Next Article in Journal
Assessing Ammonia and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock Manure Storage: Comparison of Measurements with Dynamic and Static Chambers
Previous Article in Journal
A Sustainable Strategy for Reforestation and Restoration of Burnt Natural Areas in Mediterranean Regions: A Case Study from Greece
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of the Performance of Polycrystalline and Monocrystalline PV Technologies in a Hot and Arid Region: An Experimental Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Solar Energy Utilization Potential in Urban Residential Blocks: A Case Study of Wuhan, China

1
School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Environment, Hubei University of Technology, Wuhan 430068, China
2
College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117566, Singapore
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(22), 15988; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215988
Submission received: 27 September 2023 / Revised: 26 October 2023 / Accepted: 10 November 2023 / Published: 15 November 2023

Abstract

:
In dense, energy-demanding urban areas, the effective utilization of solar energy resources, encompassing building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) systems and solar water heating (SWH) systems inside buildings, holds paramount importance for addressing concerns related to carbon emission reduction and the balance of energy supply and demand. This study aimed to examine the interplay between urban residential blocks and their solar energy potential, with the objective of promoting environmentally sustainable development within urban residential areas. The primary focus of this study was the hot summer and cold winter zone of China, which serves as a representative case study. Methodologically, we employed Rhinoceros and Grasshopper (GH) software version GH6.0 tools to simulate the solar radiation potential within residential blocks and translated this information into the potential utilization of BIPV and SWH systems. Subsequently, our focus was directed towards identifying optimal locations for mounting BIPV modules and water heaters on roofs and building façades. The study results revealed the following: (1) The floor area ratio (FAR), building density (BD), average building height (ABH), and space layout (SL) exerted substantial influences on the solar potential of a residential block, with correlations of up to 75%, 71%, 78%, and 50%, respectively, concerning the overall solar potential of the entire plot. (2) It is essential to emphasize that, with regard to the BIPV installation potential, façades account for 80% of the overall residential block potential, whereas rooftops contribute only 20%. Both south- and west-facing façades exhibited a BIPV installation ratio of approximately 34%. (3) In the realm of solar water heating, the potential for installations on building façades accounted for 77% of the total living area of the residential blocks, 23% on the rooftops, and 35% on the south-facing façades. This study furnishes practical guidelines for harnessing the potential of BIPV and SWH systems within residential blocks, thereby contributing to the advancement of sustainable urban development practices.

1. Introduction

At present, the development of renewable energy is a common goal, and there is a global consensus among countries around the world. By 2023, the global cumulative power generation will reach 77,620 terawatt-hours (TWh), of which coal will account for 67.0% (6123 TWh), while renewable energy will account for 20.3% (4983.14 TWh), with solar power accounting for a large proportion of the total [1,2]. Solar energy has become one of the most important clean energy sources and has been widely welcomed due to its safety, cleanliness, and ease of utilization [3]. As a renewable energy technology, the construction of BIPV integration and installation of SWH are important measures for promoting energy conservation and low-carbon urban development [4].
In China’s “14th Five-Year Plan” for renewable energy development, the targeted annual capacity for photovoltaic power generation is 124.5 billion kilowatt-hours. In this context, effective development of the solar energy potential in urban residential neighborhoods has a broad development prospect [5]. Here remains untapped potential for the utilization of renewable energy resources. In terms of the application of BIPV technology in China, 75.8% of BIPV systems are currently installed on industrial buildings and 20% are deployed on public buildings, while the utilization rate of solar BIPV technology in residential areas is only 3.9% [6]. It is essential to emphasize that urban residential blocks in China encompass a diverse array of functional components, including residential, commercial, office, and industrial spaces, with residential blocks constituting the predominant share. However, there is a lack of theoretical research on the integration of BIPV modules into these specific environments [7].
In terms of SWH, more than 80% of the newly installed capacity in the world comes from China [4], so the Chinese SWH market has great potential. However, the penetration of SWH applications in urban residential blocks is low, and there is still room for improvement in the system’s performance and reliability. Therefore, it is imperative to conduct a comprehensive study to assess the solar potential associated with different residential configurations and explore strategies for the large-scale installation of BIPV modules and the installation of SWH in residential areas. Both urban BIPV installations [8] and SWH systems [9] have great potential for development in terms of both scale and quantity.
In the realm of the research content, notable contributions have been made by various scholars and projects. For instance, Solar Cities in Berlin, Germany [10], Brito et al. [11], Groppi [12], Horváth [13], and Verso [14], among others, have conducted extensive investigations into solar energy applications in residential blocks within European countries. However, it is important to note that these studies have primarily concentrated on low-rise residential block roofs [15], with fewer instances of solar energy applications in high-rise residential block areas. Consequently, research findings on solar energy potential derived from Europe and the United States may not be directly applicable to the context of Chinese residential blocks. In contrast, research in China has focused mainly on the urban and building levels, with less research on the solar potential of residential blocks. In terms of research, scholars such as Ming [16], Sun [17], Yang [18], Nan [19], and Chao [20] have conducted extensive research into the application of solar energy technologies at the residential block and building levels. Huang [21] proposed a new method for detecting the city’s solar energy potential using image segmentation and deep learning techniques, and determined that the annual photovoltaic (PV) potential of Wuhan’s urban rooftops is 17,292.30 × 106 kWh per year. Xu [22] calculated the city-scale solar radiation by quantifying the relationship between urban residential block types and building roof shading coefficients in Wuhan, thus providing rapid access to solar radiation based on 2D urban roof images. Xu [23] investigated the effect of the residential block type on solar radiation by simulating solar irradiation in real urban industrial, commercial, and residential blocks. In existing studies, neither the scale of the study nor the selection of the study object are suitable for residential neighborhoods. The study of urban-scale solar power generation potential is conducive to predicting the regional solar power generation capacity on the macro scale.
Given this context, it becomes essential to delve into the solar energy distribution characteristics at regional points within the broader regional scale. This involves translating the diverse shading relationships encountered in actual Chinese residential block floor areas into quantifiable morphological parameters. This approach facilitates the investigation of the relationship between these quantified morphological parameters and the potential for solar energy utilization. Moreover, it facilitates the development of installation strategies for building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) modules, both on the roofs of distinct residential blocks and on various building façades. The ultimate goal is to foster the widespread adoption of BIPV and SWH [24] technologies within the Chinese urban environment.
In terms of the research methodology, evaluating the potential for solar energy utilization necessitates a critical examination of the building envelope area. Several statistical calculation methods have been developed for assessing the area of roofs and façades in urban buildings. These methodologies have been advanced by researchers such as Izquierdo [25], Wiginton [26], Lehmann [27], Julieta [28], and Karteris et al. [29]. These approaches encompass various techniques, including stratified sampling, GIS sample identification [30], site or building classification, and simulation methods employing software such as ECOTECT and Radiance. These approaches employ spatial categorization, which is subsequently processed through modeling within the GIS 10.4 or SketchUp 2018 software platforms. They rely on empirical values to determine the total available area on roofs and façades for solar energy utilization. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the potential for solar energy application is influenced by a myriad of factors [31]. Therefore, it has become imperative to conduct a comparative analysis of the solar energy resources available for photovoltaic and photothermal applications across different building types, configurations, and heights within urban residential blocks. This comprehensive assessment enables the optimization of the analysis pertaining to the potential for solar energy utilization within these buildings.
This study aims to overcome these limitations by dissecting the intricate relationship between urban residential blocks and the exploitation of solar energy potential. Furthermore, it offers a comprehensive planning strategy for the allocation of the solar energy usable space, utilizing the main urban area of Wuhan as an illustrative example. The principal aim of this research is to proffer strategies for the integration of BIPV and SWH technologies into diverse residential blocks. This goal is attained through a thorough analysis of the solar energy potential across various residential block typologies within the city. In terms of research concepts, this study advances an analytical framework based on the solar energy potential of distinct residential block types. This framework serves as a foundational research basis for the planning and layout design of multifaceted residential blocks. It aims to overcome the constraints associated with traditional design and optimization processes, which are often reliant on empirical judgments. Consequently, the study seeks to establish a design strategy that is applicable to the optimization of residential block configurations. Methodologically, the research determines the simulated solar radiation potential of residential blocks using GH in Rhinoceros. This potential is then translated into BIPV and SWH utilization. A subsequent analysis primarily concentrates on the optimal selection of BIPV installation sites and SWH placement locations on roofs and façades, guided using simulated solar radiation data. The analysis subsequently assesses the impacts of varying parameter ranges on the BIPV installation potential, BIPV installation ratios, and BIPV power generation potential across residential blocks. Ultimately, the study provides optimal installation strategies for BIPV integration and solar water heaters within diverse residential block typologies, thus furnishing a research foundation for residential block layout design methodologies.
This study is organized into four main sections: In the first section, the significance of solar energy within the context of renewable energy is thoroughly examined through a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Additionally, instances of solar energy applications, particularly in the fields of BIPV and SWH, are provided to underscore its importance. The second section employs Wuhan, an area in China that is characterized by a hot summer and cold winter climate zone, as a representative case study. This section takes into consideration the spatial layout of Wuhan and classifies the region into six categories: low-floor-area ratio low density (LFARLD), low-floor-area ratio high density (LFARHD), medium-floor-area ratio low density (MFARLD), medium-floor-area ratio high density (MFARHD), high-floor-area ratio low density (HFARLD), and high-floor-area ratio high density (HFARHD). The third section is dedicated to the establishment of 24 distinctive case studies, representing the six aforementioned types of residential blocks. It involves an in-depth analysis of their solar radiation potential, encompassing aspects such as the BIPV installation ratios, BIPV installation potential, BIPV power generation potential, as well as the SWH installation potential and SWH heating. Part four offers specific research recommendations tailored to each individual case.

