Zero Energy Building Economic and Energetic Assessment with Simulated and Real Data Using Photovoltaics and Water Flow Glazing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The proposal is interesting and a novel structure, which is a good link with the scope of the journal.

 

The introduction section could mention other examples of this technology for reference and comparison, like the Water Houses:

https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/jfde/article/view/4784

 

It would be helpful to mention the results for energy savings from other researchers for reference,

 

like TT Chow

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12273-020-0636-z

 

Gutai and Kheybari

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378778819328944?via%3Dihub

 

168: It would be helpful to learn more about the tank: what is the size, is it insulated, how deep it is buried, etc.

 

173: The difference between south and east-west WFG needs clarification. Is the absorptance changed because of the location of a Low-E coating?

 

301: The U-value for the panel without water flow (U-off) appears to be quite low. Is this value correct with only 16mm argon? I assume that there is a Low-E coating here, which could be mentioned.

 

362-378: The higher gain in southern glazing can be explained also with the angle of solar gain: the east-west angle is lower, which results in less reflection and absorption.

 

362-378: I assume this was the case, but it would be helpful to clarify that the building was not surrounded by any objects/trees that would cast shadow on the building. (the east-west gain is much lower in winter than in summer, which could suggest shading from surroundings because the angle is much lower).

 

392: The solar gain on south façade is only 25% higher in summer than in winter. In case of east-west, this increase is much higher. The east-west gain during summer also seems to be different in summer and same in winter. This is interesting, it may be beneficial to offer an explanation for clarity.

 

424: The Base Case building has different COP, which is partially results in different energy consumption. It would be helpful to quantify how much the energy savings are without that impact (e.g. presenting primary energy savings).

 

467: For clarity, it should be mentioned whether maintenance costs were included in the model. It seems that they were not, was this because WFG does not have significant maintenance cost? It would be helpful to know.

 

478: Environmental impact could include churn-rate, especially for the WFG panel.

 

503: For clarity, it should be mentioned if decreasing efficiency of PV panels was included in the calculation, since PVs have lower efficiency after 10 years.

 

553: These are significant results. For clarity, it should be mentioned whether these are affected by the difference of COP. Additionally, it would be helpful to comment on the thermal comfort of the building for Both WFG and Base Case, to underpin the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is demonstrating the economic and energy assessment of utilizing photovoltaics and water flow glazing in a façade.

Overall, the manuscript is very informative. The introduction contains a good literature review, objectives are clear, research design and methods are sound, and results seem to be reasonable.

Here are some minor issues with some figures:
in figures 3-6, 8 and 9: what is the x-axis?
Also, in figure 7, please put the x-axis as months.

Please also be more precise with the format and template of the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. I want to ask the authors not to divide the introduction section in several parts. Why this research is necessary and what is the contribution which hasn't been addressed before should be clarified. 2. The literature review section should be separate and clearly discuss about the relevant research papers. What they tried to achieve and what is new in your paper in comparison with the previous papers?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

No further comments