains 7.2.4 Thermal performance of envelope structure (15 credits) and 7.2.9 Renewable
energy (10 credits), which comprise 25 credits in total; based on Equation (6), the energy
scope weight (
) is 3.57%.
In terms of the indicators related to BIPV low-carbon design involved in the material
scope, BREEAM INC 2016 mainly contains material category and waste category. Specif-
ically, Life cycle impacts (Mat 01) have five credits, Responsible sourcing of construction
products (Mat 03) achieves 3 credits, Designing for durability and resilience (Mat 05)
achieves 1 credit, Material efficiency (Mat 06) achieves 1, and the total credits of the Mat
category are 12, the category weight is 14.5%, and according to Equation (4), the Mat cat-
egory weight is 12.08%. Adaption to climate change (Wst 05) achieves 1 credit, Functional
adaptability (Wst 06) achieves 1 credit, and the total credits of the Wst category are 10, the
Figure 2. Scopes of related indicators.
3.2. Analysis of Scope Weights of Related Indicators
The analysis of the scope has clarified the fields that need to be involved in the BIPV
low-carbon design, while it has not given priority among the scopes. The emphasis of each
scope could be considered through an analysis of the scope weights.
In terms of the involved indicators related to BIPV carbon emission control in the
energy scope, BREEAM INC 2016 mainly contains ‘Energy-efficient design features (10 cred-
its)’ of Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions (Ene 01) and ‘Passive design (2 cred-
its)’ and ‘Low or zero-carbon technologies (1 credit)’ of Low carbon design (Ene 04); the
total credits of the energy category are 34, and the category weight is 15%, according to
Equation (4). The energy scope weight (
BEnergy
BREEAM )
is 5.74%. LEEDv4.1 BD + C mainly
contains Evaluation and analysis of energy-related systems (1 credit) of IP, Optimise Energy
Performance (18 credits) of EA, Grid Harmonization (2 credits) of EA, and Renewable
Energy (5 credits) of EA, which is 26 in total. The total credits of LEED are 110, and the
energy scope weight (
BEnergy
LEED )
is 23.64% according to Equation (5). ASGB-2019 mainly
contains 7.2.4 Thermal performance of envelope structure (15 credits) and 7.2.9 Renewable
energy (10 credits), which comprise 25 credits in total; based on Equation (6), the energy
scope weight (BEnergy
ASGB )is 3.57%.
In terms of the indicators related to BIPV low-carbon design involved in the ma-
terial scope, BREEAM INC 2016 mainly contains material category and waste category.
Specifically, Life cycle impacts (Mat 01) have five credits, Responsible sourcing of con-
struction products (Mat 03) achieves 3 credits, Designing for durability and resilience
(Mat 05) achieves 1 credit, Material efficiency (Mat 06) achieves 1, and the total credits of
the Mat category are 12, the category weight is 14.5%, and according to Equation (4), the
Mat category weight is 12.08%. Adaption to climate change (Wst 05) achieves 1 credit,
Functional adaptability (Wst 06) achieves 1 credit, and the total credits of the Wst cate-
gory are 10, the category weight is 9.5%, and according to Equation (4), the Wst category
weight is 1.90%. Thus, the material scope weight (
BMaterial
BREEAM )
is 13.98%. LEEDv4.1 BD + C
mainly contains building life-cycle impact reduction (4 credits) of MR and environmental
product declarations (1 credit) of MR, the total credits of LEED are 110, and according to
Equation (5), the material scope weight (
BMaterial
LEED )
is 4.55%. ASGB-2019 mainly contains
Buildings 2021,11, 469 8 of 17
4.2.6 Adaptability measures (7 credits), 4.2.7 Durability measures (10 credits) and 7.2.15
Reasonable selection of materials (10 credits), and based on Equation (6), the material scope
weight (BMaterial
ASGB )is 3.86%.
Regarding the indicators related to BIPV low-carbon design involved in management
scope, BREEAM INC 2016 mainly contains the management and energy categories. Project
brief and design (Man 01) achieves 2 credits, Responsible construction practices (Man 03)
achieve 6 credits, Commissioning and handover (Man 04) contain 4 credits, Aftercare
(Man 05) achieves 3 credits, and the total credits of the Man category are 21, with a
category weight of 11%; and according to Equation (4), the Man category weight is 7.86%.
Energy monitoring (Ene 02a) achieves 1 credit, and the total credits of Energy category
are 34, with a category weight of 15%, and according to Equation (4), the Ene category
weight is 0.44%; thus, the management scope weight
(BManagement
BREEAM )
is 8.30%. LEEDv4.1
BD + C mainly contains enhanced commissioning (6 credits) of EA, and advanced energy
metering (1 credits) of EA, and according to Equation (5), the management scope weight
(BManagement
LEED )
is 6.36%. ASGB-2019 mainly contains 6.2.6 Energy management, metering
system (8 credits) and 6.2.12 Operational effect evaluation (10 credits), and according to
Equation (6), the management scope weight (BManagement
ASGB )is 2.57%.
In terms of the indicators related to BIPV low-carbon design involved in the environ-
mental adaptability scope, BREEAM INC 2016 mainly contains indoor air quality (Hea 02)
of Health and Well-being, which accounts for 1 credit and the total credits of Hea category
are 25, with a category weight is 10.5%, and according to Equation (4), the environmental
adaptability scope weight
(BEnvironmental
BREEAM )
is 0.42%. LEEDv4.1 BD + C mainly contains
enhanced indoor air quality strategies (1 credit) of EQ, and according to Equation (5), the
environmental adaptability scope weight
(BEnvironmental
LEED )
is 0.91%. ASGB-2019 mainly con-
tains 5.2.10 Natural ventilation (8 credits) and 5.2.11 Shading facilities (9 credits). According
to Equation (6), the environmental adaptability scope weight (BEnvironmental
ASGB )is 2.43%.
In terms of the indicators related to BIPV low-carbon design involved in the in-
novation scope, BREEAM INC 2016 mainly contains innovation (Inn 01) of Innovation,
which accounts for 10 credits; the total credits of the Inn category are 10, with a category
weight of 10%, and according to Equation (4), the innovation scope weight
(BInnovation
BREEAM )
is
10%. LEEDv4.1 BD + C mainly contains innovation (five credits) of IN, and according to
Equation (5)
, the innovation scope weight
(BInnovation
LEED )
is 4.55%. ASGB-2019 mainly con-
tains 9.2.5 Industrialization construction (10 credits) and 9.2.7 Carbon emission calculation
(12 credits), and according to Equation (6), the innovation scope weight
(BInnovation
ASGB )
is
3.14%.
A comparison of the five scope weights is shown in Figure 3. In terms of the
energy scope weights,
BEnergy
LEED
(23.64%) >
BEnergy
BREEAM
(5.74%) >
BEnergy
ASGB
(3.57%), and the
average energy scope weight (
BEnergy
Average
) was 10.98%. In terms of the material scope
weights,
BMaterial
BREEAM
(13.98%) >
BMaterial
LEED
(4.55%) >
BMaterial
ASGB
(3.86%), and the average material
scope weight (
BMaterial
Average
) was 7.46%. In terms of management scope weights,
BManagement
BREEAM
(8.30%) >
BManagement
LEED
(6.36%) >
BManagement
ASGB
(2.57%), and the average management scope
weight (
BManagement
Average
) is 5.74%. In terms of environmental adaptability scope weights,
BEnvironmental
ASGB
(2.43%) >
BEnvironmental
LEED
(0.91%) >
BEnvironmental
BREEAM
(0.42%), and the average en-
vironmental adaptability scope weight (
BEnvironmental
Average
) was 1.25%. In terms of innovation
scope weights,
BInnovation
BREEAM
(10%) >
BInnovation
LEED
(4.55%) >
BInnovation
ASGB
(3.14%), and the aver-
age innovation scope weight (BInnov ation
Average ) is 5.90%. Comparing the average scope weights,
BEnvergy
Average
(10.98%) >
BMaterial
Average
(7.46%) >
BInnovation
Average
(5.90%) >
BManagement
Average
(5.74%) >
BEnvironmental
Average
(1.25%), which shows that energy and material scopes should be considered mainly in BIPV
low-carbon design.
Buildings 2021,11, 469 9 of 17
Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
(5.90%)>
(5.74%)>
(1.25%), which shows that energy and mate-
rial scopes should be considered mainly in BIPV low-carbon design.
Figure 3. Analysis of scope weights.
3.3. Analysis of Induction of Measures Related to BIPV Low Carbon Design
The scope of the BIPV low-carbon design is clear, and the measures of each scope
should be summarised. There are commonalities and differences in measures related to
BIPV low-carbon design in the five scopes. In the energy scope, 7.2.9 Renewable energy
in ASGB-2019, Ene 04 in BREEAM INC 2016, and renewable Energy of EA in LEEDv4.1
BD + C could be summarized as ‘Renewable energy’, which is applicable to BIPV that
mainly uses solar energy. All three GBRS suggest a quantitative requirement for the re-
newable energy utilisation ratio. Ene 01 in BREEAM INC 2016 and Optimize Energy Per-
formance of EA in LEEDv4.1 BD + C can be summarised as ‘optimise energy performance’.
Grid Harmonization of EA in LEEDv4.1 BD + C can be regarded as ‘grid harmonisation’.
Evaluation and analysis of energy-related systems of IP in LEEDv4.1 BD + C could be
regarded as ‘energy system assessment.’ In the material scope, 7.1.10 Building materials
selection compliance in ASGB-2019, Responsible sourcing of construction products of Mat
03 in BREEAM INC 2016, and Environmental Product Declarations of MR in LEEDv4.1
BD + C could be summarised as ‘reliability procurement’. 4.2.6 Adaptability measures in
ASGB-2019 and Wst 05 and Wst 06 in BREEAM INC 2016 could be summarised as ‘adapt-
ability measures.’ 4.1.2 Enclosure structure safe and durable protection, 4.1.3 Unified de-
sign and construction of external facilities and buildings, 4.1.4 The components are firmly
connected, 4.1.5 The doors and windows are firm, and the pressure resistance and water
tightness are compliant, and 4.2.7 Durability measures in ASGB-2019 and Mat 05 in
BREEAM INC 2016 could be summarized as ‘durability measures’. Mat 01 in BREEAM
INC 2016 and Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction of MR in LEEDv4.1 BD + C can be
Figure 3. Analysis of scope weights.
