Anda di halaman 1dari 13

AppliedEnergy7 (1980) 517

SOLAR

SYSTEM

OPTIMISATION*

Ci. AMBROSONE, A. ANDRETTA, F. BLOISI, B. COLUZZI, S. DE STEFANO, G. FORMISANOand L. VICARI

Istituto di Fisiea della Facoltf7 di Ingegneria, Universitgt degli Studi, Naples (Italy)

SUMMARY

A computation method for determining the optimal size of a solar heating plant according to the criterion of minimising its total (capital plus running) cost is described. The resulting computer program calculates the energy output of a solar system as a function of the collector area and of the heat storage unit capacity, startingJi'om daily averages of climatic data in the localities considered. It predicts the optimal configuration and provides Jot it an overall cost-benefit analysis.

NOMENCLATURE a a'

b
{'o

Cc C,,
Cmi Gins

Cr
ed eof e~

Cost of the collector per unit area. Cost of the heat storage per unit value of Ema x. Collector area. Installation cost. Present value of the unit cost of energy. Capital cost. Effective cost. Manufacturing cost of the traditional plant. Manufacturing cost of the solar heating plant. Running cost. Daily energy output from the collector. Daily overflow fraction of e S. Daily solar contribution.

* Work supported by CNR, Programma Finalizzato Energetica, Sottoprogetto Energia Solare.

5
Applied Energy 0306-2619/80/0007-0005/$02.25 ((~ Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1980
Printed in Great Britain

6
eu

G. AMBROSONEel al. Daily energy output for unit area of the collector. Total energy output from the collector. Free storage unit. Maximum amount of energy contained by the heat storage. Total overflow fraction of Es. Solar contribution. Efficiency factor of the collector. Degree-day. Total conductance. Correction factor to the manufacturing cost. Daily heat load. Total heat load integrated over the heating season. Correction factor to the cost of energy. Lifetime of the heating plant (years). Dates limiting the heating season. Ambient temperature. Daily average of the external ambient temperature. Input temperature of the fluid in the collector. Average internal temperature. Maximum daily external temperature. Minimum daily external temperature. Output temperature of the fluid in the collector. Total heat loss coefficient of the collector. Discount rate of money. Annual rate of increase of the cost of energy. Annual rate of inflation. Effective heat capacity of the building. Time constant for the building.

Emax

Eos
Es
F' G H K IT LT M N t~, t 2
T.(t)
L

ri.
Tint

Tmax Train Tout VL

7 l-'eq T

INTRODUCTION

The design of a solar system implies three main kinds of problem: (a) choice of components suited to the application being considered and to the geoclimatic conditions; (b) optimal sizing of the system components and of the system with respect to the load and (c) evaluation of the economic pay-back time. The solution of these problems requires a calculation of the performance of the system. This calculation is very complicated because of the large number of parameters involved and their interdependence. Whilst developing computation methods one has to keep in mind that the cost of the computer time is to be included in the cost-benefit analysis. Many authors have dealt with this topic to provide criteria to the first

SOLAR SYSTEM OPT1MISATION

approximation. The general trend is to connect the size of all system components to the unit area of the collector I so that the problem is reduced to the evaluation of the collector's performance. This approach allows one to develop simple computational methods, but the overall approximation is not always adequate for the design requirements. Another traditional way of handling the problem is by the use of simulation programs: 2 the thermal output is determined for many configurations of the system and the results are then compared with each other. This approach leads to a high level of accuracy but meets with some difficulties. The time required is long since a quite sophisticated program has to be run over a large number of combinations of numerical values of the input parameters; climatic data with the degree of detail needed by the program are only seldom available and, finally, it is not a trivial task to handle the final results, to convert them into economic evaluations and to determine the optimal configurations and the corresponding pay-back time. In this paper we present a calculation method which performs the cost-benefit analysis of a solar system and determines its optimal configuration and pay-back time. The program starts from daily meteorological data, available in many places, and requires a very short elaboration time. The level of accuracy is, of course, somewhat lower than that obtainable with the more sophisticated method based on simulation programs. Nevertheless, the program is adequate for most applications. In the case of sophisticated design problems it can be used to perform all the preliminary work so that the simulation program need be run, if necessary, only a very limited number of times.

ECONOMICS

Let us consider a building whose envelope and structural elements are assumed to be optimised according to the criteria described by Ambrosone et al. 3 When a plant is being designed to heat the building, it is convenient to evaluate its total or effective cost, Ce, given by the sum of the capital cost, C c, and of the running cost, Cr:
C e = C c "3 C r L

(l)

Insofar as a conventional plant only is involved, C c and C, can be written as:


Cc = KCmi

C, = McoL T

(2)

where C,. i is the cost of the plant, c o is the unit cost of energy and L T is the annual heat load of the building. Factors M and K are introduced to actualise the costs; they are functions of the rate of interest of money, a, of the rate of inflation, ~, and of the

G. AMBROSONE e l

al.

annual rate of increase of the cost of energy, fl, whose explicit form can vary according to the method used for the economic evaluations. We use the expressions:
N

+
1 N

-1

where N is the lifetime (number of years) of the heating plant. If c~ = fl = 7, then M=Nand K=I. We now assume that the conventional heating plant is assisted by a solar plant which provides part of the heat load, L r. As a consequence of the introduction of the solar plant, we have to add its cost, ('ms, to the cost, C,~i, of the conventional plant, while the running cost becomes lower since part of the load is supplied by the solar annual contribution, Es. Equation (2) therefore becomes:
C, = K(C,,i + C,.~) Cr = M c o ( L r - E~)

(4)

We assume the size of the solar device to be specified by the collector area, Ac, and by the maximum amount of energy, Emax, which can be contained in the heat storage unit. As far as Cm~ is concerned, we have assumed that it depends linearly on Ac and Era, x according to:
Cm~ = a A , + a'Ema x + b

(5)

where the constants a, a' and b are to be determined from an analysis of the market of solar system components: such constants are input data to the computer program which goes through the optimisation procedure.

C A L C U L A T I O N OF THE R U N N I N G COST

The running cost of the heating plant depends on the heat losses from the building to the external environment and on the energy contribution supplied by the solar heating plant and its calculation therefore requires a non-trivial elaboration of climatic parameters. The method developed here can be used quite independently of the technical characteristics of the solar system components (flat plate collectors, air heaters, water or rock pile storage units, etc.). However, the parametrisation of the

SOLAR SYSTEM OPTIMISATION

performance of the system components used by us does not adequately represent the actual situation for some specific choices of operating strategy. The starting point for our calculation is the determination of the heat load and of the solar energy contribution for each day, starting from daily averages of climatic parameters. The calculation procedure is briefly sketched below. (Details can be found in references 3 and 5.) (a) The daily energy output, eu, of one square metre of solar collector is computed according to the method described in reference 5. The corresponding computer program acts as a subroutine of the main optimisation program. The calculation is based on the hypotheses that: (a) the fraction of diffuse radiation and its angular and time distributions are given by the Liu-Jordan formulae; 7 (b) the clouds covering the sun have a stochastic time distribution; (c) the temperature, Tin, of the working fluid inside the collector is constant; (d) the heat is extracted from the collector when the output temperature of the working fluid reaches a threshold value, Tou,. Under these hypotheses the daily energy output, e~, from the collector is proportional to the area, Ac, of the collector itself:
e a = Ac%

(6)

(b) If Ir is the total daily heat load of the building we can write:
17-= H(T n -

)dt

(7)

where H is the total conductance of the building to the ambient environment at temperature To; TR is an 'effective' internal temperature taking into account the presence of free energy sources which heat the building (human metabolism, solar energy through windows, lighting, etc.; see reference 3) and ~P,is the daily average of the external ambient temperature. Both the collector performance and the matching of e~ with the load, l r , depend (although very weakly) on the time behaviour of To during the day. When necessary, T~ is then assumed to have a step modulation whose amplitude is determined by the daily value of (Tmax - Tm~.). (For further details see references 4 and 5.) Of course, the total annual heat load, L T, is computed
as:

L r = ~ lT

(8)

where the sum is performed over all the days of the heating season. (c) The effect of the heat storage unit (HSU) is calculated as follows. The daily energy output of the collector, e a, is compared with the fraction of the daily heat load, lr, which falls during the daylight period. Any possible surplus is fed into the heat storage unit unless the energy content of the HSU becomes larger than Em, x in which case any overflow fraction of eol is lost. Whenever the collector does not supply the energy required by the load, the energy contained in the HSU is used

10

G. AMBROSONEe t al.

before switching on the auxiliary heater. The solar energy contribution, E~, ofeqn. (4) is then computed as: E~ = E d - Eo: = ~ e~ - ~ eo/ (9)

where the sum is extended over all the days of the heating period. Details of this calculation are presented in reference 6: the program described there (ANNA) actually acts as a a subroutine of the main optimisation program. (We have assumed that the collector efficiency is independent of the HSU state until this is completely fulfilled.) Notice that Eo: depends not only on the size, Emax, of the HSU but also on the collector area, Ao i.e.: Eol = Eof(Ac, Emax) (10)

However, since e a is proportional to Ac (eqn. (6)), the calculation of eu (which requires a quite complicated handling of the daily climatic data) is performed only once in the optimisation procedure. When either A~ or Ema~is varied, e n is computed through eqn. (6) and a new value of E s is then calculated using A N N A and eqn. (9). (d) In our calculations we assume the presence of an ad hoe structure playing the role of heat storage unit although, as a result of the optirnisation procedure, its optimal size may sometimes result in Emax = 0. However, if the temperature, T~.,, at the interior of the building is allowed to undergo variations, the heat capacity of the building itself can give a non-negligible free contribution to the heat storage unit. We assume that overheating of a few degrees of the building is allowed during daylight hours before the inhabitants will be forced to keep their windows systematically open. The program calculates the size, E:, of the corresponding equivalent free storage unit and adds it to Emax. The calculation is carried out as follows. In systematical analyses of the Italian situation we found that buildings optimised according to the method described in reference 3 have a time constant, z, which is close to two days, quite independently of their size, geometry, etc. The time constant is related to the effective capacity, Feq, of the building and to its total heat conductance, H, towards the external by: - Feq H
Feq can be calculated if r and H are known because:
Feq =

(11)

Hz

(12)

and then: Ey = F , q A T = H r A T (13)

where r is assumed to be 48 h and AT = 2 C in the numerical examples (see below). Because of the presence of this free heat storage capacity, an optimised building can maintain a comfortable temperature in its interior for a period of 4-5 h without

SOLAR SYSTEM OPTIMISATION

l 1

requiring any energy input. This effect is thus automatically taken into account by our optimisation procedure. Once the heat load, Lr, and the solar energy contribution have been computed according to the method described above, the running cost, C,, can be evaluated using eqn. (4). Both the capital cost (eqn. (5)) and the running cost (eqn. (10)) are now expressed as functions of A~ and Ema~ and the optimisation procedure can proceed.

THE OPTIMISAT1ON P R O C E D U R E

Using eqns (1), (4), (5) and (10) the effective cost of the solar plant can be written as:
C e = - M c o E s ( A c , Ema0 + KaA~ + Ka'Ema ~ + d

(14)

where a is the cost of the collector (per unit area), a' is the cost of the heat storage unit (per unit value of Era, 0 and d = k(Cmi + b) + M c o L r. The problem of finding the optimal configuration is solved if we determine the absolute minimum of the function Ce given by eqn. (14). C, is a function of two variables which can be evaluated point by point using the methods described above. In order to reduce computer time, it is important that the minimum be found without the calculation of Ce at a large number of points. We first observe that for physical reasons OEs/OA ~ and OE~/OE=ax are respectively, decreasing functions of A~ and Ema.. Therefore, the derivatives of C,,: 0Ce
c~ Ac

OEs Me07 T + a 1
~Ac

(15(a))

and
aC e aE~

0Era" ~

Mco ~

+ a2

(15(b))

cannot vanish in more than one point. We can therefore assume, with the aid of physical considerations, that C e has, at most, one relative minimum. We further observe that E s, as soon as Emax becomes larger than the energy required to heat buildings for a few days (E,,ax > it), depends very weakly on Emax itself (see reference 6). The program therefore starts from a large value E,~a~ as an input datum to the program, a good choice being Ea~ = 151r. Keeping E,~ fixed, the value, A,, of the collector area for which C e is at a minimum is then sought. If no minimum is found, a smaller value of Emaxis automatically chosen by the program and the search for the collector area minimising C e is continued. Once the optimal area, A c, is found, the collector area is kept fixed at the value A c and the minimum value of C e as a function of Ema= is sought in order to find the optimum value, F~a~, for the size of the HSU.

12

G. AMBROSONE et al.

The above procedure is iterated until:

--maxEn+l

n E~axl <

AE

The parameters AA and AE, representing the precision with which the determination of Ac and E,.,x is performed, are determined by the program as follows: A ",~ Am.Jl50

E ~ e L j150
where the input data Eax (already used above) and Am.x define the region explored by the program: 0 < Ac < Am.x

0 < E,.~ < ELx


Once the optimal values Apt and E~t have been found, the corresponding values x of Ce, C, and C~are printed, along with the values of Ce, C, and C~corresponding to the traditional solution with no inclusion of solar components. This whole procedure can be performed by the Fortran program, DIANA.
TABLE 1 INPUT DATA OF EXAMPLE l Location Latitude Albedo coefficient Characteristics of the collector Tilt angle Azimuthal angle Number of panes Efficiency factor Input temperature of the working fluid (C) Output temperature of the working fluid (C) Total heat loss coefficient (W/m 2 C) Absorptance of the collector plate Characteristics of the buiMing Internal temperature (C) Total conductance (kW/C) Costs Installation cost of the collector (kLit) Cost of the collector (kLit/m 2) Installation cost of HSU (kLit) Cost of HSU (kLit/MJ) Unit cost of energy (kLit/MJ) Discount rate of money Annual rate of inflation Annual rate increasing the cost of energy Lifetime of the heating plant (years) Naples 40.8 0.20 90 0o
1

0.8 20 35 7 0.9 18
1

500 30 500
1

0.01 0.16 0.20 0.20 7

SOLAR SYSTEM OPT1M1SATION TABLE 2 INPUT DATA OF EXAMPLE 2

13

Location Latitude Albedo coefficient Characteristics ~] the collector Tilt angle Azimuthal angle Number of panes Efficiency factor Input temperature of the working fluid (C) Output temperature of the working fluid (~'C) Total heat loss coefficient (W/m z C) Absorptance of the collector plate Characteristics ~1 the buiMing Internal temperature (C) Total conductance (kW/C) Costs Installation cost of the collector (kLit) Cost of the collector (kLit/m 2) Installation cost of HSU (kLit)
Cost of HSU (kLit/MJ) Unit cost of energy (kLit/MJ) Discount rate of money Annual rate of inflation

Naplec40.8 o 0.20 90 0o

I
0.8 20 35 7 0"9 18

1
500 50 500

1
0.01 0.16 0"20 0"20 7

Annual rate increasing the cost of energy Lifetime of the heating plant (years)

NUMERICAL EXAMPLES

In this section we illustrate the optimisation procedure with the aid of numerical examples. Consider a house located in Naples for which T R = 18C and H = 1000W/C, using a vertical collector facing south (i.e. an air heater). The input data to the program are shown in Tables 1 and 2 and the results in Tables 3 and 4. Our computer ( U N I V A C 1106) in this case took about a minute to go through the optimisation procedure over a period of three years. The behaviour of C e as a function of the size of the system components (Tables 3 and 4) is also represented in Figs 1 to 4. In evaluating C e we have neglected manufacturing costs of heating plants because they are constant. As can be seen, the optimal value of A c is approximately equal to 56 m 2, Ema ~ is zero and the percentage of the load covered by solar energy is 35 per cent. For the same technical situation but using different values of the economic parameters, Ce is represented as a function of the collector area and storage unit size in Figs 3 and 4. The optimal value of A c is now 130 m 2 and of Ema x 610 M J, and the fraction of the load covered by solar energy is 68 per cent.

14

G. AMBROSONE et TABLE 3

al.

O U T P U T DATA OF EXAMPLE 1

Without solar plant

With solar plant, without heat storage


76 -60434 0"59 2765 10790 15583 2751 0"15

With total solar plant

Optimal collector area (m 2) Optimal HSU size (M J) Heat load uncovered by solar energy: Absolute value (M J) Fraction of total heat load Construction cost of the collector (kLit) Construction cost of the HSU (kLit) R u n n i n g cost (kLit) Effective cost ~(kLit) Saving Absolute value (kLit) Fraction of effective cost without solar plant

--102690 1
-

131 608 32512 0'32 4429 1108 5805 15402 2932 0"16

18335 18335

CONCLUSIONS

The simple computer program based on the optimisation procedure described in this paper allows one to determine the optimal size of solar systems. Although the program is quite general, it is particularly suited to dealing with the technical situations met in solar building design. The input climatic data are daily averages. The calculation procedure is very fast, so that to run the program in practical cases takes only a few minutes of computer time.
TABLE

O U T P U T DATA OF EXAMPLE

Without solar plant

With solar plant, without heat storage


56

With total solar plant

Optimal collector area (m 2) Optimal HSU size (M J) Heat load uncovered by solar energy: Absolute value (M J) Fraction of total heat load Construction cost of the collector (kLit) Construction cost of the HSU (kLit) R u n n i n g cost (kLit) Effective cost (kLit) Saving Absolute value (kLit) Fraction of effective cost without solar plant

79 316 54077 0.53 4474 816 9655 18824 -489 - 0.03

102690 1 --

68034 0"66 3279


-

18335 18335

12147 17830 504 0.03

25

Ce ( K L i t )

--Emax =608 M5 x . . . . Emax = OM3

20
.,x

15

Ac ( m2J
T I I I

0 0

50

100

150

Fig. 1.

Effective cost, Ce, of the building of example 1 versus the collector area, Ac, without heat storage (dashed curve) and with optimal heat storage (solid curve).
Ce I K L i t ) Ac : 151 m 2

25-'

20-

15

,,,"
0

I
I

2
I

3
I

.
I

5
I

~
,|

E,.~x/T~

0
Fig. 2.

:>

Emax(1023)

Effective cost, Ce, of the building of example I versus the heat storage unit size, Era,, for optimal collector area.

16

G. AMBROSONE et al.

25. Ce ( K L i t )

- x ....

Emax:316MJ Emax:OM5

20
L X'~

~X ,s

15

/ Actm 2 ]
I I

50 100 Fig. 3. As Fig. 1, but for example 2. Ce ( K L i t ) Ac--" 79 m 2

25

20

15.

o,1 ~
0

2
I

6 Emax/,T
iI Jr

Fig. 4.

As Fig. 2, but for example 2.

SOLAR SYSTEM OPTIMISATION

17

In spite of this, the good level of approximation obtained is sufficient for the solution of the problems of sizing the heating system in practical cases, as met in solar building design.

REFERENCES 1. G. O. G. LOF and R. A. TVBOUT,Cost of house heating with solar energy, Solar Energy, 14(3) (1973), pp. 253 78. 2. ANON., TRNSYS: A transient simulation program. Report 38 prepared by Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, 1973. 3. G. AMBROSONE,A. ANDRETTA,F. BLOISI,V. CUOMO,S. DE STEFANO,G. FORMISANO,V. SILVESTRI and L. VICARI, Energy saving in building design, Applied Energy, 6(6) (1980), pp. 429-46. 4. GRUPPOENERGIASOLAREDI NAPOL1. II clima come element o di progeeto nell'edilizia-Liguori Editore, 1977. 5. G. AMBROSONE,A. ANDRETTA, F. BLOIS1,S. CATALANOTTI,V. CUOMO, V. SILVESTRIand L. V~CAR1, Long-term performance flat-plate of solar collectors, Applied Energy, 7 (1980), pp. 119-28. 6. F. BLOISI, S. CATALANOTTI,V. CUOMO, S. DE STEFANOand L. VICAR1,Heat storage and solar system performance, Applied Energy, 7 (1980), pp. 19-29. 7. B.Y.H. LIuandR. C. JORDAN,The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of direct, diffuse and total solar radiation, Solar Energy, 4(1) (1960), pp. 1 19.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai