COFA: Climate Optimized Fenestrations for Buildings in Developing Nations. by Prof. Pradeep Kini
Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Congratulations -- this proposal has been selected as a Finalist!
Comments from Judges:
Overall, the Judges found the idea very appealing and has a large potential for impact. They liked the idea of developing a tool to *optimize* fenestration system design that would leverage existing fenestration modeling tools. They found that the target country (India) is a logical place to undertake this project, and the proposal to be thorough, well articulated and clear.
- Novelty: Smart idea and focus on India makes good sense.
- Workability: Concrete actions proposed (e.g., test facility) and are realistic. The individual spearheading this proposal appears to be well-connected and well aware of the appropriate path to take to realize this vision.
- Effectiveness: Very strong and data provided initially clearly supports potential impact of this idea. Calculated annuals savings: 2 B kWh
- Thoroughness: Very comprehensive. Considers technical aspects as well as financial aspects of the idea (refers to life cycle cost analysis). Project costs and timeline are detailed.
- Presentation: Strong. Proposal is very clear; arguments are well articulated and supported."
Concerns included: people already know how to design high-performance fenestration solutions for the cooling-dominated climates targeted in the proposal, particularly passive designs (overhangs and fixed sunshading, inset windows, selective/tinted and low-e coatings, etc.); implementation does not occur in many cases due to the cost and complexity of more active approaches. In addition, the scope described does not appear to integrate actual, existing products in the tool; that would make it more useful for practitioners (architects, engineers).
Best of luck in the voting period!
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
The proposer provides a compelling background for why this is an important area of focus. The approach, evaluating first through modeling and then field trials seems logical. However, considering the scale of the challenge, the effectiveness of this approach as conceived at addressing it, is unclear. More detail is needed to understand how the funding would be spent, what would be done with the results, how long the modeling and field trials would take, how the results would be effectively communicated and implemented through building standards within India. All of these aspects could prevent the proposal from having an impact. As such, they should be addressed in the proposal, acknowledging these barriers and proposing a practical approach for addressing them. The lack of sound data is perhaps one of the easiest aspects to address, but then conveying that through to effective policy that is implemented and reaches the scale that is described will take a good bit of planning and engagement with the appropriate policy-makers up front.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