2. Thinking and Methodologies

2.1. Framework Ideas

To comprehensively investigate the pivotal factors influencing solar energy utilization, this study initiated a multi-phase research approach: An initial survey encompassing 24 representative residential blocks was conducted to collect data regarding the typical layout patterns of residential blocks in Wuhan. These data provided fundamental insights into the spatial configurations of residential blocks within different regions of the study. Subsequently, 3D modeling software tools, including Rhinoceros, GH, and the Ladybug plug-in, were employed to simulate the solar potential. By leveraging these tools, the solar energy receiving capacity of diverse residential blocks could be effectively simulated and analyzed. During the third phase, an in-depth analysis of the simulation data was conducted to investigate a range of factors influencing solar radiation. These factors included parameters such as the floor area ratio, building density, average height, and spatial layout. The primary objective of this phase was to establish the correlations between these factors and the potential for photovoltaic power generation. Drawing from the results of each data analysis, we formulated research strategies tailored to different types of residential blocks. These categories included LFARLD, LFARHD, MFARLD, MFARHD, HFARLD, and HFARLD. These strategies are intended to offer precise guidance for the comprehensive utilization of BIPV and SWH technologies within mass housing areas, presenting practical and feasible measures and recommendations. By completing these five research phases, this study provides an in-depth understanding of the BIPV potential and SWH within Wuhan’s residential blocks in Figure 1. Importantly, it offers pragmatic and effective guidance strategies. These comprehensive strategies are poised to facilitate the advancement and adoption of renewable energy solutions within urban settings, ultimately contributing to the attainment of sustainable urban development objectives [32].

2.2. Sample Selection and Analysis

Wuhan, representing a typical region in a hot summer and cold winter zone of China, was the primary focus of this study. Specifically, the study’s scope centered on the main urban area of Wuhan, which encompasses a total land area of 678 km2. Within this area, residential blocks occupy approximately 147.88 km2. To delineate the characteristics of residential areas, this study employed BD and FAR as the principal indicators for classifying residential areas into high, medium, and low categories (Table 1). These classifications serve to elucidate features that convey varying levels, textures, and environmental qualities. Within the urban area, these various categories of residential block spaces are distributed in roughly equal proportions. However, as one moves farther away from the old city center, their distribution gradually diminishes, forming a pattern of polycentric zoning. It is noteworthy that a substantial percentage of spaces (95.6%) within the primary urban area exhibit an FAR that exceeds 1.5, with 63.4% of these spaces surpassing an FAR of 2.5. This trend underscores a clustered high-density distribution characteristic within the main urban area, emphasizing the efficient utilization of spatial resources. This distribution pattern highlights the general high FAR characteristics of residential block spaces within the main urban area, showing the utilization characteristics of spatial resources. By examining the residential block density and building FAR within the main urban area, we gain insights into the spatial characteristics and ground-level layout of urban development. These insights are instrumental in facilitating the city’s future sustainable development. Moreover, given Wuhan’s designation as a region in China within a hot summer and cold winter zone, the findings of these studies also hold practical significance by providing guidance and data for the planning and development of residential blocks in similar climatic regions.
Figure 2 shows that the analysis of the comprehensive layout characteristics revealed that the distribution of residential blocks in the primary urban area of Wuhan is exceptionally diverse, with high FAR residential blocks being predominant. Notably, the “high FAR, low-rise” type of residential block stood out as a distinctive and prevalent category. These residential blocks typically exhibit a high population density and building density, emphasizing the compactness of the living spaces. Collectively, mid-rise and high-rise residential blocks offer high-quality living environments throughout the city. Conversely, “low FAR, high-rise” residential blocks are mainly situated in older urban areas, including some designated historic preservation zones. These residential blocks are characterized by lower construction ratios and relatively taller building heights, preserving historical elements and traditions. Various types of residential blocks are widely distributed across the primary urban area of Wuhan. High-rise residential blocks typically embody contemporary architectural styles, mid-rise and high-rise residential blocks contribute to high-quality living environments, and low-rise residential blocks are primarily located in the older city areas, often carrying historical preservation value. The diversity among these residential block types, spanning the urban scale and historical contexts, enriches the development of Wuhan’s primary urban area. Through researching six types of residential blocks, 24 representative residential blocks were quantified as the study sample (Table 2), and an in-depth examination of their layout characteristics and patterns was conducted. These findings offer valuable references and guidance for the utilization of solar energy in urban contexts.

2.3. Model Creation and Parameter Setting

Each layout pattern analyzed in the parametric study adhered to the relevant requirements outlined in Document 248 of “Wuhan Construction Engineering Planning and Management Technical Provisions” [33] and “the Wuhan Residential Daylight Distance Specification” [34]. These requirements encompass various aspects, including building fire prevention, daylight distance, and other planning and design conditions. The design process included the GIS location of the residential area, obtaining accurate roof areas and floor area ratios, and creating a map of the area using Computer Aided Design (CAD) software version 2014, which was then imported into Rhinoceros. A radiation simulation was initiated by importing the Chinese Standard Weather Data (CSWD) into Rhinoceros. Then, a 3D model of the block was built. The solar radiation simulation of the building was carried out using Ladybird and Bee software version ladybug1.5, and the visualization results of the solar radiation intensity distribution on the building surface were obtained. In the simulation, the simulation period was set to 1 year, and the building surface was divided into a 2 × 2 m grid to calculate the annual accumulated solar radiation at each test point. The model of the residential area was measured in meters, and the building height was set at 3 m as the universal height setting obtained by researching the data from the residential area. At the same time, the distribution of building heights followed the principle of minimizing the obstructions between buildings. Additionally, the floor height of the buildings increased progressively from south to north. The simulation software’s parameter settings were configured as follows:
(1)
Meteorological file settings, specifically climatic conditions, play a pivotal role in determining the available solar radiation resources. This study conducted experiments to evaluate different meteorological files, and the findings indicated that the radiation values simulated using the CSWD meteorological file were closely aligned with the measured values. Consequently, in this study, the CSWD meteorological file was selected as the preferred choice [35];
(2)
Regarding the run cycle setting, it is essential to note that the final radiation value obtained in this study represents the annual average. Therefore, the simulation cycle spans one year, encompassing the period from 1 January to 31 December.
GH serves as a graphical algorithm editor that is seamlessly integrated with Rhinoceros’s 3D modeling tools, making it a popular choice among building professionals and students for parametric modeling. Numerous plug-ins are readily available to facilitate the requisite BIPV simulations [36]. Additionally, solar simulation tools such as Ladybug and Bee, which are designed for Rhinoceros and GH, were employed [37]. These tools are well-established and have undergone validation based on radiation data, having been used in prior research to simulate the solar resource availability [38]. When conducting radiation calculations, a substantial number of representative 3D residential blocks were meticulously modeled within Rhinoceros using GIS data. A simulation workflow was subsequently established using the Ladybird plugin for GH [39]. This workflow encompassed various EPW-validated models, enabling the simulation of the solar radiation distribution across selected representative residential block structures. EPW data are in a format used by Energy Plus, the U.S. Department of Energy’s open access professional weather analysis software. EPW validation is the process of confirming the accuracy and completeness of an EPW (EnergyPlus Weather) meteorological data file, while EPW synthesis is the process of generating or editing an EPW file to meet specific building performance simulation requirements. The estimation procedures were grounded in Rhinoceros-generated geometries, GH-derived input data, and EPW-synthesized climate data sourced from SWERA data. Upon the completion of modeling for both the buildings and their 3D urban surroundings, the necessary input parameters and data required for conducting solar irradiation simulations were determined. These included the Wuhan climate EPW dataset, a year-round analysis period, the average grid cell size used for the radiation analysis of the surfaces under scrutiny (roofs and façades), and vector data representing the true north direction. In cases where BIPV panels were simulated as frameless custom modules, they occupied approximately 90% of the surfaces in question. The total radiation values, as well as the radiation per unit area, are expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and kilowatt-hours per square meter (kWh/m2).