3.3. Analysis of Induction of Measures Related to BIPV Low Carbon Design
The scope of the BIPV low-carbon design is clear, and the measures of each scope
should be summarised. There are commonalities and differences in measures related to
BIPV low-carbon design in the five scopes. In the energy scope, 7.2.9 Renewable energy
in ASGB-2019, Ene 04 in BREEAM INC 2016, and renewable Energy of EA in LEEDv4.1
BD + C
could be summarized as ‘Renewable energy’, which is applicable to BIPV that
mainly uses solar energy. All three GBRS suggest a quantitative requirement for the
renewable energy utilisation ratio. Ene 01 in BREEAM INC 2016 and Optimize Energy Per-
formance of EA in LEEDv4.1 BD + C can be summarised as ‘optimise energy performance’.
Grid Harmonization of EA in LEEDv4.1 BD + C can be regarded as ‘grid harmonisation’.
Evaluation and analysis of energy-related systems of IP in LEEDv4.1 BD + C could be
regarded as ‘energy system assessment’. In the material scope, 7.1.10 Building materials
selection compliance in ASGB-2019, Responsible sourcing of construction products of
Mat 03 in BREEAM INC 2016, and Environmental Product Declarations of MR in LEEDv4.1
BD + C could be summarised as ‘reliability procurement’. 4.2.6 Adaptability measures
in ASGB-2019 and Wst 05 and Wst 06 in BREEAM INC 2016 could be summarised as
‘adaptability measures’. 4.1.2 Enclosure structure safe and durable protection, 4.1.3 Unified
design and construction of external facilities and buildings, 4.1.4 The components are
firmly connected, 4.1.5 The doors and windows are firm, and the pressure resistance and
water tightness are compliant, and 4.2.7 Durability measures in ASGB-2019 and Mat 05 in
BREEAM INC 2016 could be summarized as ‘durability measures’. Mat 01 in BREEAM
INC 2016 and Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction of MR in LEEDv4.1 BD + C can be
summarised as ‘life cycle assessment’. Mat 06 in BREEAM INC 2016 can be regarded as
‘material efficiency’.
In the management scope, 6.2.6 Energy management, metering system in ASGB-2019,
energy monitoring of Ene 02a in BREEAM INC 2016, and building-level energy metering
Buildings 2021,11, 469 10 of 17
fundamental refrigerant and advanced energy metering of EA in LEEDv4.1 BD + C could be
summarised as ‘energy management and metering system’. Man 04 in BREEAM INC 2016,
and fundamental commissioning and verification of MR and enhanced commissioning of
EA in LEEDv4.1 BD + C could be summarised as ‘commissioning’. Man 05 in BREEAM INC
2016 could be regarded as ‘maintenance service’. In the environmental adaptability scope,
5.2.10 Natural ventilation in ASGB-2019, the potential for ventilation of Hea 02 in BREEAM
INC 2016, and ventilation strategy of enhanced indoor air quality strategies in LEEDv4.1
BD + C could be summarised as ‘ventilation measures’. 5.2.11 Shading facilities in ASGB-
2019 could be regarded as ‘shading measures’. 5.1.7 Thermal performance compliance
of the envelope structure and 7.2.4 Thermal performance of the envelope structure in
ASGB-2019 can be summarised as ‘thermal engineering of the envelope structure’.
In the innovation scope, LEEDv4.1 BD + C mentions the promotion of innovation.
While there is a lack of specific regulations, and ASGB-2019 has two main innovation
indicators related to BIPV low carbon design, which are 9.2.5 Industrialization construction
regarded as ‘industrialisation construction’ and 9.2.7 Carbon emission calculation regarded
as ‘carbon emission calculation’. BREEAM INC 2016 also mentions the carbon emission
calculation, which encourages the use of related certified software. In summary, there are
17 measures of BIPV low-carbon design inducted in five scopes, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. The induction of 17 measures within five scopes.
Scopes Energy Material Management Environmental Adaptability Innovation
Measures
Renewable energy
#
Reliability
procurement
Energy management
and metering system
#
Ventilation measures
#
Carbon emission
calculation
#
Optimize Energy
Performance
Adaptability
measures
#
Commissioning
Shading measures
#
Industrialization
construction
#
Grid Harmonization
Durability measures
#
Maintenance service
Thermal performance
optimization of building
envelope
#
Energy system
assessment
Life cycle assessment
#
Material efficiency
Note: #: ASGB; : BREEAM; : LEED.
3.4. Analysis of Features of the Measures
3.4.1. Implementation from Different Stages
According to the GBRS, different indicators have different implementation stages. All
stages should be considered in the low-carbon design of the BIPV. From the five scopes,
BREEAM and LEED are highly consistent in terms of the coverage of the evaluation stages
in the same scope: the material scope involves all stages of buildings, which are the design,
construction, operation, and demolition stages. The energy scope and management scope
all involve the design, construction, and operation stages. ASGB mainly involves the
evaluation of the design and operation stages, while the carbon emission calculation in
the innovation scope requires all the stages of buildings. The implementation from the
different stages is shown in Figure 4.
3.4.2. Necessary and Recommended Ones
Because the 17 measures are the induction of relevant indicators in the three GBRS.
The measures contain the properties of control items and scoring items, in which control
items are mandatory requirements. As an essential type of green building technology, the
BIPV low-carbon design must meet the necessary requirements. Seven of the 17 measures
are regarded as the necessary low-carbon design of BIPV, which are durability measures,
thermal performance optimisation of building envelope, reliability procurement, commis-
Buildings 2021,11, 469 11 of 17
sioning, energy management and metering system, maintenance service, and optimised
energy performance. Ten of 17 recommended design measures, including renewable
energy, ventilation measures, adaptability measures, life cycle assessment, shading mea-
sures, industrialisation construction, carbon emission calculation, material efficiency, grid
harmonisation, and energy system assessment (Figure 5).
Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
are the design, construction, operation, and demolition stages. The energy scope and man-
agement scope all involve the design, construction, and operation stages. ASGB mainly
involves the evaluation of the design and operation stages, while the carbon emission cal-
culation in the innovation scope requires all the stages of buildings. The implementation
from the different stages is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Implementation Involving Different Stages.
3.4.2. Necessary and Recommended Ones
Because the 17 measures are the induction of relevant indicators in the three GBRS.
The measures contain the properties of control items and scoring items, in which control
items are mandatory requirements. As an essential type of green building technology, the
BIPV low-carbon design must meet the necessary requirements. Seven of the 17 measures
are regarded as the necessary low-carbon design of BIPV, which are durability measures,
thermal performance optimisation of building envelope, reliability procurement, commis-
sioning, energy management and metering system, maintenance service, and optimised
energy performance. Ten of 17 recommended design measures, including renewable en-
ergy, ventilation measures, adaptability measures, life cycle assessment, shading
measures, industrialisation construction, carbon emission calculation, material efficiency,
grid harmonisation, and energy system assessment (Figure 5).
Figure 4. Implementation Involving Different Stages.
Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18
Figure 5. Control and recommended items of measures.
4. Discussion
Based on the five scopes and 17 measures, we proposed a low-carbon design path for
BIPV (Figure 6). There are six main contents involving five aspects. In terms of energy
scope, a new building energy system should be designed, including energy system assess-
ment, grid harmonization, and optimal energy performance. In terms of material scope,
material use should be optimized in reliability procurement, adaptability, durability, life
cycle assessment, and efficiency of materials. In terms of management scope, the design
considering the management contains commissioning, maintenance service, and energy
management and metering system.
Regarding environmental adaptability scope, it is essential to combine the active with
the passive design mainly in ventilation, shading, and thermal engineering of building
envelope. In terms of innovation scope, the design should be based on carbon emission
values, which carbon emission calculation should be necessary, and the innovation is im-
portant to enhancing the efficiency like industrialization construction. It is suggested that
all five scopes should be considered at the beginning of the low-carbon design syntheti-
cally.
Figure 5. Control and recommended items of measures.
4. Discussion
Based on the five scopes and 17 measures, we proposed a low-carbon design path
for BIPV (Figure 6). There are six main contents involving five aspects. In terms of
energy scope, a new building energy system should be designed, including energy system
assessment, grid harmonization, and optimal energy performance. In terms of material
scope, material use should be optimized in reliability procurement, adaptability, durability,
life cycle assessment, and efficiency of materials. In terms of management scope, the design
Buildings 2021,11, 469 12 of 17
considering the management contains commissioning, maintenance service, and energy
management and metering system.
Regarding environmental adaptability scope, it is essential to combine the active with
the passive design mainly in ventilation, shading, and thermal engineering of building
envelope. In terms of innovation scope, the design should be based on carbon emission
values, which carbon emission calculation should be necessary, and the innovation is
important to enhancing the efficiency like industrialization construction. It is suggested that
all five scopes should be considered at the beginning of the low-carbon design synthetically.
Buildings 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
Figure 6. The low-carbon design path of BIPV.
4.1. New Building Energy System Design
In contrast to conventional buildings, which mainly consume fossil energy, BIPV re-
duces carbon emissions by increasing solar energy to replace fossil fuels. Therefore, a new
building energy system design should be considered a priority. According to the
measures of energy, the utilisation ratio of solar energy should be increased, and a rea-
sonable configuration of the BIPV system should be designed according to the standard
of the utilisation ratio of solar energy. Design to optimise energy performance helps re-
duce the energy consumption and carbon emissions of buildings, and during the design
process, energy simulation tools can be used to verify the specific effect of system optimi-
sation [46]. At the same time, the BIPV energy system design should emphasise coordina-
tion with the power grid to make the energy production and distribution system more
economical and effective. The coordination of the power grid in the design needs to carry
out demand analysis of the building, and then rationally allocate the power system in
combination with the demand to achieve power self-absorption and demand response. If
the power generated by the BIPV cannot be absorbed by itself, energy storage facilities
can be considered for better grid coordination [47,48]. It is essential that the energy system
be evaluated in the early stage, including site condition, volume and direction, and enve-
lope properties, to clarify the restrictions and favourable conditions of BIPV low-carbon
design and improve the adaptability and efficiency of the system design.
4.2. Optimization of Material Usage
Figure 6. The low-carbon design path of BIPV.
4.1. New Building Energy System Design
In contrast to conventional buildings, which mainly consume fossil energy, BIPV
reduces carbon emissions by increasing solar energy to replace fossil fuels. Therefore,
a new building energy system design should be considered a priority. According to
the measures of energy, the utilisation ratio of solar energy should be increased, and a
reasonable configuration of the BIPV system should be designed according to the standard
of the utilisation ratio of solar energy. Design to optimise energy performance helps reduce
the energy consumption and carbon emissions of buildings, and during the design process,
energy simulation tools can be used to verify the specific effect of system optimisation [
46
].
At the same time, the BIPV energy system design should emphasise coordination with the
power grid to make the energy production and distribution system more economical and
effective. The coordination of the power grid in the design needs to carry out demand
analysis of the building, and then rationally allocate the power system in combination with
the demand to achieve power self-absorption and demand response. If the power generated
by the BIPV cannot be absorbed by itself, energy storage facilities can be considered for
Buildings 2021,11, 469 13 of 17
better grid coordination [
47
,
48
]. It is essential that the energy system be evaluated in the
early stage, including site condition, volume and direction, and envelope properties, to
clarify the restrictions and favourable conditions of BIPV low-carbon design and improve
the adaptability and efficiency of the system design.
