Erratum

On-Site Renewable Energy and Green Buildings: A System-Level Analysis(Environ. Sci. Technol., (2016) 50:9 (4606-4614) DOI:10.1021/acs.est.5b05382)

Sami Al-Gahmdi, Melissa M. Bilec

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

The following corrections are needed to our paper On-Site Renewable Energy and Green Buildings: A System-Level Analysis. These corrections do not change or impact the overall results of the paper. All new numbers in the corrections are not newly calculated numbers but are the result of transcription errors. Page 4609, Section, Renewable Energy Modeling and Figure 1 caption. The original numbers show the distances for some of the locations in Figure 1 only and do not represent all the 25 locations as it may be understood from the sentence. All the information in (SI-B) are correct. In the first paragraph it should read, "All data for each site were collected from the nearby weather stations about 0.12 mi (0.19 km) and 46.5 mi (74.8 km) from the building". Page 4611, Section, Results and Discussion. In the first paragraph it should read, "In the photovoltaic analysis, 20 of the 25 buildings were physically capable (i.e., based on building size, geometry and solar potential) of producing 17-74% of the buildings electricity requirements, leading to economic savings of $10,792 to $141,892 (see Figure 3) and greenhouse gas emission reductions of 391 to 300 724 kg CO2 equiv per building per year (see Figure 4). In the wind analysis, one building was able to produce about 9%, three buildings about 3% and two buildings about 2% of their electric requirements with economic savings ranging from $722 to $6,557. All other buildings were able to produce only 1% or less of their electric requirements using wind power". Page 4611, Section, Energy and Economic Performance. In the first paragraph it should read, "...ranged from 501 to 820 MWh/year while the economic burden of this consumption varied significantly from approximately $11,500 to $214,000 per year depending on the local economic circumstances at each location". Page 4612, Figure 4. While the data in Figure 4 are correct the units were labeled incorrectly. In the legend the units should be (Metric tons CO2 equiv) instead of (kg CO2 equiv) as indicated in the left y-axis. The right y-axis label and legend units should be (kg/MWh) instead of (kg/kWh). Page 4612, Section, Energy and Economic Performance. In the third paragraph it should read, "In Hawaii and Italy the building can produce about 66% and 55% of its electricity needs, respectively, from solar only; the payback period for both locations was 19 and 24 years, respectively. The buildings in these locations also can produce 0.2% and 1% of its required electricity, respectively, from wind power. The annual savings were about $142,000 in Hawaii and $96,000 in Italy". Page 4612, Section, Environmental Impacts. In the first paragraph it should read, "Range of variation in emissions was from 2,244 and 5,219 kg CO2 equiv in Brazil and South Africa, respectively, which have dominant energy...".

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)7934
Number of pages1
JournalEnvironmental Science and Technology
Volume50
Issue number14
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Jul 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Economics
economics
energy
savings
electricity
Electricity
wind power
Wind power
Transcription
weather station
Gas emissions
Greenhouse gases
Environmental impact
green building
analysis
Environ
Labels
greenhouse gas
environmental impact
geometry

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Chemistry(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry

Cite this

@article{46e29f0eb1d54bef8bba3e5a0304ca6c,
title = "Erratum: On-Site Renewable Energy and Green Buildings: A System-Level Analysis(Environ. Sci. Technol., (2016) 50:9 (4606-4614) DOI:10.1021/acs.est.5b05382)",
abstract = "The following corrections are needed to our paper On-Site Renewable Energy and Green Buildings: A System-Level Analysis. These corrections do not change or impact the overall results of the paper. All new numbers in the corrections are not newly calculated numbers but are the result of transcription errors. Page 4609, Section, Renewable Energy Modeling and Figure 1 caption. The original numbers show the distances for some of the locations in Figure 1 only and do not represent all the 25 locations as it may be understood from the sentence. All the information in (SI-B) are correct. In the first paragraph it should read, {"}All data for each site were collected from the nearby weather stations about 0.12 mi (0.19 km) and 46.5 mi (74.8 km) from the building{"}. Page 4611, Section, Results and Discussion. In the first paragraph it should read, {"}In the photovoltaic analysis, 20 of the 25 buildings were physically capable (i.e., based on building size, geometry and solar potential) of producing 17-74{\%} of the buildings electricity requirements, leading to economic savings of $10,792 to $141,892 (see Figure 3) and greenhouse gas emission reductions of 391 to 300 724 kg CO2 equiv per building per year (see Figure 4). In the wind analysis, one building was able to produce about 9{\%}, three buildings about 3{\%} and two buildings about 2{\%} of their electric requirements with economic savings ranging from $722 to $6,557. All other buildings were able to produce only 1{\%} or less of their electric requirements using wind power{"}. Page 4611, Section, Energy and Economic Performance. In the first paragraph it should read, {"}...ranged from 501 to 820 MWh/year while the economic burden of this consumption varied significantly from approximately $11,500 to $214,000 per year depending on the local economic circumstances at each location{"}. Page 4612, Figure 4. While the data in Figure 4 are correct the units were labeled incorrectly. In the legend the units should be (Metric tons CO2 equiv) instead of (kg CO2 equiv) as indicated in the left y-axis. The right y-axis label and legend units should be (kg/MWh) instead of (kg/kWh). Page 4612, Section, Energy and Economic Performance. In the third paragraph it should read, {"}In Hawaii and Italy the building can produce about 66{\%} and 55{\%} of its electricity needs, respectively, from solar only; the payback period for both locations was 19 and 24 years, respectively. The buildings in these locations also can produce 0.2{\%} and 1{\%} of its required electricity, respectively, from wind power. The annual savings were about $142,000 in Hawaii and $96,000 in Italy{"}. Page 4612, Section, Environmental Impacts. In the first paragraph it should read, {"}Range of variation in emissions was from 2,244 and 5,219 kg CO2 equiv in Brazil and South Africa, respectively, which have dominant energy...{"}.",
author = "Sami Al-Gahmdi and Bilec, {Melissa M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1021/acs.est.6b03002",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "7934",
journal = "Environmental Science & Technology",
issn = "0013-936X",
publisher = "American Chemical Society",
number = "14",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Erratum

T2 - On-Site Renewable Energy and Green Buildings: A System-Level Analysis(Environ. Sci. Technol., (2016) 50:9 (4606-4614) DOI:10.1021/acs.est.5b05382)

AU - Al-Gahmdi, Sami

AU - Bilec, Melissa M.

PY - 2016/7/19

Y1 - 2016/7/19

N2 - The following corrections are needed to our paper On-Site Renewable Energy and Green Buildings: A System-Level Analysis. These corrections do not change or impact the overall results of the paper. All new numbers in the corrections are not newly calculated numbers but are the result of transcription errors. Page 4609, Section, Renewable Energy Modeling and Figure 1 caption. The original numbers show the distances for some of the locations in Figure 1 only and do not represent all the 25 locations as it may be understood from the sentence. All the information in (SI-B) are correct. In the first paragraph it should read, "All data for each site were collected from the nearby weather stations about 0.12 mi (0.19 km) and 46.5 mi (74.8 km) from the building". Page 4611, Section, Results and Discussion. In the first paragraph it should read, "In the photovoltaic analysis, 20 of the 25 buildings were physically capable (i.e., based on building size, geometry and solar potential) of producing 17-74% of the buildings electricity requirements, leading to economic savings of $10,792 to $141,892 (see Figure 3) and greenhouse gas emission reductions of 391 to 300 724 kg CO2 equiv per building per year (see Figure 4). In the wind analysis, one building was able to produce about 9%, three buildings about 3% and two buildings about 2% of their electric requirements with economic savings ranging from $722 to $6,557. All other buildings were able to produce only 1% or less of their electric requirements using wind power". Page 4611, Section, Energy and Economic Performance. In the first paragraph it should read, "...ranged from 501 to 820 MWh/year while the economic burden of this consumption varied significantly from approximately $11,500 to $214,000 per year depending on the local economic circumstances at each location". Page 4612, Figure 4. While the data in Figure 4 are correct the units were labeled incorrectly. In the legend the units should be (Metric tons CO2 equiv) instead of (kg CO2 equiv) as indicated in the left y-axis. The right y-axis label and legend units should be (kg/MWh) instead of (kg/kWh). Page 4612, Section, Energy and Economic Performance. In the third paragraph it should read, "In Hawaii and Italy the building can produce about 66% and 55% of its electricity needs, respectively, from solar only; the payback period for both locations was 19 and 24 years, respectively. The buildings in these locations also can produce 0.2% and 1% of its required electricity, respectively, from wind power. The annual savings were about $142,000 in Hawaii and $96,000 in Italy". Page 4612, Section, Environmental Impacts. In the first paragraph it should read, "Range of variation in emissions was from 2,244 and 5,219 kg CO2 equiv in Brazil and South Africa, respectively, which have dominant energy...".

AB - The following corrections are needed to our paper On-Site Renewable Energy and Green Buildings: A System-Level Analysis. These corrections do not change or impact the overall results of the paper. All new numbers in the corrections are not newly calculated numbers but are the result of transcription errors. Page 4609, Section, Renewable Energy Modeling and Figure 1 caption. The original numbers show the distances for some of the locations in Figure 1 only and do not represent all the 25 locations as it may be understood from the sentence. All the information in (SI-B) are correct. In the first paragraph it should read, "All data for each site were collected from the nearby weather stations about 0.12 mi (0.19 km) and 46.5 mi (74.8 km) from the building". Page 4611, Section, Results and Discussion. In the first paragraph it should read, "In the photovoltaic analysis, 20 of the 25 buildings were physically capable (i.e., based on building size, geometry and solar potential) of producing 17-74% of the buildings electricity requirements, leading to economic savings of $10,792 to $141,892 (see Figure 3) and greenhouse gas emission reductions of 391 to 300 724 kg CO2 equiv per building per year (see Figure 4). In the wind analysis, one building was able to produce about 9%, three buildings about 3% and two buildings about 2% of their electric requirements with economic savings ranging from $722 to $6,557. All other buildings were able to produce only 1% or less of their electric requirements using wind power". Page 4611, Section, Energy and Economic Performance. In the first paragraph it should read, "...ranged from 501 to 820 MWh/year while the economic burden of this consumption varied significantly from approximately $11,500 to $214,000 per year depending on the local economic circumstances at each location". Page 4612, Figure 4. While the data in Figure 4 are correct the units were labeled incorrectly. In the legend the units should be (Metric tons CO2 equiv) instead of (kg CO2 equiv) as indicated in the left y-axis. The right y-axis label and legend units should be (kg/MWh) instead of (kg/kWh). Page 4612, Section, Energy and Economic Performance. In the third paragraph it should read, "In Hawaii and Italy the building can produce about 66% and 55% of its electricity needs, respectively, from solar only; the payback period for both locations was 19 and 24 years, respectively. The buildings in these locations also can produce 0.2% and 1% of its required electricity, respectively, from wind power. The annual savings were about $142,000 in Hawaii and $96,000 in Italy". Page 4612, Section, Environmental Impacts. In the first paragraph it should read, "Range of variation in emissions was from 2,244 and 5,219 kg CO2 equiv in Brazil and South Africa, respectively, which have dominant energy...".

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979642505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979642505&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1021/acs.est.6b03002

DO - 10.1021/acs.est.6b03002

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 50

SP - 7934

JO - Environmental Science & Technology

JF - Environmental Science & Technology

SN - 0013-936X

IS - 14

ER -