Green building now offers so many material and design alternatives sometimes it can be overwhelming. Today I would like to run through some of the competing benefits of installing a solar vs a living roof. This would seem to be fairly simple and straight forward but actually many factors are involved. Let's stick with the purely environmental benefits.
-The idea with solar power is that the power you produce on your roof doesn't have to be produced at a coal fired plant or by some other harmful means somewhere.
-The idea with a living roof is little more nuanced- in that you are recovering the space for flora (carbon reduction) which has been displaced by your residence, improving your insulation, cooling your roof, all while mitigating the urban heat island effect.
So what is actually more beneficial for the environment? Guess what- It is somewhat a matter of perception and is very involved if one is trying to quantify. It comes down to a complicated equation. (doesn't it always?)
First you have to figure out how much power your hypothetical solar roof will create over the course of it's lifetime. Then you figure out how many emissions would be produced if that power was created via conventional means. This is how many emissions aren't being created because you aren't consuming the power that would have necessitated their creation. However the production and disposal (or recycling) of solar panels (and the energy required to do so) creates it's own set of emissions which must be subtracted from that original total-emissions-avoided number. So what your left with is the total amount of carbon emissions which aren't being created due to the total lifespan of your solar panels. This emission reduction is the environmental benefit of your hypothetical solar roof.
On the green roofs side you must calculate the entirety of carbon emissions and pollution which are being breathed and processed by your rooftop plants in the course of your roofs 40 to 80 year lifespan and ad to that the carbon emissions avoided from the energy savings reaped from your insulatory and roof cooling benefits. The complexity of variables such as plant type and energy-use-avoided are staggering.
That is why I pose the conclusion that it simply isn't generally feasible to quantify/compare the 'exact benefit' of these two alternatives because there are so many ancillary factors involved. There are a few definite things to consider though when making your choice;
- A living roof is going to be more beneficial in an urban setting in the sense that it provides a place for plants where there is none. This is also where the "urban heat island" exists. (not to mention storm water mitigation, air quality improvement and aesthetic value)
- Foot per foot over equal time periods the emission reduction/avoidance is probably greater from a solar roof when you consider how that energy might otherwise be produced in the current social environment. (see next bullet) On the other hand theoretically this energy can also be produced elsewhere or by other renewable means whereas the flora that is able to grow on a living roof in a city would otherwise have nowhere to grow.
- So many little factors are involved that you really need to consider how optimal your location is for either or both. If your in a sunny rural area (with high energy prices)solar may be the way to go. If your in a predominantly cloudy urban setting then your a great candidate for certain living roofs. One thing to consider is that if your just going to be using much of that solar energy on extra power for air conditioning or heating, then a living roof might be just as good in terms of 'cutting out the middle man' and naturally keeping your house a little cooler, and/or better insulated.
I hope this was helpful and as I am not an environmental engineer or scientist I have much to learn about this overall issue as well. Please don't hesitate to comment.
http://www.builditgreenconcepts.com












Green + Solar + Cool Roofing
Being a roofer myself, i have slightly different approach to this:
In the urban environment, the green roof will usually be located on a roof of a sky-scraper or at least a 5-story building and will have little to zero effect on the heat-island effect, especially if you are growing those little plants that never grow more than a couple of feet tall. And if the roof underneath the vegetation leaks, think of all the extra carbon emissions associated with the roofing crew getting to the site, removing the soil fixing or replacing the roof, putting the soil back, and on, and on and on... And don't forget the potential waste removal of old roofing materials.
On the other hand, cool roofing systems are at least as efficient in cooling down the roof-tops, and PVC cool flat roofs are proven to last over 30 years. When you combine them with solar PV roof panels, I believe it will be more efficient than green roofs in carbon emissions reduction.
I actually did some calculations on the energy savings of cool roofing systems and although i do not have the exact numbers for how much a green roof will reduce the cooling costs of a hypothetical home or building, I assume the results will be about the same.
Realistically it is best to use both, especially when roof area is not a concern. However, a roof of an average high-rise building will never be sufficient to produce enough solar power to cover its electric consumption. That is where the new building-integrated solar systems come into play. For example, transparent window solar films, etc.
In conclusion, both solar and green roofs will benefit the environment about equally, and the main thing that has to happen is the actual wide-spread use of these technologies, because one green roof for the entire NYC block, will do nothing by itself. And it is obvious that to become wide-spread, they have to be affordable first, and that is where we must concentrate our efforts.
Energy usage in PVC and solar systems production
You cannot get away from energy use in PV production, nor in the production of roofing material. But, in therms of disposal of PVC roofing - IB Roof systems are 98% recyclable and IB went to a great length to set up a network of plastic recyclers who will that the old IB roofing material. Check out this video about recycling a 30-years old IB roof
But before we even discuss recycling, bear in mind that IB PVC roof (and those similar in qualities) will last 30 or more years. It will outlast 2 or 3 conventional roofs which would end up in the landfill.
Besides, PVC is the only flat roof that is not made using petroleum. It uses salt (chloride) and natural gas. So there is no energy usage associated with refining oil. Over all, PVC roofs use less energy to be produced than other roofing systems such as TPO roofing, mod-bit roofs, epdm rubber roofs, tar+gravel, etc. Also all of the above roofs are made using petroleum, which has a real effect on US and world oil prices.
Bottom line, I believe that PVC is the greenest roofing system available on the market today.
As for the Interview, I'll be more than happy to do it. Email me - info @ coolflatroof.com and we will set it up.
Roofs: Solar vs. Living
I thought you answered the question when you said "Then you figure out how many emissions would be produced if that power was created via conventional means." These days "conventional means" except for the more progressive states is through fossil fuels. That makes getting off the energy grid more valuable.
Very interesting article, a
Very interesting article, a topic I've always wondered myself, which is better? Solar or Living? At our Green Home in Los Angeles, we've utilized PV solar panels and have saved us alot of energy costs, but I think this decision depends on the area and climate you live in. Our green home in Los Angeles may be better used for solar panels as we have alot of sunlight here, while in New York or Philadelphia, may benefit more with green roofs to capture rain and precipitation for them to grow and providing much needed insulation during the cool winters. Please visit our home's website to learn more at: www.gogreenhomela.com.