4.2. Optimization of Material Usage
The materials of photovoltaic modules are different from those of general building
envelope materials. BIPV contains various components, and the quality of the components
cannot be guaranteed because of the lack of authoritative specification constraints. Relia-
bility procurement should be considered in the design process. Reliability procurement
encourages local sources, and purchasing local building materials is an important means
to reduce the consumption of resources and energy during material transportation. The
design should first select materials produced within 500 km [
49
]. High-quality, standard-
ised, and assembled BIPV component materials are prioritised to reduce the material waste
indirectly resulting from nonconforming construction processes. Adaptability usage helps
the BIPV system better adapt to the changes in building functions, avoiding the problem of
replacing facilities resulting from the mismatching of environment and function.
The separation of equipment pipelines and damage resistance assessment of materials
could be an effective approach to meet adaptability. Durability optimisation is helpful
in reducing the replacement times of parts and achieving the purpose of material saving.
Because the service life of the building envelope is not consistent with the main structure of
the building, the BIPV envelope needs to solve the maintenance and replacement problems,
and choosing high durability materials could reduce the requirement for replacement
of parts [
50
]. The material life cycle is the main consideration in design as LCA helps
determine the characteristics of the life cycle of different materials and achieves savings by
using materials with long life cycles. Simply reducing the number of materials cannot meet
the growing demand of buildings, and the purpose of low carbon from materials could
be better achieved by improving the efficiency of material usage. Solar panels of different
materials have various conversion efficiencies; the conversion efficiency of monocrystalline
silicon is 15–20%, that of polycrystalline silicon is 12–17.8%, and that of amorphous silicon
is 5–14% [
51
]. Different materials of solar panels have different conversion efficiency, which
is one of the main equipment factors affecting the conversion efficiency of solar energy
by photovoltaic panels. Photovoltaic system generates a certain amount of electricity
through solar energy to replace the electricity generated by thermal power generation,
so as to reduce the use of fossil energy and reduce CO
2
emissions. Other things being
equal, the higher the conversion efficiency of the photovoltaic system, the more obvious
its power generation capacity and emission reduction effect. From the theoretical value,
monocrystalline silicon is a more suitable material for optimizing solar panel efficiency.
4.3. Design Based on Carbon Emission Values
To judge the effectiveness of building a low-carbon design, it is necessary to conduct
a quantitative analysis of the carbon emission indicators. The BIPV low-carbon design
should be an effect-oriented design based on the carbon emission values. BREEAM and
ASGB require carbon emission calculations to some extent. In the design stage, the building
CO
2
emission rate could be forecasted based on certified consumption calculation software,
and the calculation approach could refer to the national standard GB/T 51366-2019 [
49
]. At
present, the more recognised calculation method logic is by multiplying the quantities of
resources by the CO
2
emission unit for each resource. The CO
2
emissions in the building
lifecycle were calculated using Equation (7):
CLCA =Cm+Cc+Co+Cd(7)
Where
CLCA
is the total CO
2
emissions of the building lifecycle,
Cm
is the CO
2
emission of
the material during the production and transportation stage,
Cc
is the CO
2
emission during
Buildings 2021,11, 469 14 of 17
the construction stage,
Co
is the CO
2
emission during the operation stage, and
Cd
is the
CO2emission during the demolition stage.
Though the design is in the early stage, the carbon emission values should be con-
sidered in the whole life cycle of a building. Through empirical prediction and scientific
simulation, carbon emissions at different stages of a building can be calculated to achieve
targeted optimization of a low-carbon design.
4.4. Design Considering the Management
To achieve carbon emission reduction in the building life cycle, the design phase can
provide support conditions for achieving reasonable management. In modern buildings, a
building management system (BMS) is installed to monitor the operation data and optimise
the operational efficiency of building systems [
52
]. Building intelligence can effectively
help users manage energy-saving and low-carbon operations. The metering system is the
basic condition for realising operation energy saving and optimising the system setting.
The energy management system makes building energy consumption knowable, visible,
and controllable to optimize the operation and reduce consumption. Through the design
of an intelligent energy monitoring platform, photovoltaic data can be collected, dynamic
tracking, automatic control of operation and maintenance, and remote monitoring can
be performed. With the popularity of photovoltaic power generation, building design
must consider how to ensure the security of the solar such “intermittent energy” into the
power grid; the smart grid system combines the advanced sensor measurement technology,
communication technology, information technology, computer technology and control
technology with the physical power grid together to meet users’ optimal power allocation,
ensure the safety and reliability of power supply.
In the design, a smart electricity meter is used to replace a traditional mechanical
electricity meter to realize the selective power consumption of users at different times. For
instance, the internet of things (IoT) could be used to automatically adjust the balance of the
use of electricity between the external grid and photovoltaic power of a building following
by the variations of solar illuminance and building power load. Intelligent management
designs related to the low carbon operation of BIPV include intelligent monitoring system
design of BIPV, design of indoor temperature intelligent control systems, design of lighting
and shading intelligent systems, and design of intelligent facades of BIPV. Commissioning
should also be focused on design, and system commissioning affects the performance
and durability of BIPV systems. The commissioning in BIPV low-carbon design mainly
considers the commissioning scheme of the BIPV system at a later stage and clarifies
the purpose, demand, content, and process [
53
]. Considering maintenance services, the
convenience of maintenance and protection in the later period should be considered in
BIPV low-carbon design, with specific measures such as reserved access for maintenance
and pedal-able design.
