Intelligrow: A Component-Based Climate Control System for Decreasing Greenhouse Energy Consumption

Aaslyng, Jesper Mazanti; Ehler, Niels; Karlsen, P.; Rosenqvist, Eva

doi:10.17660/actahortic.1999.507.3

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A dynamic greenhouse climate control regime is based on plant physiology, outside solar irradiance and the microclimate of the crop within the greenhouse [1][2][3]. Dynamic climate conditions facilitate greater precision in the regulation of temperature and humidity inside the greenhouse, thereby improving energy efficiency by reducing unnecessary heating or ventilation [2,4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using the quantum yields of photosystem II and the rate of net photosynthesis to monitor high irradiance and temperature stress in chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora)

Janka

Körner²,

Rosenqvist

et al. 2015

Plant Physiology and Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The system optimises carbon gain at high irradiance, and reduces energy consumption at low irradiance [1,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the quantum yields of photosystem II and the rate of net photosynthesis to monitor high irradiance and temperature stress in chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora)

Janka

Körner²,

Rosenqvist

et al. 2015

Plant Physiology and Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The presented microclimate model has the potential for being generic. A simulation case study showed that using this model to predict crop microclimate is a promising alternative to greenhouse air temperature control and may be used for model-based dynamic control regimes (Aaslyng et al, 1999;Bailey, 1985;Bailey and Seginer, 1989;Buwalda et al, 1999;Kö rner and Challa, 2003a;Seginer et al, 1994) or for the concept of optimal greenhouse climate control (Gal et al, 1984). Because 10% energy is saved by a 1°C lower greenhouse temperature (Tantau, 1998), heating demand and therefore energy consumption can strongly decrease when using this microclimate model for crop temperature control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Energysaving is highest during winter and 12% energy saving was attained during January under Danish climate conditions. During the last 20 years, several dynamic temperature regimes were designed for greenhouse energy-saving (e.g., Aaslyng et al, 1999;Bailey, 1985;Bailey and Seginer, 1989;Buwalda et al, 1999;Körner and Challa, 2003a;Seginer et al, 1994). In the early 1990s, a complete dynamic climate control concept was first developed (Aaslyng et al, 2003) and constantly further developed since then.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Microclimate Prediction for Dynamic Greenhouse Climate Control

Körner¹,

Aaslyng²,

Andreassen³

et al. 2007

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Greenhouse energy-saving and biocide reduction can be achieved through dynamic greenhouse climate control with computerized model-based regimes. This can be optimized when next to greenhouse macroclimate (i.e., the aerial environment) also, the crop microclimate is predicted. The aim of this article was to design and apply a simple deterministic microclimate model for dynamic greenhouse climate control concepts. The model calculates crop temperature and latent heat of evaporation in different vertical levels of a dense canopy of potted plants. The model was validated with data attained from experiments on dynamic or nondynamic (regular) controlled greenhouse cultivation. Crop temperature was with a 95% confidence interval of 2 °C or 2.4 °C for sunlit or shaded leaves, respectively, accurately predicted in a simple greenhouse with predefined climate set points. With a more dynamic greenhouse control also including assimilation lighting and screens, the prediction quality decreased but still had a 95% confidence interval of crop temperature prediction of 3.8 °C for sunlit leaves. Simulations showed that controlling greenhouse temperature according to the predicted crop temperature rather than according to the air temperature can save energy. Energy-saving is highest during winter and 12% energy saving was attained during January under Danish climate conditions.

show abstract

“…While MDT remains the same, a wider range of acceptable temperature fluctuations is allowed. This can be accomplished by increasing the daytime ventilation set point and decreasing the nighttime heating set point, using a computer algorithm to maintain a rolling MDT and adjust temperatures based on predicted weather patterns [15], or using a computer algorithm to adjust greenhouse conditions based on photosynthetic optimization [14,16] or plant assimilate balance [13]. Temperatures need to remain within the linear range of plant development rate, between the base temperature (T base ; development rate = 0) and the optimum temperature (T opt ; development rate is maximal) for each species to minimize delays in development [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing of a Short-Term Reduction in Temperature and Irradiance Affects Growth and Flowering of Four Annual Bedding Plants

Boldt

Altland

2019

Horticulturae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heating and supplemental lighting are often provided during spring greenhouse production of bedding plants, but energy inputs are a major production cost. Different energy-savings strategies can be utilized, but effects on plant growth and flowering must be considered. We evaluated the impact and timing of a two-week low-energy (reduced temperature and irradiance) interval on flowering and growth of impatiens (Impatiens walleriana Hook.f. ‘Accent Orange’), pansy (Viola × wittrockiana Gams. ‘Delta Premium Blue Blotch’), petunia (Petunia × hybrida Hort. Vilm.-Andr. ‘Dreams Pink’), and snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus L. ‘Montego Violet’). Flowering was delayed 7 to 10 days when the low-energy exposure occurred before flowering. Flower number was reduced 40–61% in impatiens, 33–35% in petunia (low-energy weeks 5–6 and weeks 7–8, respectively), and 35% in pansy (weeks 5–6). Petunia and impatiens dry mass gradually decreased as the low-energy exposure occurred later in production; petunias were 26% (weeks 5–6) and 33% (weeks 7–8) smaller, and impatiens were 20% to 31% smaller than ambient plants. Estimated energy savings were 14% to 16% for the eight-week period, but only up to 7% from transplant to flowering. Growers can consider including a two-week reduction in temperature and irradiance to reduce energy, provided an additional week of production is scheduled.

show abstract

Intelligrow: A Component-Based Climate Control System for Decreasing Greenhouse Energy Consumption

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Using the quantum yields of photosystem II and the rate of net photosynthesis to monitor high irradiance and temperature stress in chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora)

Using the quantum yields of photosystem II and the rate of net photosynthesis to monitor high irradiance and temperature stress in chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora)

Microclimate Prediction for Dynamic Greenhouse Climate Control

Timing of a Short-Term Reduction in Temperature and Irradiance Affects Growth and Flowering of Four Annual Bedding Plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About