2.4. Calculated Analysis of the Solar Energy Potential

2.4.1. Calculation of the Solar Radiation Thresholds and Radiation Potential

(1)
Solar radiation threshold
By referring to data published by the China General Social Survey (CCSS) in early 2019, it can be ascertained that the range for BIPV system installation lies between 3.5 and 6.5 Renminbi per Watt (RMW). In this study, we set the system installation cost, denoted as Csu, at 4 RMW/W, while establishing the annual system maintenance factor, denoted as RAn, at 2%. The parameter PD represents the power density of PV modules. Based on research findings regarding polycrystalline silicon BIPV module products from relevant domestic PV enterprises, we set the power density of polycrystalline silicon PV modules, represented as PD, at 270 W/m2. By calculating the solar radiation thresholds, we derived the solar radiation thresholds for the PV system under different life cycles [40]. In the solar energy field, the life cycle of solar energy equipment usually includes the stages of manufacture, transportation, installation, use, maintenance, and disposal, which becomes the life cycle of solar energy. The solar radiation threshold usually refers to a minimum level of light intensity, i.e., the light intensity must reach a specific value for solar equipment to operate properly or perform optimally, allowing us to analyze the relationship between these thresholds and the system’s life cycle [41,42]. In this study, the radiation threshold of solar PV was calculated according to the current situation in Wuhan. First, Formula (2) for the solar radiation threshold t was obtained based on the input–output balance Equation (1) for the PV system over the whole life cycle.
C s y s = t × η i × K × C e l e × 1 N ( 1 R d ) N 1
t = C s y s η i × K × C e l e × 1 N ( 1 R d ) N 1
where N denotes the life cycle of the PV system, η i is the photovoltaic conversion efficiency of the PV system, and R d denotes the decay rate of the PV system. Polycrystalline silicon PV modules were used in this study, and according to research conducted on the market, their conversion efficiency η i was set to 19.1%, while the attenuation rate R d was set to 1.4%. K is the integrated efficiency coefficient, which is a comprehensive evaluation parameter that is used to measure the performance of the PV system, and according to related research by Kumar et al., in this study the K value was set to 86% [43]. C e l e is the feed-in tariff, which is closely related to the PV subsidy policies of national and local governments [44]. According to the subsidies of national and Wuhan-related policies, we set it to 0.9861 RMB/Kwh.
Thus, based on the calculation of the solar radiation thresholds, this study obtained the solar radiation thresholds of PV systems in different life cycles in order to analyze the relationship between the thresholds and the systems’ life cycles (Figure 3). Each symbolic point in the figure indicates a different solar radiation threshold corresponding to a different cycle. The results showed that the solar radiation threshold gradually decreased with an increase in the system’s life cycle. In this study, a system’s life cycle of 20 years was used as the standard to determine the solar radiation threshold t in Wuhan. The solar radiation threshold t in Wuhan is 530.6 kWh/m2∙y [45].
(2)
Solar radiation potential
The radiation values for the buildings within the selected residential area were initially generated through software simulations. Subsequently, the radiation potential was computed based on the solar radiation threshold of 530.6 kWh/m2∙y. The resulting percentage was obtained by subtracting the solar radiation threshold from the average annual radiation for instances where the radiation exceeded this threshold.

2.4.2. BIPV Calculation Analysis

(1)
BIPV installation potential
According to the national specification “Design Code for Photovoltaic Power Plants” [39] for the calculation model of the BIPV installation potential, the BIPV installation potential, represented by P r o o f , P f a c a d e , and P , was calculated as follows.
C r i = C r a × C f × C s t × C S × C r t × C c o v
C f i = C w × C s f
P r o o f = A r × C r i × A r > t A b
P f a c a d e = A f × C f i × A f > t A b
P = P r o o f + P f a c a d e
The BIPV installation potential refers to the proportion of the available BIPV area on the building surface [46]. When calculating the roof installation coefficient, C r a is the roof area coefficient, which is the ratio of the roof area to the floor area, and has a value of 0.9. C f is the facility coefficient, which indicates the proportion of the roof that is not occupied by HVAC equipment, chimneys, etc., and has a value of 0.7. C s t is the solar thermal coefficient, which refers to the proportion of the roof that is not occupied by the solar hot water system. Since almost all residential neighborhoods in China have solar hot water systems installed, the C s t was set to 0.9. C r t is the roof coefficient. In this research, the C r t was set to 1 for flat-roofed buildings and 0.5 for sloped-roofed buildings. C c o v is the effective area coefficient of the BIPV modules, i.e., the ratio of the surface area of the BIPV modules to the surface area of the roof. It takes into account the gap between BIPV modules to avoid reflections caused by mutual shielding. The C c o v was set to 0.53 [47]. For the calculation of the façade mounting coefficient, it is mainly affected by the window opening coefficient ( C w ) and the structural coefficient ( C s f ). They represent the proportion of the area that is not occupied by doors, windows, balconies, structures, etc. We set the C w and the C s f to 0.78 and 0.9, respectively.
For P , P r o o f , R f a c a d e , and P represent the BIPV installation potential of the roof, façade, and cell, respectively. A r and A f denote the areas of the roof and façade, respectively, and C r i and C f i denote the roof and façade installation factors. A r > t and A r > t are the proportions of the roof and façade whose radiation values exceed a predetermined threshold. The definition of the radiation thresholds makes it possible to evaluate the BIPV-available area of a building per unit of the site area, allowing parallel comparisons between different types of residential blocks.
(2)
BIPV installation ratio
Based on the calculation of the BIPV installation potential, the BIPV installation ratio for each building surface was further calculated. This indicates the mounting positions of BIPV modules on different surfaces and can be calculated as follows:
R r o o f = P r o o f A r o o f
R f a c a d e = P f a c a d e A f a c a d e
where R r o o f and R f a c a d e denote the BIPV installation ratio of the roof and the façade; P r o o f and P f a c a d e denote the BIPV usable area of the roof and the façade; and A r o o f and A f a c a d e denote the BIPV usable area of the roof and the façade. The façade is the area of the roof and the façade.
(3)
BIPV power generation potential
According to the national specification “Design Code for Photovoltaic Power Plants” [39] for the calculation model of the BIPV system power generation, the formula for the BIPV system power generation ( E p ) can be obtained as follows:
E p = H A × A p v × η i × K × ( 1 R d ) N 1
where H A is the annual cumulative solar radiation value of the building surface, A p v is the mountable area of the BIPV module, and N is the life cycle of the BIPV system. η i , K [43], and R d are the photovoltaic system photovoltaic conversion efficiency, the integration period efficiency coefficient, and the decay ratio of the BIPV system, respectively, which were set to 19.1%, 86%, and 1.4% [25] in the previous section [48]. As a result, the power generation capacity of the BIPV system could be obtained. On this basis, the BIPV technical potential of the building was evaluated in terms of the average annual power generation of the BIPV system per unit of land area in order to compare the BIPV power generation of different types of residential blocks in parallel.

2.4.3. SWH Calculations

(1)
SWH Installation Potential
The solar energy utilization potential solar energy utilization potential evaluation involves the calculation of the average annual solar energy production on the surface of the building on the basis of the comprehensive consideration of the installation potential of solar energy, the radiation potential, and the efficiency of the system. In this research, the efficiency of SWH was taken as 50% [49].
(2)
SWH heating
According to the national specification “Technical standard for solar water heating system of civil buildings” [50] for the calculation model of the SWH solar collector, the formula for the SWH solar collector Q p can be obtained as follows:
Q p is the heat available for hot water from SWH systems throughout the year [51] in GWh/y; R is the total annual amount of solar radiation received by solar collectors per unit area in GWh/m2; A c is the SWH collector area in m2 [52]; β is the annual utilization factor of solar radiation, where β = 69.9% [53]; and η s is the SWH system efficiency, where η s = 50% [49]. Their calculation formula is as follows:
Q p = R × A c × β × η s
The amount of heat that can be supplied by an SWH system in a residential block throughout the year, as calculated by the formula described above, can be applied to the optimal installation strategy for the amount of heat produced by roof-mounted and façade-mounted installations in residential blocks.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Solar Radiation Values

3.1.1. Calculations of Solar Radiation in Residential Blocks

The annual mean solar radiation data from Wuhan (Figure 4) were used as the basis of the study. A software simulation study was carried out for 24 study samples, and the solar radiation data in the study were typical annual average solar radiation data.
The results of the analysis of solar radiation on roofs and façades across various types of residential blocks (Figure 5) depicted the annual cumulative solar radiation received by building surfaces. As indicated in Table 3, the average annual cumulative solar radiation on roofs within different residential areas ranged from 872.08 KWH/m2∙y to 1281.44 KWH/m2∙y. However, when considering the façades of buildings, the solar radiation was attenuated, resulting in an average annual cumulative solar radiation ranging from 946.99 KWH/m2∙y to 1026.38 KWH/m2∙y. Among the residential blocks, the HFARLD area exhibited the highest overall solar radiation values, with average annual cumulative solar radiation values of 1281.44 KWH/m2∙y for roofs and 1031.15 KWH/m2∙y for façades. Conversely, the MFARLD area displayed relatively lower solar radiation values, with average annual cumulative solar radiation values of 872.08 KWH/m2∙y for roofs and 959.01 KWH/m2∙y for façades.
Figure 6 and Figure 7 illustrate the variation in solar radiation across LFARLD, LFARHD, MFARLD, MFARHD, HFARLD, and HFARHD blocks. In LFARLD regions, roof solar radiation contributed 57% of the total solar radiation, while in HFARLD areas, façade solar radiation comprised 76% of the total solar radiation. These findings suggest that LFARLD regions have a greater solar potential on roofs, whereas HFARLD regions exhibit higher solar potential on elevations. Regarding a comparison among façades, the southern façade boasted the highest solar radiation, ranging from 906.46 KWH/m2∙y to 1102.67 KWH/m2∙y. Following closely was the west elevation, with solar radiation levels ranging between 902.99 KWH/m2∙y and 1152.96 KWH/m2∙y. In contrast, the north elevation exhibited lower solar radiation, ranging from 634.94 KWH/m2∙y to 978.26 KWH/m2∙y and is typically not a primary consideration when assessing the solar potential.

3.1.2. Solar Radiation Potential

The values of the solar radiation quantities used to simulate the buildings in the selected residential blocks were first chosen, and then the radiation potential was calculated based on the solar radiation threshold value of 530.6 kWh/m2∙y. By subtracting the solar radiation threshold from the annual average radiation, the percentage of radiation above the solar threshold was obtained. This gave us the solar potential values of the residential blocks studied below.
The results of the analysis of the solar radiation potential on roofs and façades across different types of residential blocks (Table 3) indicated the proportion of the annual cumulative solar radiation values on building surfaces that exceeded the threshold value. The findings from this study (Figure 8 and Figure 9) revealed that the highest solar radiation potential was observed in residential blocks characterized by LFARHD, with more than half of the rooftop solar radiation potential captured in both low- and high-rise residential blocks.
Conversely, Figure 10 showed that residential blocks with HFARHD primarily absorb the solar radiation potential through their building façades. Specifically, LFARLD residential blocks exhibited an overall solar radiation potential of 61%, with rooftops contributing 66% of this potential. HFARHD blocks exhibited an overall solar radiation potential of 70%, of which 71% was attributed to the façade. In contrast, MFARHD residential blocks showed a lower solar radiation potential, with 55% attributed to low-rise buildings and 51% to the façade. This disparity can be explained by the minimal shading impact between buildings in low-rise residential blocks, leading to increased solar radiation above the threshold on building surfaces and thus an overall boost in the solar radiation potential. On the other hand, medium- and high-rise residential blocks experience shading from neighboring buildings and natural solar radiation attenuation on vertical surfaces, resulting in a reduced area of building surfaces that surpass the solar radiation threshold.

3.1.3. BIPV Installation Ratio

According to Equations (8) and (9), the BIPV installation rate on the roofs and façades of the residential blocks could be calculated, and, therefore, the optimal installation surface for BIPV could be derived. Table 4 and Figure 11 present the BIPV installation ratios on surfaces of various types of residential blocks, representing the proportion of each building surface area with a solar radiation value exceeding the threshold value of 530.6 KWH/m2∙y. Across all residential block types, the average roof BIPV installation ratio exceeded 99%. Notably, the south-facing façades exhibited a significant BIPV installation potential, with an average BIPV installation ratio of 34% or more for all residential block types (Figure 12). Remarkably, the LFARLD south façades achieved an exceptionally high average installation ratio of 89.5%. The west façades also demonstrated a substantial BIPV installation potential, with an average BIPV installation ratio that exceeded 46% for all residential block types. Notably, the MFARLD façades reached an average installation ratio of 72.73%. Conversely, the BIPV installation ratio on the north façades of nearly all residential blocks was zero. A limited number of residential blocks possessed some BIPV-available area on their east façades, but the average BIPV installation ratio remained below 4.0% for all such cases (Figure 13).
In summary, the south and west façades of residential blocks exhibited a favorable BIPV installation potential, while the east and north façades are unsuitable for BIPV module installation due to their shading and orientation. Additionally, it was observed that, for south-facing façades, LFARLD residential blocks had higher BIPV installation ratios, and these ratios tended to decrease as the building height increased, resulting in increased shading between buildings. In contrast, for west-facing façades, residential blocks with MFARL displayed higher west façade BIPV installation ratios.

3.1.4. BIPV Installation Potential and BIPV Power Generation Potential

This study presents the results of an analysis conducted on the BIPV installation potential and BIPV generation potential of roofs and façades to enhance the BIPV availability on building surfaces per unit area. The roof and façade installation factors can be calculated from Equations (3) and (4), and the calculated data can be applied to Equations (5) and (6) to calculate the roof and façade BIPV installation potentials of the residential blocks. Based on the calculated BIPV installation potential values, it is possible to determine the optimal PV installation strategy for roofs and façades in residential blocks.
The findings, as summarized in Table 5, revealed a correlation between the BIPV installation potential and the solar radiation potential, with high-rise residential blocks exhibiting a greater installed BIPV capacity compared to low-rise residential blocks. The variation in the roof BIPV installation potential among residential blocks was relatively minor, with fluctuations primarily ranging from 0.03 m2 to 0.11 m2. Notably, the prevalence of low BIPV installation potential on the roofs of medium- and high-rise residential areas was observed in various types of residential blocks. This was attributed to the substantial differences in individual buildings within low-rise residential blocks, which exhibit higher building densities and, consequently, greater BIPV installation potential on their roofs. However, distinctions in the façade BIPV installation potential emerged across different types of residential blocks. High-rise residential areas consistently demonstrated higher BIPV installation potential than their low-rise counterparts. Specifically, high-rise residential areas characterized by HFARLD residential blocks exhibited the highest BIPV installation potential of 1.37 m2, including a façade BIPV installation potential of 1.46 m2. Conversely, LFARLD residential blocks exhibited BIPV installation potentials ranging from 0.26 m2 to 0.38 m2, with BIPV roof installation potentials ranging from 0.02 m2 to 0.05 m2 (Figure 14).
The results of the analysis pertaining to the BIPV roof potential, representing the average annual BIPV power generation per unit land area across various categories of residential block instances, were as follows. Based on Equation (7), the power generation potential of the roof and façade BIPV in residential blocks could be calculated, thus providing clear power generation data for PV power generation in residential blocks. The overall simulation outcomes revealed minor disparities in the average roof technical potential among different categories of residential block instances, with fluctuations typically ranging from 3.14 to 28.31 KWH/m2∙y. In contrast, there was a notable increase in the façade BIPV potential of residential blocks, which was amplified in tandem with the building height. Specifically, the highest façade BIPV potential was observed in the HFARLD zone, with values fluctuating between 189.22 and 248.87 KWH/m2∙y. Conversely, the lowest façade BIPV potential was identified in the low-rise residential block, where values ranged from 11.33 to 53.12 KWH/m2∙y (Figure 15).

3.2. Parameter Patterns Influencing the BIPV Utilization Potential in Residential Block

The results of the analysis pertaining to the BIPV roof potential, representing the average annual BIPV power generation per unit land area across various categories of residential block instances, were as follows. The overall simulation outcomes revealed minor disparities in the average roof technical potential among different categories of residential block instances, with fluctuations typically ranging from 3.14 to 28.31 KWH/m2∙y. In contrast, there was a notable increase in the façade BIPV potential of residential blocks, which was amplified in tandem with the building height. Specifically, the highest façade BIPV potential was observed in the HFARLD zone, with values fluctuating between 189.22 and 248.87 KWH/m2∙y. Conversely, the lowest façade BIPV potential was identified in the low-rise residential block, where values ranged from 11.33 to 53.12 KWH/m2∙y (Figure 16, Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19).
Based on the results of the regression analysis, shown in Table 6, which include the correlation coefficient (R2) and significance analysis (p-value), we were able to discern the parameters that exert the most substantial impacts on the solar energy utilization potential within the residential blocks. The R2 value indicates the fit of the analytical simulation, as shown in Table 6, where FAR has an R2 value of 0.949. Thus, we can understand that the relationship between FAR and the potential of BIPV on the roofs of residential blocks is 94.9%. p-values of less than 0.05 or 0.01 indicate that there is an influential relationship between FAR and residential blocks. Our calculations revealed that FAR, BD, and ABH were the parameters with the most pronounced influences on the solar energy utilization potential across the entire residential block. These three morphological parameters exhibited varying degrees of influence on the BIPV technical potential of both roofs and façades within the neighborhood. However, they all demonstrated a correlation with the technical potential of the overall neighborhood that exceeded 70%, and their respective p-values were less than 0.05, signifying statistical significance. The correlation between SL and the technical potential was 50%. Furthermore, when FAR, ABH, and the building layout varied across different residential block categories, the technical potential experienced a corresponding increase. Conversely, as BD escalated, the roof’s technical potential rose, while the overall residential block’s technical potential also increased accordingly.