4.5. Combine the Active with the Passive
The environmental adaptability of the BIPV building depends not only on the support
of BIPV active technology but also on the passive designs of the building itself. Specifically,
natural ventilation strategies can reduce the dependence on mechanical ventilation, which
has a significant impact on the performance of BIPV systems. In the low-carbon design
of BIPV, the location of photovoltaic panels, opening mode of wind vents, and structure
of BIPV components should be considered. For instance, on the windward side of the
dominant wind direction in summer, photovoltaic panels are set up as inward notches to
facilitate the wind pressure difference of natural ventilation and to better introduce natural
wind. Regarded as the shading envelop, the area proportion of adjustable shading facilities
and the combination of BIPV and shading should be considered to control the indoor
temperature and reduce air conditioning energy consumption effectively. For instance,
photovoltaic panels are reasonably set in the parts with strong western sun exposure,
which not only realizes self-shading, reducing the demand for indoor refrigeration but also
Buildings 2021,11, 469 15 of 17
rationally uses solar radiation to increase photovoltaic power generation effect. Improving
the performance of the building envelope is an energy-saving method for the building itself;
it can reduce the building’s cooling and heating load demand. The thermal performance
optimisation of the envelope structure in a BIPV low-carbon design can be realised through
the optimisation of the U value, air tightness, heat insulation, and other indicators [
54
,
55
].
4.6. Attach Importance to Innovation
BIPV is one of the important ways to achieve carbon neutrality of buildings, and
its development process requires the cooperation of architecture and other subject areas.
Compared with traditional building design, which mainly requires architectural skills,
BIPV low-carbon design requires more interdisciplinary training, and there will be more
innovative designs. For instance, the CIGS-BIPV display unit adopts the unit CIGS intel-
ligent envelope structure to complete the rapid and efficient construction by using the
construction method of integral fabrication and achieves self-supply of building energy
consumption. Through the application and regulation of new energy and other technical
measures, the self-supply of building energy consumption can be realised [
56
], and as a
new type of energy material, thin-film solar cells that have high plasticity and ductility, can
be combined with aesthetic art and low-carbon environmental protection in different parts
of the building envelopes [57].
5. Conclusions
The main findings of this study regarding BIPV low-carbon design based on the GBRS
comparative analysis are as follows:
1.
There are five scopes of indicators related to BIPV CO
2
emission control: which are
Energy, Materials, Management, Environmental adaptability, and Innovation.
2.
Although the scope weights in the three GBRS are varied, they all have convergence
laws, in which scopes of energy and material should be considered mainly in BIPV
low-carbon design. The average scope weights from large to small are: the average
energy scope weight (10.98%), the average material scope weight (7.46%), the average
innovation scope weight (5.90%), the average management scope weight (5.74%), and
the average environmental adaptability scope weight (1.25%).
3.
There are 17 measures of BIPV low-carbon design inducted in five scopes. Among
them, seven measures are necessary, and 10 are recommended for the low-carbon
design of BIPV.
4.
This study proposed a low-carbon design path for BIPV. Based on the features of
BIPV, the low-carbon design path of BIPV should pay more attention to six aspects:
new building energy system design, optimisation of material usage, design based on
carbon emission values, design considering the management, combining the BIPV
technology with passive measures, and attaching importance to innovation.
This study provides theoretical and methodological guidance for the low-carbon
design of BIPV buildings. The outcomes are mainly derived from the comparative analysis
of related indicators of the three GBRS, mainly involving the realisation of carbon emission
reduction from the parts of building energy and resource consumption. In the future,
continuous research could be conducted from another important part of carbon neutrality,
which is the carbon sink of buildings. The research plan of carbon sink will carry out
integrated design from vertical planting and reasonable arrangement of photovoltaic
panels, and discuss the influencing factors of carbon sink under integrated design and the
realization of the building zero-carbon goal.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, K.L.; Data curation, B.Z.; Formal analysis, K.L. and
B.Z.; Funding acquisition, J.C.; Investigation, B.Z.; Methodology, K.L.; Project administration, K.L.;
Resources, J.C.; Software, B.Z.; Supervision, K.L. and J.C.; Validation, K.L. and J.C.; Visualization,
B.Z.; Writing—original draft, K.L. and B.Z.; Writing—review & editing, K.L. and B.Z. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Buildings 2021,11, 469 16 of 17
Funding:
This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, 62072324 and
Suzhou University of Science and Technology Research projects funding for the introducing talents,
332111304.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
The author gratefully acknowledges the editors and referees for their positive
and constructive comments in the review process.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Pokhrel, S.R.; Hewage, K.; Chhipi-Shrestha, G.; Karunathilake, H.; Sadiq, R. Carbon Capturing for Emissions Reduction at
Building Level: A Market Assessment from a Building Management Perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,294, 126323. [CrossRef]
2. Global Carbon Atlas 2019. Available online: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions (accessed on 6 May 2021).
3.
Xi Jinping Delivered an Important Speech at the General Debate of the Seventy-Fifth United Nations General Assembly. Available
online: http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/leaders/2020-09/22/c_1126527652.htm (accessed on 4 May 2020).
4.
Mata, É.; Korpal, A.K.; Cheng, S.H.; Jiménez Navarro, J.P.; Filippidou, F.; Reyna, J.; Wang, R. A map of roadmaps for zero and low
energy and carbon buildings worldwide. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020,15, 113003. [CrossRef]
5.
Cai, W. Research Report on Building Energy Consumption in China; China Building Energy Conservation Association: Xiamen,
China, 2020.
6.
Jega, B.; Tvha, C.; Dsa, B. A physics-based high-resolution BIPV model for building performance simulations. Sol. Energy
2020
,
204, 585–599.
7.
Atănăsoae, P.; Pentiuc, R.D. Choosing the Energy Sources Needed for Utilities in the Design and Refurbishment of Buildings.
Buildings 2018,8, 54. [CrossRef]
8.
Osseweijer, F.; Van Den Hurk, L.B.; Teunissen, E.J.; van Sark, W.G.J.H.M. A comparative review of building integrated photo-
voltaics ecosystems in selected European countries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018,90, 1027–1040. [CrossRef]
9.
International Energy Agency. Snapshot of Global Photovoltaic Markets; Report IEA PVPS T1-26:2015; International Energy Agency:
Paris, France, 2015.
10.
International Organization for Standardization. Glass in building—Laminated Solar Photovoltaic Glass for Use in Building; ISO/FDIS
18178:2016; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
11.
International Electrotechnical Commission. Photovoltaic (PV) Module Safety Qualification; IEC 61730-1:2016; International Elec-
trotechnical Committee: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
12.
Energy Technology Committee. Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) Modules—The Requirement of Performance Evaluation; KS C
8577; Korean Standards Association: Seoul, Korea, 2016.
13.
IEA PVPS Task 15. International Definitions of “BIPV”. Available online: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/
IEA-PVPS_Task_15_Report_C0_International_definitions_of_BIPV_hrw_180823.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2021).
14. Si-Meng, L.I. Integrated Design Strategy of PV and Building Skin. Build. Energy Effic. 2018,46, 84–87, 106.
15.
Jeon, H.; Choi, K.H.; Lee, S.; Park, S. Development of BIM based BIPV Architectural Design Environment. KIEAE J.
2018
,18,
71–82. [CrossRef]
16.
Yoo, S.H. Optimization of a BIPV system to mitigate greenhouse gas and indoor environment. Sol. Energy
2019
,188, 875–882.
[CrossRef]
17.
Roy, A.; Ghosh, A.; Bhandari, S.; Sundaram, S.; Mallick, T.K. Perovskite Solar Cells for BIPV Application: A Review. Buildings
2020,10, 129. [CrossRef]
18.
Park, J.; Hengevoss, D.; Wittkopf, S. Industrial Data-Based Life Cycle Assessment of Architecturally Integrated Glass-Glass
Photovoltaics. Buildings 2019,9, 8. [CrossRef]
19.
Schregle, R.; Renken, C.; Wittkopf, S. Spatio-Temporal Visualisation of Reflections from Building Integrated Photovoltaics.
Buildings 2018,8, 101. [CrossRef]
20.
Yang, S.; Fiorito, F.; Prasad, D.; Sproul, A.; Cannavale, A. A sensitivity analysis of design parameters of BIPV/T-DSF in relation to
building energy and thermal comfort performances. J. Build. Eng. 2021,41, 102426. [CrossRef]
21.
Yang, S.; Cannavale, A.; Carlo, A.D.; Prasad, D.K.; Fiorito, F. Performance assessment of BIPV/T double-skin faade for various
climate zones in Australia: Effects on energy consumption. Sol. Energy 2020,199, 377–399. [CrossRef]
22.
Skandalos, N.; Karamanis, D. Investigation of thermal performance of semi-transparent PV technologies. Energy Build.
2016
,124,
19–34. [CrossRef]
23.
Sozer, H.; Elnimeiri, M. Identification of Barriers to PV Application into the Building Design. In Proceedings of the ASME 2003
International Solar Energy Conference, Kohala Coast, HI, USA, 15–18 March 2003.
24.
Chemisana, D. Building Integrated Concentrating Photovoltaics: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2011
,15, 603–611.
[CrossRef]
25.
Parisi, A.; Pernice, R.; Andò, A.; Cino, A.C.; Franzitta, V.; Busacca, A.C. Electro-optical characterization of ruthenium-based dye
sensitized solar cells: A study of light soaking, ageing and temperature effects. Optik 2017,135, 227–237. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2021,11, 469 17 of 17
26.
Ming, L.; Yong, L.; Hai, W.; Shen, H. Synthesis of TiO
2
submicro-rings and their application in dye-sensitized solar cell. Appl.
Energy 2011,88, 825–830.
27.
Haghighi, Z.; Angali Dehnavi, M.; Konstantinou, T.; van den Dobbelsteen, A.; Klein, T. Architectural Photovoltaic Applications:
Lessons Learnt and Perceptions from Architects. Buildings 2021,11, 62. [CrossRef]
28.
Peng, C.; Huang, Y.; Wu, Z. Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) in architectural design in China. Energy Build.
2011
,43,
3592–3598. [CrossRef]
29.
Hong, T.H.; Kim, H.J.; Kwak, T.H. Energy-Saving Techniques for Reducing Emissions in Elementary Schools. J. Manag. Eng.
2012
,
28, 39–50. [CrossRef]
30.
Liu, K.; Leng, J. Quantified CO
2
-related indicators for green building rating systems in China. Indoor Built. Environ.
2021
,30,
763–776. [CrossRef]
31.
Remizov, A.; Tukaziban, A.; Yelzhanova, Z.; Junussova, T.; Karaca, F. Adoption of Green Building Assessment Systems to Existing
Buildings under Kazakhstani Conditions. Buildings 2021,11, 325. [CrossRef]
32. Tecnalia-Icares. BIP Boost: Update on BIPV Market and Stakeholder Analysis; The European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
33.
Prasad, D.K.; Snow, M. Designing with Solar Power: A Source Book for Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV); The Images Publishing
Group Pty Ltd. and Earthscan: London, UK, 2005.
34.
Matic, D.; Calzada, J.R.; Todorovic, M.S. Renewable energy sources-integrated refurbishment approach for low-rise residential
prefabricated building in Belgrade, Serbia. Indoor Built. Environ. 2016,25, 1016–1023. [CrossRef]
35.
Kylili, A.; Fokaides, P. Investigation of building integrated photovoltaics potential in achieving the zero energy building target.
Indoor Built Environ. 2014,3, 92–106. [CrossRef]
36.
Hoseinzadeh, P.; Assadi, M.K.; Heidari, S.; Khalatbari, M.; Sangin, H. Energy Performance of Building Integrated Photovoltaic
high-rise building: Case study, Tehran, Iran. Energy Build. 2021,235, 110707. [CrossRef]
37.
Gercek, C.; Devetakovi, M.; Krsti-Furundi, A.; Reinders, A. Energy Balance, Cost and Architectural Design Features of 24 Building
Integrated Photovoltaic Projects Using a Modelling Approach. Appl. Sci. 2020,10, 8860. [CrossRef]
38.
He, Y.; Kvan, T.; Liu, M.; Li, B. How green building rating systems affect designing green. Build. Environ.
2018
,133, 19–31.
[CrossRef]
39. BRE Global’s Scheme Document SD233 2.0; BREEAM International New Construction: London, UK, 2016.
40.
Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design. Available online: https://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems/new-buildings
(accessed on 5 May 2021).
41.
Michael, M.; Zhang, L.; Xia, X. An optimal model for a building retrofit with LEED standard as reference protocol. Energy Build.
2017,139, 22–30. [CrossRef]
42.
Feng, H.; Hewage, K. Energy saving performance of green vegetation on LEED certified buildings. Energy Build.
2014
,75, 281–289.
[CrossRef]
43.
Jeong, J.; Hong, T.; Ji, C.; Kim, J.; Lee, M.; Jeong, K. Development of an evaluation process for green and non-green buildings
focused on energy performance of G-SEED and LEED. Build. Environ. 2016,105, 172–184. [CrossRef]
44.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Assessment Standard for Green Building
GB/T 50378-2019; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019.
45.
Ali, H.H.; Al Nsairat, S.F. Developing a green building assessment tool for developing countries–Case of Jordan. Build. Environ.
2009,44, 1053–1064. [CrossRef]
46.
Biyik, E.; Araz, M.; Hepbasli, A.; Shahrestani, M.; Yao, R.; Shao, L.; Essah, E.; Oliveira, A.; del Caño, T.; Rico, E.; et al. A key
review of building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) systems. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017,20, 833–858. [CrossRef]
47. Rusen, A.M.; Tokar, D. Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV). Rom. J. Civ. Eng. 2020,11, 423–428.
48.
Aelenei, D.; Lopes, R.A.; Aelenei, L.; Gonçalves, H. Investigating the potential for energy flexibility in an office building with a
vertical BIPV and a PV roof system. Renew. Energy 2019,137, 189–197. [CrossRef]
49.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Standard for Building Carbon Emission
Calculation GB/T 51366-2019; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2019; pp. 7, 8, 14, 15, 18.
50.
Jelle, B.P.; Breivik, C. The Path to the Building Integrated Photovoltaics of Tomorrow. Energy Procedia
2012
,20, 78–87. [CrossRef]
51.
Liu, K. Study on Low-Carbon Design of High and Large Space Public Building in Hot-Summer and Cold-Winter Area of China; Southeast
University: Nanjing, China, 2021.
52.
Wang, J.; Yu, C.W.; Cao, S.J. Technology pathway of efficient and climate-friendly cooling in buildings: Towards carbon neutrality.
Indoor Built Environ. 2021, 1–5. [CrossRef]
53.
Yang, R.J. Overcoming technical barriers and risks in the application of building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV): Hardware and
software strategies. Autom. Constr. 2015,51, 92–102. [CrossRef]
54.
Yadav, S.; Panda, S. Thermal performance of BIPV system by considering periodic nature of insolation and optimum tilt-angle of
PV panel. Renew. Energy 2020,150, 136–146. [CrossRef]
55.
Alrashidi, H.; Ghosh, A.; Issa, W.; Sellami, N.; Mallick, T.K.; Sundaram, S. Thermal performance of semitransparent CdTe BIPV
window at temperate climate. Sol. Energy 2020,195, 536–543. [CrossRef]
56.
Wenjun, Q.; Shibo, B.; Xuesong, C.; Wei, W. Assembled Energy Self-sufficient CIGS Display Unit: Future-oriented BIPV
Exploration. Architect. J. 2019,S2, 96–99.
57. Jianqiang, B.; Ruike, Y. The Studies of Low Carbon Building; China Environmental Press: Beijing, China, 2015; p. 112.