3.3. SWH Calculations

3.3.1. SWH Installation Potential

This study aimed to enhance the SWH installation potential per unit area on building surfaces. Thus, we conducted an analysis of the SWH installation potential on both roofs and façades. Based on the calculated data for the solar radiation potential, BIPV and SWH were used for the same types of residential settlements, so the efficiency of SWH was taken as 50%; furthermore, Equations (3) and (4) use the same installation factor for roofs and façades. Therefore, the SWH installation potential per square meter on the roofs of the settlements and on each facade could be derived to give the optimal installation strategy for installing SWH. The study’s findings shown in Table 7 and Figure 20 revealed a positive correlation between the SWH installation potential within residential blocks and their solar radiation potential. Specifically, MFARLD residential blocks exhibited a higher SWH installation potential. The variation in the roof SHW installation potential among different residential blocks was relatively insignificant, with values fluctuating between approximately 0.03 m2 and 0.06 m2. In contrast, there was a substantial discrepancy in the façade SWH installation potential across residential areas, ranging from 0.25 m2 to 1.52 m2.
Notably, MFARLD residential block areas exhibited the highest SWH façade installation potential of 1.52 m2. Among the different façades, the south-facing ones possessed the highest installation potential compared to the other façade orientations, followed by the east-facing façades, which had a lower potential, while the north-facing façades were not considered to have any installation potential. For LFARLD and LFARHD residential areas, the range of solar water heater façade installation potential values spanned from 0.09 m2 to 0.47 m2, with corresponding solar water heater roof installation potential values ranging from 0.02 m2 to 0.11 m2. MFARLD and MFARHD residential areas exhibited an SWH installation potential range from 0.32 m2 to 1.54 m2, coupled with an SWH roof installation potential range spanning from 0.32 m2 to 1.54 m2. Finally, HFARLD and HFARHD residential areas had an SWH installation potential range of 0.46 m2 to 0.58 m2, alongside an SWH roof installation potential ranging from 0.01 m2 to 0.17 m2 (Figure 21 and Figure 22).

3.3.2. SWH Quantity

This study was conducted to enhance the efficiency of water heating through SWH on building surfaces per unit area. According to Equation (11), the efficiency of heating water using SWH on the roofs of the residential blocks and on each façade could be calculated. Therefore, the water heating capacity of the solar water heaters on the roof and façade was analyzed, so that we could provide the optimal installation strategy for SWH in the residential blocks. The findings of the study (Table 8 and Figure 23) indicated that MFARLD residential blocks exhibit a higher capacity for water heating through solar water heaters. The potential for SWH installation on roofs showed relatively minor variation across residential blocks, with values fluctuating within the range of approximately 7.27 GWh/y to 33.73 GWh/y. In contrast, there was a significant disparity in the potential for SWH installation on façades among different residential blocks, spanning from 56.36 GWh/y to 936.22 GWh/y. Specifically, MFARLD residential blocks possessed the highest water heating capacity from SWH on façades, reaching 936.22 GWh/y, while LFARLD blocks exhibited the lowest capacity at 56.36 GWh/y (Figure 24). This variation arose because façades are typically perpendicular to the ground, allowing them to capture solar radiation more effectively over different periods of the day. SWH areas on vertical surfaces receive prolonged exposure to sunlight, leading to the absorption of more solar energy. Unlike sloped roofs, which may reflect some sunlight, SWH systems installed on façades are generally more efficient at converting light energy into heat.
As depicted in Figure 25, the south elevation exhibited a range of water heating capacity values from SWH, varying between a minimum of 39.27 GWh/y and a maximum of 78.29 GWh/y, in comparison to other elevations. The east elevation demonstrated a lower range, fluctuating between 18.96 GWh/y and 45.51 GWh/y, while the potential for installations on the north elevation was not considered. The spectrum of solar water heater façade heating water capacities for LFARLD and LFARHD residential blocks ranged from 109.62 GWh/y to 121.10 GWh/y. Within this category, the SWH roof heating water capacity spanned from 15.08 GWh/y to 22.77 GWh/y. For MFARLD and MFARHD residential areas, the SWH façade heating water capacity fell within the range of 84.09 GWh/y to 537.06 GWh/y. Correspondingly, the SWH roof heating water capacity ranged from 7.72 GWh/y to 33.73 GWh/y. In HFARLD and HFARHD residential areas, the SWH façade heating water supply varied between 162.06 GWh/y and 187.53 GWh/y. Simultaneously, the SWH roof-mounted heating water supply ranged from 22.95 GWh/y to 22.12 GWh/y.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated the influences of morphological parameters on solar radiation in residential blocks in Wuhan and characterized the distribution of the solar potential in the environments of different residential blocks. Given the low-density layout and high-intensity development of China’s residential blocks, China’s residential communities have great potential for solar energy development. However, while BIPV and SWH technologies have been applied on a large scale, related theoretical studies are relatively insufficient. Therefore, it is necessary to study the solar potential of different residential block environments and provide design strategies for BIPV projects. We evaluated the solar radiation of 24 typical residential blocks, including six types of residential blocks. In this research, we investigated the effects of different parameter ranges on the BIPV installation ratio, BIPV installation potential, BIPV power generation potential, SWH installation potential, and SWH quantity. In the study, we propose the optimal installation strategies for BIPV integrated systems and SWH in each residential block.
(1)
Residential block layouts of various configurations exhibit distinct characteristics concerning their solar radiation potential, which can be quantified based on the proportion of the annual cumulative solar radiation values that exceed a specified threshold on building surfaces. Specifically, LFARLD residential blocks exhibited an overall solar radiation potential of 61%, with rooftops contributing 66% of this potential. HFARHD blocks exhibited an overall solar radiation potential of 70%, of which 71% was attributed to the façade. In contrast, MFARHD residential blocks showed a lower solar radiation potential, with 55% attributed to low-rise buildings and 51% to the façade. This phenomenon arises from the escalation in the building height, which fosters greater inter-building shading. When coupled with the natural attenuation of solar radiation on vertical surfaces, this leads to a reduction in the surface area exposed to solar radiation exceeding the threshold value.
(2)
When considering the factors influencing solar energy installation, it was evident that parameters such as FAR, BD, and ABH exert the most significant influences on the solar energy potential of the residential block. Their correlations with the overall solar energy potential of the entire floor area attained values of 75%, 71%, and 75%, respectively. Moreover, the correlation between the building SL and the solar energy potential was estimated to be 50%, with the row-type layout demonstrating the highest solar energy potential. It was evident that optimizing parameters such as the floor area ratio, building density, average building height, and building layout can lead to the maximization of the BIPV installation potential, BIPV installation ratio, and BIPV power generation potential.
(3)
In the context of the solar BIPV installation potential, HFARLD row-type residential blocks exhibited the highest BIPV potential among the high-rise residential blocks, closely followed by the MFARLD blocks. It is essential to emphasize that, with regard to the BIPV installation potential, façades accounted for 80% of the overall residential block potential, whereas rooftops contributed only 20%. Both south and west façades exhibited a BIPV installation ratio of approximately 34%. In terms of the BIPV generation capacity, HFARLD residential areas possess the greatest potential, with MFARLD residential areas ranking second. Regarding BIPV generation, façades contributed significantly, accounting for 87% of the total BIPV potential within the residential block, while rooftops contributed merely 13%. Consequently, high-rise residential areas should focus not only on the comprehensive installation of BIPV modules on roofs but also on harnessing the development and utilization of the BIPV power generation potential offered by the building façades.
(4)
Concerning the installation potential of SWH, MFARLD residential blocks exhibited the highest installation potential, closely followed by HFARHD blocks. In terms of the heating area covered by SWH, the installation potential for SWH on façades accounted for 77% of the total residential area, whereas rooftops contributed 23%. The installation potential for SWH on the south façade was consistent at approximately 35% in both cases. Regarding the amount of hot water supplied by SWH, MFARLD residential blocks offer the largest volume of solar hot water, followed by HFARHD residential blocks. SWH covers a considerable portion of the hot water area, with SWH on façades contributing to 71% of the entire residential block area, while rooftops contribute 29%. Therefore, when implementing SWH in residential block designs, it is crucial to fully exploit the potential of SWH for supplying hot water on both the roofs and façades of residential blocks.
The existing study was based only on the climatic conditions of Wuhan city, and future studies can improve the applicability of the study by quantifying the effects of different climatic conditions on the solar potential of the plot. The large number of BIPV modules and SWH installation schemes proposed in this study can be widely adopted, and these are particularly applicable to residential blocks. The established methodology and workflow provide a reliable reference for solar potential evaluations at the residential block scale. Depending on the building layout and parameters, the derived results can be used for solar potential utilization in existing residential blocks. However, the integration of solar energy with existing power generation systems and strategies to increase the PV penetration need to be further considered in future work. Thus, this study provides urban decision makers with prospects and starting points for renewable energy residential block applications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J. and H.Z.; methodology, S.J. and H.Z.; software, S.J.; validation, S.J., H.Z. and H.Y.; formal analysis, S.J. and H.Z.; investigation, S.J. and X.H.; data curation, S.J. and X.H.; writing—original draft preparation, S.J.; writing—review and editing, S.J.; visualization, S.J.; supervision, H.Z., X.J., J.Y., N.G. and Z.W.; project administration, H.Z.; funding acquisition, H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Humanities and Social Science Research Project of the Ministry of Education of China (No. 22YJAZH146). It was also supported by the Local Cooperative Project of China Scholarship Council (No. 202008420322).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this article are available in the article.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Hubei Collaborative Innovation Center for Efficient Use of Solar Energy of HBUT for providing the open research project for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rubavathy, S.J.; Kannan, N.; Dhanya, D.; Shinde, S.K.; Soni, N.B.; Madduri, A.; Mohanavel, V.; Sudhakar, M.; Sathyamurthy, R. Machine Learning Strategy for Solar Energy Optimisation in Distributed Systems. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 872–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Statistical Communiqué of the People’s Republic of China on the 2019 National Economic and Social Development. Available online: www.mct.gov.cn/whzx/bnsj/whcys/202008/t20200812_874065.htm (accessed on 26 September 2023).
  3. Kannan, N.; Vakeesan, D. Solar Energy for Future World—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 62, 1092–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Renewables 2023 Global Status Report. 2023. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/reports/global-status-report/ (accessed on 26 September 2023).
  5. Morganti, M.; Salvati, A.; Coch, H.; Cecere, C. Urban Morphology Indicators for Solar Energy Analysis. Energy Procedia 2017, 134, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, Z.-S.; Zhang, G.-Q.; Li, D.-M.; Zhou, J.; Li, L.-J.; Li, L.-X. Application and Development of Solar Energy in Building Industry and Its Prospects in China. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 4121–4127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dinçer, F. The Analysis on Photovoltaic Electricity Generation Status, Potential and Policies of the Leading Countries in Solar Energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mendis, T.; Huang, Z.; Xu, S.; Zhang, W. Economic Potential Analysis of Photovoltaic Integrated Shading Strategies on Commercial Building Façades in Urban Blocks: A Case Study of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Energy 2020, 194, 116908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Urban, F.; Geall, S.; Wang, Y. Solar PV and Solar Water Heaters in China: Different Pathways to Low Carbon Energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 64, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Amado, M.; Poggi, F. Solar Urban Planning: A Parametric Approach. Energy Procedia 2014, 48, 1539–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brito, M.C.; Freitas, S.; Guimarães, S.; Catita, C.; Redweik, P. The Importance of Façades for the Solar PV Potential of a Mediterranean City Using LiDAR Data. Renew. Energy 2017, 111, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Groppi, D.; De Santoli, L.; Cumo, F.; Astiaso Garcia, D. A GIS-Based Model to Assess Buildings Energy Consumption and Usable Solar Energy Potential in Urban Areas. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 40, 546–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Horváth, M.; Kassai-Szoó, D.; Csoknyai, T. Solar Energy Potential of Roofs on Urban Level Based on Building Typology. Energy Build. 2016, 111, 278–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Verso, A.; Martin, A.; Amador, J.; Dominguez, J. GIS-Based Method to Evaluate the Photovoltaic Potential in the Urban Environments: The Particular Case of Miraflores de La Sierra. Sol. Energy 2015, 117, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Poulsen, M.; Lauring, M. The Historical Influence of Landscape, Ecology and Climate on Danish Low-Rise Residential Architecture. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2019, 14, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lin, A.; Lu, M.; Lou, J. Spatial Assessment of Urban Solar Energy Availability from an Energy Landscape Perspective. Planners 2021, 37, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lau, S.W.; Xu, S. A case study of solar building scale-up in an urban environment. Huazhong Archit. 2015, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bai, Y.; Zhan, C. Study on Optimization of Settlement Patterns in Severe Cold Regions Based on Solar Energy Utilization Potentials. Bachelor’s Degree, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jiang, N.; Xu, S. Study on the Potential of Solar Energy Utilization in Residential Urban Neighborhoods—Wuhan City as an Example. Bachelor’s Thesis, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, X. Design and Calculation Analysis of Solar Integration for Residential Buildings in Wuhan. Sichuan Build. Sci. 2020, 46, 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, Z.; Mendis, T.; Xu, S. Urban Solar Utilization Potential Mapping via Deep Learning Technology: A Case Study of Wuhan, China. Appl. Energy 2019, 250, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xu, S.; Li, Z.; Zhang, C.; Huang, Z.; Tian, J.; Luo, Y.; Du, H. A Method of Calculating Urban-Scale Solar Potential by Evaluating and Quantifying the Relationship between Urban Block Typology and Occlusion Coefficient: A Case Study of Wuhan in Central China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 64, 102451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, S.; Huang, Z.; Wang, J.; Mendis, T.; Huang, J. Evaluation of Photovoltaic Potential by Urban Block Typology: A Case Study of Wuhan, China. Renew. Energy Focus 2019, 29, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, R.; Zhao, L.; Deng, S.; Zheng, N. Trends in Patents for Solar Thermal Utilization in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 852–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Izquierdo, S.; Rodrigues, M.; Fueyo, N. A Method for Estimating the Geographical Distribution of the Available Roof Surface Area for Large-Scale Photovoltaic Energy-Potential Evaluations. Sol. Energy 2008, 82, 929–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wiginton, L.K.; Nguyen, H.T.; Pearce, J.M. Quantifying Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic Potential for Regional Renewable Energy Policy. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2010, 34, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lehmann, H.; Peter, S. Asessment of Roof & Façade Potentials for Solar Use in Europe; Institute for sustainable solutions and innovations (ISUSI): Aachen, Germany, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  28. Schallenberg-Rodríguez, J. Photovoltaic Techno-Economical Potential on Roofs in Regions and Islands: The Case of the Canary Islands. Methodological Review and Methodology Proposal. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 20, 219–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Karteris, M.; Theodoridou, I.; Mallinis, G.; Papadopoulos, A.M. Façade Photovoltaic Systems on Multifamily Buildings: An Urban Scale Evaluation Analysis Using Geographical Information Systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 39, 912–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheng, L.; Zhang, F.; Li, S.; Mao, J.; Xu, H.; Ju, W.; Liu, X.; Wu, J.; Min, K.; Zhang, X.; et al. Solar Energy Potential of Urban Buildings in 10 Cities of China. Energy 2020, 196, 117038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Oh, M.; Kim, Y. Identifying Urban Geometric Types as Energy Performance Patterns. Energy Sustain. Dev. 2019, 48, 115–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wei, W.; Hong, M.R.; Xie, B. Delineation and spatial optimization of 15-min living area in Wuhan based on supply and demand matching. Planners 2019, 35, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wuhan Construction Engineering Planning and Management Technical Provisions 2014. Available online: https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E5%B8%82%E5%BB%BA%E8%AE%BE%E5%B7%A5%E7%A8%8B%E8%A7%84%E5%88%92%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E8%A7%84%E5%AE%9A/17044048?fr=ge_ala (accessed on 26 September 2023).
  34. The Wuhan Residential Daylight Distance Specification 2003. Available online: https://www.docin.com/p-1844076776.html (accessed on 26 September 2023).
  35. Xu, W.; Zhang, H. A Review of Foreign Research on Solar Energy Utilization Potential of Photovoltaic Building Integration. Infrastruct. Manag. Optim. 2018, 30, 5. [Google Scholar]
  36. Goncalves, J.E.; Van Hooff, T.; Saelens, D. A Physics-Based High-Resolution BIPV Model for Building Performance Simulations. Sol. Energy 2020, 204, 585–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Freitas, J.D.S.; Cronemberger, J.; Soares, R.M.; Amorim, C.N.D. Modeling and Assessing BIPV Envelopes Using Parametric Rhinoceros Plugins Grasshopper and Ladybug. Renew. Energy 2020, 160, 1468–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hassan, M.A.; Bailek, N.; Bouchouicha, K.; Ibrahim, A.; Jamil, B.; Kuriqi, A.; Nwokolo, S.C.; El-kenawy, E.-S.M. Evaluation of Energy Extraction of PV Systems Affected by Environmental Factors under Real Outdoor Conditions. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2022, 150, 715–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. An, Y.; Chen, T.; Shi, L.; Heng, C.K.; Fan, J. Solar Energy Potential Using GIS-Based Urban Residential Environmental Data: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 93, 104547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lobaccaro, G.; Carlucci, S.; Croce, S.; Paparella, R.; Finocchiaro, L. Boosting Solar Accessibility and Potential of Urban Districts in the Nordic Climate: A Case Study in Trondheim. Sol. Energy 2017, 149, 347–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Compagnon, R. Solar and Daylight Availability in the Urban Fabric. Energy Build. 2004, 36, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Romero Rodríguez, L.; Duminil, E.; Sánchez Ramos, J.; Eicker, U. Assessment of the Photovoltaic Potential at Urban Level Based on 3D City Models: A Case Study and New Methodological Approach. Sol. Energy 2017, 146, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kumar, M. Performance Assessment and Degradation Analysis of Solar Photovoltaic Technologies—A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 554–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Notice on Matters Relating to the Policy on Feed-in Tariffs for Photovoltaic Power Generation in 2020. 2020. Available online: https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/notice-on-matters-relevant-to-the-2020-feed-in-tariff-policy-for-pv-power-generation/ (accessed on 26 September 2023).
  45. Tian, J.; Xu, S. A Morphology-Based Evaluation on Block-Scale Solar Potential for Residential Area in Central China. Sol. Energy 2021, 221, 332–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bergamasco, L.; Asinari, P. Scalable Methodology for the Photovoltaic Solar Energy Potential Assessment Based on Available Roof Surface Area: Application to Piedmont Region (Italy). Sol. Energy 2011, 85, 1041–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Code for Design of Photovoltaic Power Station 2012. Available online: https://www.mohurd.gov.cn/gongkai/zhengce/zhengcefilelib/201210/20121023_211716.html (accessed on 26 September 2023).
  48. Alhafadhi, L.; Teh, J. Advances in Reduction of Total Harmonic Distortion in Solar Photovoltaic Systems: A Literature Review. Int. J. Energy Res. 2020, 44, 2455–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Raisul Islam, M.; Sumathy, K.; Ullah Khan, S. Solar Water Heating Systems and Their Market Trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 17, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. GB 50364-2018; Technical Standard for Solar Water Heating System of Civil Buildings. Housing and Urban-Rural Development: Beijing, China, 2021.
  51. Wang, K.; Zhao, D.; Wang, W. Analysis and evaluation of the environmental and economic benefits of solar and electric water heaters. Energy Eng. 2006, 4–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Song, X.; Shao, Y. Research on the Application of Solar Energy and Building Integration Energy Saving Technology in Yantai City. Archit. Tech. 2013, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Li, C.; Duan, J. Example Analysis of Solar Water Heating System Application in Residential Buildings. Water Wastewater Eng. 2010, 46, 89–92. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Research framework of ideas.
Figure 1. Research framework of ideas.
Sustainability 15 15988 g001
Figure 2. Typical habitat space analysis in Wuhan.
Figure 2. Typical habitat space analysis in Wuhan.
Sustainability 15 15988 g002
Figure 3. Solar radiation thresholds for different life cycles (0–25 years).
Figure 3. Solar radiation thresholds for different life cycles (0–25 years).
Sustainability 15 15988 g003
Figure 4. Average annual solar radiation in Wuhan (KWH/m2∙y).
Figure 4. Average annual solar radiation in Wuhan (KWH/m2∙y).
Sustainability 15 15988 g004
Figure 5. Solar radiation values for six types of residential blocks.
Figure 5. Solar radiation values for six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g005
Figure 6. Solar radiation values on roofs and façades of six types of residential blocks.
Figure 6. Solar radiation values on roofs and façades of six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g006
Figure 7. Solar radiation values for the north, south, east, and west elevations of six residential blocks.
Figure 7. Solar radiation values for the north, south, east, and west elevations of six residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g007
Figure 8. Solar radiation potential for six types of residential blocks.
Figure 8. Solar radiation potential for six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g008
Figure 9. Solar radiation potential of roofs, west façades, south façades, and east façades of six types of residential blocks.
Figure 9. Solar radiation potential of roofs, west façades, south façades, and east façades of six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g009
Figure 10. Solar radiation potential of roofs and façades in six types of residential blocks.
Figure 10. Solar radiation potential of roofs and façades in six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g010
Figure 11. BIPV installation ratios on roofs and various façades in six types of residential blocks.
Figure 11. BIPV installation ratios on roofs and various façades in six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g011
Figure 12. BIPV installation ratios for roofs, south façades, and west façades in six types of residential blocks.
Figure 12. BIPV installation ratios for roofs, south façades, and west façades in six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g012
Figure 13. BIPV installation ratios of roofs and façades in six categories of residential blocks.
Figure 13. BIPV installation ratios of roofs and façades in six categories of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g013
Figure 14. Potential for roof and façade BIPV installations in six categories of residential blocks.
Figure 14. Potential for roof and façade BIPV installations in six categories of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g014
Figure 15. Roof and façade BIPV potential for six types of residential blocks.
Figure 15. Roof and façade BIPV potential for six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g015
Figure 16. Relationship of FAR to the roof, façade, and BIPV potential in residential blocks.
Figure 16. Relationship of FAR to the roof, façade, and BIPV potential in residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g016
Figure 17. BD in relation to the roof, facade, and BIPV potential in residential blocks.
Figure 17. BD in relation to the roof, facade, and BIPV potential in residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g017
Figure 18. ABH in relation to the roof, facade, and BIPV potential in residential blocks.
Figure 18. ABH in relation to the roof, facade, and BIPV potential in residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g018
Figure 19. SL in relation to the roof, façade and BIPV potential in residential blocks.
Figure 19. SL in relation to the roof, façade and BIPV potential in residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g019
Figure 20. SWH installation potential in six types of residential blocks.
Figure 20. SWH installation potential in six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g020
Figure 21. SWH installation potential for the roofs, south façades, west façades, and east façades in six types of residential blocks.
Figure 21. SWH installation potential for the roofs, south façades, west façades, and east façades in six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g021
Figure 22. SWH installation potential on roofs and façades in six types of residential blocks.
Figure 22. SWH installation potential on roofs and façades in six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g022
Figure 23. SWH floor area in six types of residential blocks.
Figure 23. SWH floor area in six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g023
Figure 24. SHW floor areas for roofs, south façades, west façades, and east façades for six types of residential blocks.
Figure 24. SHW floor areas for roofs, south façades, west façades, and east façades for six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g024
Figure 25. SHW floor area on roof façades in six types of residential blocks.
Figure 25. SHW floor area on roof façades in six types of residential blocks.
Sustainability 15 15988 g025
Table 1. Characterization of the spatial distribution of different types.
Table 1. Characterization of the spatial distribution of different types.
Habitat CategoryArea/km2Percentage/%Regional Description
LFARLD0.360.24Distributed along the lakeshore, characterized by a favorable ecological environment, and primarily comprising villa districts.
LFARHD1.470.99Small, clustered groups, point distribution, concentrated in the historical city center of Wuchang and the Qing tai Annex community in Hanyang. These areas were constructed in the earlier years, exhibiting a high building density and a lower proportion of green spaces.
MFARLD17.6211.92Scattered distribution, primarily concentrated in the vicinity of Ink Lake and South Lake, mainly comprising newer residential blocks characterized by a higher-quality living environment.
MFARHD13.739.28Circular and ribbon-like distribution patterns prevail, with circular layouts being predominant in Hankou and ribbon-like configurations occurring along the Second Ring Road in Wuchang and Hanyang. The architectural typology is predominantly multi-rise, featuring a mix of high-rise structures.
HFARLD30.1120.36A clustered distribution is primarily observed in newly constructed residential blocks situated outside the Second Ring Road. These areas predominantly consist of high-rise buildings arranged in a point-like pattern, offering a superior living environment.
HFARHD29.4519.91It is distributed in a ring and belt configuration, characterized by low-rise, multi-rise, or high-rise building structures, featuring a high building density, high population density, and limited open spaces.
Table 2. Sample of 24 residential blocks.
Table 2. Sample of 24 residential blocks.
Type of SpaceCase 1Case 2Case 3Case 4
LFARLDResidential Block PatternsSustainability 15 15988 i001Sustainability 15 15988 i002Sustainability 15 15988 i003Sustainability 15 15988 i004
SLSustainability 15 15988 i005
combinatorial
Sustainability 15 15988 i006
determinant
Sustainability 15 15988 i007
faulty presentation
Sustainability 15 15988 i008
determinant
FAR1.341.141.361.37
BD (%)16141917
ABH (m)31242124
LFARHDResidential Block PatternsSustainability 15 15988 i009Sustainability 15 15988 i010Sustainability 15 15988 i011Sustainability 15 15988 i012
SLSustainability 15 15988 i013
combinatorial
Sustainability 15 15988 i014
determinant
Sustainability 15 15988 i015
determinant
Sustainability 15 15988 i016
faulty presentation
FAR1.381.391.441.48
BD (%)20202325
ABH (m)15214912
MFARLDResidential Block PatternsSustainability 15 15988 i017Sustainability 15 15988 i018Sustainability 15 15988 i019Sustainability 15 15988 i020
SLSustainability 15 15988 i021
combinatorial
Sustainability 15 15988 i022
faulty presentation
Sustainability 15 15988 i023
determinant
Sustainability 15 15988 i024
combinatorial
FAR2.371.932.281.69
BD (%)16181711
ABH (m)64684120
MFARHDResidential Block PatternsSustainability 15 15988 i025Sustainability 15 15988 i026Sustainability 15 15988 i027Sustainability 15 15988 i028
SLSustainability 15 15988 i029
determinant
Sustainability 15 15988 i030
encompassing
Sustainability 15 15988 i031
combinatorial
Sustainability 15 15988 i032
encompassing
FAR2.372.32.192.1
BD (%)28302735
ABH (m)312711418
HFARLDResidential Block PatternsSustainability 15 15988 i033Sustainability 15 15988 i034Sustainability 15 15988 i035Sustainability 15 15988 i036
SLSustainability 15 15988 i037
determinant
Sustainability 15 15988 i038
encompassing
Sustainability 15 15988 i039
determinant
Sustainability 15 15988 i040
encompassing
FAR2.682.743.843.87
BD (%)9181115
ABH (m)11757125117
HFARHDResidential Blocks PatternsSustainability 15 15988 i041Sustainability 15 15988 i042Sustainability 15 15988 i043Sustainability 15 15988 i044
SLSustainability 15 15988 i045
encompassing
Sustainability 15 15988 i046
encompassing
Sustainability 15 15988 i047
determinant
Sustainability 15 15988 i048
determinant
FAR2.682.83.163.5
BD (%)25282825
ABH (m)24363346
Table 3. Solar radiation potential.
Table 3. Solar radiation potential.
Building Surface Radiation Potential (%)
Type of SpaceCase 1Case 2Case 3Case 4
LFARLDRoof56.1118.258.249.7
South façade108.158.5106.192.2
North façade7.917.010.813.9
West façade68.249.773.262.0
East façade86.252.688.179.8
LFARHDRoof73.751.8147.735.7
South facade115.173.669.4121.8
North facade4.731.612.817.5
West facade105.365.168.5108.2
East facade70.948.373.7108.2
MFARLDRoof86.934.620.350.2
South façade56.752.396.183.9
North façade54.71.152.11.1
West façade69.476.9153.368.1
East façade76.980.9118.181.2
MFARHDRoof81.7106.923.481.8
South façade55.132.1148.828.9
North façade26.714.541.316.4
West façade71.541.987.328.4
East façade103.943.5111.626.5
HFARLDRoof49.3100.058.9100.0
South façade50.541.7107.474.1
North façade95.343.11.560.9
West façade92.561.1107.681.5
East façade102.268.467.560.9
HFARHDRoof48.170.5111.647.7
South façade73.157.961.2113.4
North façade35.970.36.432.2
West façade75.1100.267.695.8
East façade102.4117.267.5106.1
Table 4. BIPV Installation Ratio.
Table 4. BIPV Installation Ratio.
BIPV Installation Ratio (%)
Type of SpaceCase 1Case 2Case 3Case 4
LFARLDRoof100.0100.0100.0100.0
South façade91.799.674.690.3
North façade0.00.00.00.0
West façade84.530.686.366.8
East façade0.60.713.21.5
LFARHDRoof100.0100.0100.0100.0
South façade51.850.153.165.5
North façade0.00.00.00.0
West façade55.551.865.461.3
East façade0.00.00.01.4
MFARLDRoof98.9100.0100.0100.0
South façade41.623.543.129.3
North façade0.00.00.00.0
West façade75.552.483.579.5
East façade0.00.00.00.0
MFARHDRoof100.0100.0100.0100.0
South façade45.637.171.146.1
North façade0.00.00.00.0
West façade66.747.724.345.3
East façade7.70.020.00.0
HFARLDRoof100.0100.098.7100.0
South façade25.158.957.045.2
North façade0.00.00.00.0
West façade53.246.954.053.8
East façade0.20.35.00.0
HFARHDRoof97.8100.0100.098.9
South façade54.659.958.145.8
North façade0.00.00.00.0
West façade23.452.954.853.4
East façade0.00.35.30.0
Table 5. BIPV installation potential and BIPV power generation potential.
Table 5. BIPV installation potential and BIPV power generation potential.
BIPV Installation Potential (m2)BIPV Generation Potential (KWH/m2·y)
Type of SpaceCase1Case2Case3Case4Case1Case2Case3Case4
LFARLDRoof0.020.050.030.028.3417.704.423.14
Façade0.360.280.360.2411.3352.1853.1234.66
Residential block0.380.330.390.2619.6769.8857.5437.80
LFARHDRoof0.040.030.110.035.854.5628.313.47
Façade0.250.110.160.2930.9411.7218.2935.25
Residential block0.290.140.270.3136.7916.2846.6038.72
MFARLDRoof0.040.020.010.028.052.331.012.92
Façade0.120.220.330.3612.1222.5535.6846.58
Residential block0.160.240.340.3820.1724.8836.6949.50
MFARHDRoof0.070.110.020.0910.8631.902.0517.68
Façade0.700.360.730.2798.3053.58113.3632.30
Residential block0.770.470.750.36109.1685.48115.4149.98
HFARLDRoof0.010.070.020.071.3718.162.9220.08
Façade1.080.941.371.46189.22143.11216.75248.87
Residential block1.091.011.391.53190.59161.27219.67268.95
HFARHDRoof0.040.060.100.045.537.7522.475.23
Façade0.320.480.680.3839.5952.95101.2342.18
Residential block0.360.540.780.4245.1260.70123.7047.41
Table 6. p-Values of the linear regression relationships between the morphological parameters and solar power potential of the roof, façade, and residential blocks.
Table 6. p-Values of the linear regression relationships between the morphological parameters and solar power potential of the roof, façade, and residential blocks.
Building SurfaceFARBDABHSL
R2pR2pR2pR2p
Roof0.9490.0260.7580.1290.2890.4630.2590.281
Façade0.1720.5850.1060.6740.7020.1620.7040.147
Residential block0.7470.040.710.0170.750.0290.5030.167
Table 7. SWH Installation Potential.
Table 7. SWH Installation Potential.
SWH Installation Potential (m2)
Type of SpaceCase1Case2Case3Case4
LFARLDRoof0.020.050.030.02
South façade0.210.020.400.03
West façade0.100.010.130.02
East façade0.140.010.150.02
Residential block0.470.090.710.09
LFARHDRoof0.040.030.110.03
South façade0.230.070.110.30
West façade0.050.060.050.07
East façade0.080.030.040.07
Residential block0.40.190.310.47
MFARLDRoof0.040.020.010.02
South façade0.670.840.290.24
West façade0.780.990.100.04
East façade0.861.060.150.06
Residential block2.352.910.550.36
MFARHDRoof0.070.110.020.09
South façade0.100.080.190.09
West façade0.080.040.110.04
East façade0.090.050.080.05
Residential block0.340.280.40.27
HFARLDRoof0.010.070.020.07
South façade0.160.130.210.23
West façade0.090.130.150.17
East façade0.100.110.090.13
Residential block0.360.440.470.6
HFARHDRoof0.040.060.100.04
South façade0.280.320.310.05
West façade0.090.410.090.01
East façade0.060.350.090.02
Residential block0.471.140.590.12
Table 8. SWH floor area of water heated by solar water heaters.
Table 8. SWH floor area of water heated by solar water heaters.
SWH Building Average Annual Water Heating (GWh/y)
Type of SpaceCase 1Case 2Case 3Case 4
LFARLDRoof5.8138.219.556.78
South façade81.179.43171.2514.12
West façade31.214.2845.877.54
East façade48.404.4358.038.64
Residential block166.5956.35284.7037.08
LFARHDRoof12.639.8561.127.49
South façade89.4527.1839.51121.55
West façade18.5821.8717.8526.64
East façade24.869.5514.8026.65
Residential block145.5268.45133.28182.33
MFARLDRoof17.385.032.186.31
South façade233.07240.1099.3696.94
West façade299.96329.8643.5714.50
East façade349.13361.2256.7423.80
Residential block899.54936.21201.85141.55
MFARHDRoof23.4668.874.4338.16
South façade28.6125.4078.8024.25
West façade25.3114.3235.1910.72
East façade33.8218.2228.5913.13
Residential block111.20126.81147.0186.26
HFARLDRoof2.9539.206.2943.36
South façade64.2138.6088.5387.47
West façade35.5345.3463.3268.00
East façade41.6840.5330.0544.95
Residential block144.37163.67188.19243.78
HFARHDRoof11.9416.7348.5211.29
South façade100.0683.91108.3920.80
West façade38.39179.6833.023.80
East façade21.71119.3232.998.02
Residential block172.10399.64399.6443.91
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jin, S.; Zhang, H.; Huang, X.; Yan, J.; Yu, H.; Gao, N.; Jia, X.; Wang, Z. Solar Energy Utilization Potential in Urban Residential Blocks: A Case Study of Wuhan, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215988

AMA Style

Jin S, Zhang H, Huang X, Yan J, Yu H, Gao N, Jia X, Wang Z. Solar Energy Utilization Potential in Urban Residential Blocks: A Case Study of Wuhan, China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(22):15988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215988

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jin, Shiyu, Hui Zhang, Xiaoxi Huang, Junle Yan, Haibo Yu, Ningcheng Gao, Xueying Jia, and Zhengwei Wang. 2023. "Solar Energy Utilization Potential in Urban Residential Blocks: A Case Study of Wuhan, China" Sustainability 15, no. 22: 15988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215988

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop