Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611 www.elsevier.

com/locate/apthermeng

Thermo-economic analysis of solar powered adsorption heat pump

Michael A. Lambert *, Asfaw Beyene
Department of Mechanical Engineering, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1323, United States Received 19 January 2006; accepted 31 March 2006 Available online 6 December 2006

Abstract The economic feasibility of the residential solar thermal (ST) cooling system designed in the companion article [1] is ascertained by comparing it with a solar electric (SE) cooling system, and also with the baseline (i.e., control case), a grid dependent, highest eciency COPC = 5.66 heat pump. The economic scenario is analyzed for 24 cities across the southern USA, south of the 37N. The SE cooling system provides lifecycle (20 year) savings to the homeowner only where electric rates are high and it is heavily subsidized. The overall societal eect (sum of taxpayer funded rebate and homeowner savings) is actually an increased cost everywhere except the California Central Valley, where the net savings is $1500. In the same valley, The ST cooling system provides greater lifecycle savings to the homeowner with more modest subsidies, and the overall societal eect is a benet, a savings of $3600. The far and away best location for a ST system is Hawaii, where it aords homeowner savings of $9900 and societal savings of $7600. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Adsorption heat pump; Solar cooling; Thermo-economic analysis

1. Thermal modeling The economic feasibility of the residential solar thermal cooling system [evacuated at panel (EFP) solar thermal collectors, adsorption heat pump with COPC = 1.5, and ice thermal reservoir] described in the companion article [1] is ascertained by comparing it with a solar electric cooling system [grid-connected photovoltaic array with battery storage connected to an electrically driven, mechanical vapor compression heat pump with COPC = 5.66 (SEER = 19.3)] and also with a grid dependent SEER 19.3 heat pump. The economic scenario is analyzed for 24 cities across the southern Sunbelt of the USA, south of the 37th parallel. 1.1. Model house In order to enhance the realism of the economic analysis, a mathematical model house is constructed based
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 619 594 5791; fax: +1 619 594 3599. E-mail address: lambert@kahuna.sdsu.edu (M.A. Lambert).

on information about houses which have been converted to total reliance upon solar energy. Over 85% of annual installations, in terms of MW, of solar photovoltaic systems are in California, and another 3% are in Arizona, due to generous rebates and tax credits in those two states. The typical homeowner choosing to convert to solar energy is in the middle to upper middle income bracket, not living in a small or starter house. Consequently, it is assumed herein that the house being converted is larger than average: 279 m2 (3000 ft2). The conversion to reliance upon solar energy is more often than not part of an overall strategy of maximizing energy eciency. Thus, it is assumed that the house is built or retro-t with extra insulation in the walls and attic, awnings over all windows and doors, and double-glazed, low emittance, tinted windows. It is further assumed that all seams have been caulked and that all windows and doors have been weather stripped to reduce air leakage. It is assumed photovoltaic panels of 3 kW peak output (annual average) are installed to handle non-HVAC demand. The house is modeled using standard ASHRAE methods applicable for a commercial, single-zone building

1359-4311/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.09.005

1594

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

Nomenclature Acoll surface area of thermal collector sheet for at panel or inner tube for concentrators (m2) Aaper aperture area of thermal collector (m2) B cost of building modications necessary to support the cooling system cp specic heat C federal, state, and utility credits in the form of tax credits, rebates, sales tax exemptions CDD cooling degree days (K) CLF cooling load factor CLTD cooling load temperature dierence (K) CPC compound parabolic concentrating solar collector CR concentration ratio for solar concentrator COPC coecient of performance for cooling e escalation rate in electric rates EFP evacuated at panel solar thermal collector EHP electric heat pump F fuel cost, the residential electric rate during the cooling season ($/kW h) Fslab conductance of foundation slab (W/m K) G assessed value of cooling system for determining property tax h enthalpy (kJ/kg) HEX heat exchanger HTF heat transfer uid, 50/50 mixture of ethylene glycol and water i interest rate on investments H total solar irradiance (insolation) on a horizontal plane at the earths surface (W/m2) H0 solar irradiance (insolation) on a horizontal surface at the top of the atmosphere (W/m2) Hb beam solar irradiance (insolation) on a horizontal plane at the earths surface (W/m2) Hd diuse solar irradiance (insolation) on a horizontal plane at the earths surface (W/m2) I initial cost for search, purchase, and installation of cooling system Ib beam solar ux (W/m2) Kcond conductance of house envelope before adding air leakage (W/K) Ktotal total conductance of house envelope with air leakage (W/K) L loan amount for cooling system nanced on a 2nd mortgage m mortgage interest rate M maintenance cost N number of years for determining net value (20 years) or payo (120 years) O cost of space occupied by the cooling system P perimeter of foundation slab (m) PV photovoltaic solar cells q heat ux (W/m2) Q _ Q R S SC heat (kW h or Btu) heat rate (kW or Btu/h) repair and replacement cost salvage cost shading coecient for windows, solar transmittance with respect to standard plate glass SEER seasonal energy eciency ratio, =3.412 (Btu/h/ kW) COPC SHGF solar heat gain factor (W/m2) tprop property tax rate tincome income tax rate, both state and federal Ta ambient temperature (C) Tbal balance point temperature (C) Tdb outdoor dry bulb temperature, = Ta (C) Ti indoor dry bulb temperature (C) Twb outdoor wet bulb temperature (C) DT temperature dierence (K) U area normalized, overall heat transfer coecient (W/m2 K) U A overall heat transfer coecient (W/K) V0 present (year 0) net value of solar electric or solar thermal cooling system V volume (m3) _ V leak volumetric ow rate of leakage (m3/s) aS solar absorptivity b tilt angle from horizontal of PV or thermal collector cc azimuth angle of PV or thermal collector, measured from direction toward equator cS solar azimuth angle, measured from direction toward equator d solar declination angle D change in a quantity eIR infrared emissivity (@ 300600 K) g eciency h solar incidence angle on photovoltaic panel or solar thermal collector q density (kg/m3) qS solar reectivity of cover glass for thermal collectors qsurr solar reectivity of surroundings sS solar transmittance of cover glass for thermal collectors u latitude xSS sunset hour angle (0 at noon, 15h), sunrise angle is equal magnitude and negative X acceptance half-angle for CPC thermal collector Superscripts and subscripts average cool cooling EHP electric heat pump without photovoltaic arrays, i.e., dependent on the electric grid

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

1595

free i int j o

free heat gain indoor internal source of heat gain: lights, appliances, and occupants year number from 1 to 20 outdoor

out rad S SE ST

outlet radiation solar solar electric solar thermal

since it provides greater accuracy than the simplied method for modeling houses [2]. Relevant parameters for the model house are in Tables 1 and 2 for the example location of Raleigh-Durham, NC, #1 of 24 cities across the southern Sunbelt states analyzed herein. The model described above is used to predict annual cooling load for 24 cities across the southern

Sunbelt states (below 37N). Four basic climates are encountered Southeast and South Central: hot, muggy summers and mild to moderately cool winters. Southwest Desert: very hot, dry summers and short, cool winters.

Table 1 Parameters of cooling load analysis for a 279 m2 (3000 ft2) single-storey house, built or retro-t to achieve high energy eciency by adding awnings, extra insulation in attic and walls, and double-glazed, low e, tinted windows, and minimizing leaks Indoor conditions Ti (C) Relative humidity hi (kJ/kg) qi (kg/m3) Outdoor conditions Tdb (C) on 0.4% design day DTdb (K) on 0.4% design day T db (C) on 0.4% design day Twb (C) on 0.4% design day ho (kJ/kg) on 0.4% design day Envelope conductive parameters Floor area (m2) # of stories Roof and slab area, Aroof (m2) Slab perimeter, Pslab (m) Wall height per storey (m) Conditioned volume, V (m3) Gross wall area (m2) Net wall area, Awall (m2) Windows and doors as % of walls Window and door area, Awindow/door (m2) Uroof (W/m K) Uwall (W/m2 K) Uwindow/door (W/m2 K) Fslab (W/m-K) Kcond = R(U A)+Fslab Pslab (W/K)
2

23.9 50% 65.6 1.173

Solar gain parameters, July Opaque surfaces CLTD, avg., N wall (K) CLTD, avg., S wall (K) CLTD, avg., E wall (K) CLTD, avg., W wall (K) CLTD, avg., roof (K) CLTD, avg., windows and doors (K) Color factor for roof Color factor for walls Fenestrations SHGF, N (W/m2), w/awnings SHGF, S (W/m2), w/awnings SHGF, E (W/m2), w/awnings SHGF, W (W/m2), w/awnings CLF, N, avg. CLF, S, avg. CLF, E, avg. CLF, W, avg. SC, double glazed, low e, bronze tinted Leakage Cumulative leakage area (cm2) Stack coe., as (l/s)2/(cm4 K) Wind coe., aw (l/s)/(cm4 (m/s)2) Wind velocity, v (m/s), typical summer DT T db T i (K) Leakage rate, Vleak (m3/h) Air changes per hour, ACH _ qi V leak cp T db T i (W) _ K total K cond qi V leak cp (W/K) 968 0.000145 0.000104 3.35 4.78 152 0.21 237 312.6 4.5 3.5 7.11 7.14 17.2 3.08 1 0.5

Internal heat gain Gas and Elec. appliances and lights (W) Occupants (W) Avg. total internal, Qint (W) Free heat gain Internal (W) Solar thru windows/doors (W) Solar absorbed by walls (W) Solar absorbed by roof (W) Leakage, sensible (W) _ Avg. free heat gain, Qfree (W) Tbal (C) CDD = (T db Tbal), 0.4% design day (K) Total heat gain Internal (W) Solar thru windows/doors (W) Conduction thru windows/doors (W) Solar and Conduction thru walls (W) Solar and Conduction thru roof (W) Conduction thru slab (W) Leakage, sensible + latent (W) _ Avg. total heat gain, Qtot (W) _ Avg. total heat gain, Qtot (Btu/h) Heat gain, 0.4% design day (kW h) Heat gain, 0.4% design day (Btu) _ Peak cooling load, Qmax (W) _ Peak cooling load, Qmax (Btu/h) CDD (C day), cooling season @ Tbal Annual cooling load (kW h) Annual cooling load (MMBtu)

1500 293 1793

33.9 10.4 28.7 24.4 91.7

1793 828 38 980 237 3876 11.5 17.2

126.2 126.2 126.2 126.2 0.483 0.268 0.229 0.228 0.42

279 1 279 47.2 2.59 722 173 121 30% 52 0.284 0.397 1.87 0.814 263

1793 828 300 268 1359 183 1285 6016 20,526 144.4 492,600 9673 33,003 2131 17,905 61.1

Weather and annual CDD is for Raleigh-Durham, NC, one of 24 cities across US Sunbelt considered.

1596

Table 2 Design conditions and cooling load for example house in 24 US cities across the sunbelt (below 37th parallel) City Latitude u Elevation (m) 0.4% Design day Tdb (C) 33.9 34.4 33.9 32.8 33.3 35.0 35.0 34.4 36.1 33.9 37.2 36.7 35.0 38.3 35.6 43.3 42.2 39.4 29.4 36.7 38.9 39.4 DTdb daily (C) 10.4 9.0 9.6 6.3 8.3 10.4 10.7 10.6 10.8 8.6 11.7 11.2 9.2 15.6 14.1 12.8 13.8 17.2 6.1 13.0 15.4 17.5 T db (C) 28.7 29.9 29.1 29.6 29.2 29.8 29.7 29.2 30.7 29.6 31.4 31.1 30.4 30.6 28.5 36.9 35.3 30.9 26.4 30.2 31.2 30.7 Twb (C) 24.4 26.1 23.9 25.0 25.0 24.4 25.0 24.4 25.0 26.1 23.3 23.3 25.6 17.8 15.6 21.1 18.9 21.7 17.8 20.6 21.7 21.1 h0 (kJ/ kg) 91.7 96.3 89.3 94.0 94.0 89.3 94.0 91.7 94.2 98.6 87.0 84.9 96.3 67.5 60.9 78.4 71.0 80.5 67.7 76.8 81.0 78.6 _ Qfree b (W) 3876 3954 3901 4044 4017 3945 3937 3904 4003 3931 4049 4028 4095 3994 3866 4472 4341 4014 3753 3968 4036 4003 _ Qtot b (W) 6016 6070 6030 6581 6441 6252 6448 6164 6785 6659 6610 6406 6958 5326 4459 7720 6810 6103 4233 5708 6225 5956 Tbal (C) 11.5 11.3 11.4 11.0 11.1 11.3 11.4 11.4 11.2 11.4 11.2 11.2 10.9 11.3 11.5 10.2 10.5 11.2 11.7 11.3 11.2 11.2 Annual CDD at Tbal (C day) 2131 3120 2344 4799 4169 2944 2992 2330 2547 3431 2495 3508 4543 2751 1934 4157 3446 2450 2447 3480 3864 3664 Annual cooling load (kW h) Annual cooling load (MMBtu)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24
a b c d

RaleighDurham, NCa Charleston, SCa Atlanta, GAa Miami, FLb Tampa, FLb Montgomery, ALa Jackson, MSa Nashville, TNa Little Rock, ARa New Orleans, LAa Oklahoma City, OKa Austin, TXa Brownsville, TXb El Paso, TXc Albuquerque, NMc Phoenix, AZc Las Vegas, NVc Fresno, CAd Los Angeles, CAd Burbank/ Glendale, CAd Ontario, CAd San Bernardino, CAd San Diego, CAd Honolulu, HIb

35.87 32.90 33.65 25.82 27.97 32.30 32.32 36.13 34.92 29.98 35.40 30.30 25.90 31.80 35.05 33.43 36.08 36.77 33.93 34.20 34.05 34.10

134 15 315 4 3 62 101 180 95 9 397 189 6 1194 1620 337 664 100 32 236 287 353

17,905 26,781 19,224 40,783 35,621 23,935 25,302 19,465 21,316 30,118 19,548 21,704 38,919 18,220 12,175 28,801 22,682 18,265 16,892 25,275 28,830 26,923

61.1 91.4 65.6 139.2 121.5 81.7 86.3 66.4 72.7 102.8 66.7 92.5 132.8 62.2 41.5 98.3 77.4 62.3 57.6 86.2 98.4 91.9 M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

32.85 21.35

128 5

33.3 31.7

9.7 6.8

28.5 28.3

20.6 22.8

76.8 84.9

3865 3964

5226 5717

11.5 11.2

2136 4959

15,789 39,777

53.9 135.7

Southeastern/south central location; hot, humid summers and mild to moderate winters. Tropical or subtropical climate, balmy year round or most of the year. Southwest Desert, very hot, dry summers and short, cool winters. Southern California Coast, similar to Mediterranean climate.

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

1597

Southern California Coast (Mediterranean): warm to hot, dry summers and mild winters. Tropical or subtropical: balmy year round or most of the year. 1.2. Solar radiation 1.2.1. Monthly average daily and hourly insolation: total, beam (direct), and diuse Methods for computing hourly (instantaneous) and monthly average daily (long-term) insolation are taken from the literature. The un-attenuated daily insolation H 0 on a horizontal unit area at the top of the atmosphere is a function of latitude u and declination angle d. Monthly average daily (long-term) values of total H , beam (direct) H b , and diuse H d insolation on the earths surface (horizontal) are computed from monthly average daily H 0 and monthly average clearness index K T (left column below) The correlation for H d (below) is one of the simplest, yet one of satisfactory accuracy, and is due to Page [3]. Liu and Jordan [4] demonstrated that these relationships hold for hourly (instantaneous) values (right column)
MonthlyAverageDailyValues HourlyInstantaneousValues K T  H =H 0 H d =H 1:00 1:13K T Hb H Hd K T H =H 0 H d =H 1:00 1:13K T Hb H Hd

angle aS and solar azimuth angle cS, both needed for computing h, the solar incidence angle with respect to the normal to the collector aperture. During spring and summer when declination d > 0, the eective sunrise time for tilted panels comes after actual sunrise at the horizon and eective sunset comes before sunset. The corresponding hour angle x0SS for relative sunrise (negative) or sunset (positive) on the panels is the lesser of: x0SS cos1 tan u tan d x0SS cos1 tanu b tan d 1.3. Performance of solar collecting panels 1.3.1. Solar photovoltaic modules In computing the required area of PV panels for a particular location and cooling load, it is assumed that PV modules use either single crystal or multi-crystalline silicon cells with 15% eciency at operating temperature, the maximum commercially achievable. PV modules can convert both beam and diuse insolation to electricity and operate from sunrise to sunset. 1.3.2. Solar thermal collectors Thermal performance of various congurations is presented in the companion article [1]. Thermal eciency gcoll and cost ($/m2) is listed in Table 3 for standard at panel, evacuated at panel (EFP), and compound parabolic concentrator (CPC) collectors. 1.3.3. Comparison of various types of solar collectors The eciency of photovoltaic modules and various congurations of solar thermal collectors [6,7] discussed above and in the companion article [1] are compared in Table 3 for average climatic conditions across the southern Sunbelt. Average daytime ambient temperature during the cooling season is approximately T a 32:5  C. K T for the month with the highest cooling load, either July or August depending upon location, ranges from 0.47 to 0.74 with average 0.605, so a round gure of 0.60 is used in Table 3. The price per kW peak for additional PV modules above the 3 kW capacity needed for non-HVAC usage is $6500/ kW if adding 1 kW (total = 3 + 1 = 4 kW), $6000/kW if adding 2 kW (total = 3 + 2 = 5 kW), and $5500/kW if adding 3 kW (total = 3 + 3 = 6 kW). The installed cost per kW for evacuated at panels (EFP) is only about 1/3 that of standard (non-evacuated) at panels with solar selective coating. For the mean value of clearness index K T 0:60, EFP are 63% of the installed cost of CPC, $524/kW versus $831/kW. At the lowest summertime K T 0:47; gEFP 0:486 and gCPC = 0.400, and EFP are 55% (=$825/kW $1504/kW) of the cost of CPC. At the highest summertime K T 0:74; gEFP 0:627 and gCPC = 0.680, and EFP are 72% (=$407/kW $563/ kW) of the cost of CPC.

Liu and Jordan [4] provide an expression for insolation qS on a tilted surface, a solar thermal collector or photovoltaic panel. qS I b cos h H d cos2 b=2 H qsurr sin2 b=2 Boes et al. [5] developed a very simple correlation between KT and Ib for the United States based upon measurements from about 30 stations: I b 520 1800K T Ib 0 for 0:85 > K T P 0:30 for 0:30 > K T

1.2.2. Orientation and net insolation on solar collector panels It is assumed that there are no trees or structures to block the sun and the panels are south-facing, that is, collector azimuth angle cc = 0, although 15 6 cc 6 15 has minimal eect on the amount of insolation on the collectors [6]. The PV modules have xed tilt angle equal to the latitude, b = u, which usually aords the greatest cumulative annual insolation. Flat panel thermal collectors are xed at b that minimizes the number of collectors needed during the month with greatest cooling load. Concentrating thermal collectors have automatic tilt control. Hour angle xSS converts the earths rotation rate into an angle: xSS  0 at solar noon, dxSS/dt = 360 24 h = 15/h. Hour angle is used in determining solar elevation

1598 Installed cost per Net kW elec. or thermal

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

1.4. Sizing of solar photovoltaic and solar thermal arrays

$5500$6500b Cannot reach Tcoll Cannot reach Tcoll

The required output of photovoltaic modules and thermal collectors (kW electric or thermal) and corresponding areas are determined from a model incorporating the:
$1500 $1530 $524 $831

Table 3 Eciency and net solar conversion (W/m2) for photovoltaic modules and thermal collectors: at panel, evacuated at panel (EFP), and compound parabolic concentrator (CPC)

Cost per m2c

$616$740 $175

House thermal model. Summer weather (0.4% design day). Solar radiation expressions. Eciency (COPC) of both electro-mechanical and adsorption heat pumps. Performance of solar photovoltaic modules and thermal collectors.

$200

$200

$225

$250

Net conversion (W/m2) at specied conditionsa

$375

Results are computed on a monthly basis, and are shown in Table 4 for Honolulu, Hawaii, #24 of the 24 cities considered across the southern Sunbelt states (below 37 N). The top rows of Table 4 provide optimal tilt angle b for xed, evacuated at panel (EFP) thermal collectors. CPC collectors have automatically adjusted tilt to track the rise and fall of the suns arc across the sky from summer solstice to winter solstice. PV modules are xed at tilt equal to latitude, b = u. It is assumed collectors face due south, collector azimuth cc = 0. Following are the monthly CDD at base 18.3 C (65 F), monthly CDD at the computed Tbal, and monthly average daily cooling load Qcool. Annual sums are in the rightmost column. These are followed by noontime solar incidence angle h on the xed EFP collectors, sunset angles, both actual xSS (at the horizon) and eective x0SS (for the panel), and monthly average daily values for insolation on tilted EFP: Qbeam, Qdiuse, Qreected, and net amount QS, which is the daily integral of instantaneous insolation qS in Section 1.2.1. Net daily heat gain per m2 and required areas for CPC and EFP thermal collectors are next. These are based on predicted COPC = 1.50 for the adsorption heat pump from in the companion article [1]. The maximum required area for both types is carried over to the rightmost column. The last three rows show noontime h and daily QPV on the xed PV modules, and monthly average daily consumption to operate an EHP with highest available COPC = 5.66 (SEER = 19.3). The rightmost column contains the required annual average daily peak (noontime) generating capacity of the PV array on which system pricing is based. This assumes an annual average of 5.5 sun hours per day, the typical value assumed for sunny climates as per www.solarbuzz.com [8] (downloaded 12/19/05). It is further assumed that the homeowner has a net metering agreement with the utility. This allows the homeowner to sell excess electricity generated in winter by the portion of the PV array installed to oset summer cooling. The homeowner banks electricity in winter to draw upon for summer cooling. The utility bills the homeowner annu-

133

147

477 0.580 0:8741:754T coll T a =qS

123 0

Eciency g at specied conditionsa

0.15 0 @ max. Tcoll = 111 C 0 @ max. Tcoll = 160 C 0.162

0.179

0:6130:381T coll T a =qS

0.549 T coll 170  C; T a 32  C; K T 0:60; h % 0 ; b 20 ; qsurr 0:2; qS 822 W=m2 . Cost of additional PV needed for HVAC added onto 3 kW array for non-HVAC usage. Equals retail price plus estimated installation cost of $50/m2.
b a c

0.15 0:838:6T coll T a =qS

0:764:9T coll T a =qS

0:803:8T coll T a =qS

Eciency expression

Photovoltaic (PV), single crystal or poly-crystalline, not thin lm 7 Flat Panel: single-glazed (sS = 0.86), black paint (aS/eIR = 0.96/ 0.96) 7 Flat Panel: double-glazed (sS = 0.79), black paint (aS/eIR = 0.96/0.96) 7 Flat Panel: single-glazed (sS = 0.89), solar-selective (aS/eIR = 0.90/0.20) 6 Flat Panel: double-glazed (sS = 0.79), solar-selective (aS/eIR = 0.95/0.15) Evacuated Flat Panel (EFP): etched single-glazed (sS = 0.95), solar-selective (aS/eIR = 0.92/0.10) Compound Parabolic Concentrator (CPC): CR = 10, etched single-glazed (sS = 0.95), solar-selective (aS/eIR = 0.92/0.10)

Type of solar collector

0:753:4T coll T a =qS

451

Table 4 Determination of peak wattage of photovoltaic array for SEER 19.3 (COPC = 5.66) electric heat pump and solar thermal collector area (both CPC and EFP) for COPC = 1.5 adsorption heat pump for representative city with tropical or subtropical climate Honolulu, Hawaii Latitude, u = 21.35 Jan Feb Mar b u = 10 April May June Evacuated Flat Panel (EFP) Tilt, b = 31.35 July Aug Sept Oct 31 288 9.6 431 911 131 8.60 0.55 4.73 1.79 2.94 0.4 86.2 86.2 3.58 1.66 0.07 5.31 1.82 48.1 2.10 41.6 9.6 5.29 4.21 Nov 30 318 18.9 345 730 108 7.44 0.52 3.87 1.60 2.27 8.9 82.3 82.3 3.11 1.48 0.06 4.65 1.50 48.2 1.65 43.9 18.9 4.55 3.48 Dec 31 344 23.0 270 571 82 6.88 0.51 3.51 1.49 2.02 13.0 80.4 80.4 2.92 1.38 0.05 4.35 1.39 39.2 1.45 37.9 23.0 4.21 2.64 4221 8926 39,698 Annual sum or required amount

Thermal Collectors: start 0.5 h after relative sunrise x0SS # Days in month 31 28 Day of year 17 47 Declination, d 20.9 13.0 CDD @ Base 18.3 C (65 F) CDD @ Computed Tbal = 11.2 C (52.1 F) Daily Cooling Load Qcool (kW h) H 0 (kW h/m day) KT H (kW h/m2 day) H diffuse (kW h/m2 day) H beam (kW h/m2 day) h @ Solar Noon for EFP with xed tilt b Sunset angle, xSS, at horizon Sunset angle, x0SS , for tilted EFP Qbeam @ b (kW h/m2 day) Qdiuse @ b (kW h/m2 day) Qreected @ b (kW h/m2 day) QS Daily Insolation (kW h/m2 day) QNet,CPC for CPC (kW h/m2 day) Required area, CPC (m2) QNet,EFP Evacuated Flat Panel (kW h/m2 day) Required Area, Evacuated Flat Panel (m2) h @ Solar Noon for PV, bPV  u QPV, PV Daily Input (kW h/m2 day) Peak Wattage for PV (kW)
2

for tilted panel; stop 0.5 h before relative sunset (x0SS for tilted panel 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 75 105 135 162 198 228 258 2.4 9.4 18.8 23.1 21.2 13.5 2.2 248 524 75 9.46 0.53 5.01 2.01 3.00 7.6 89.1 89.1 3.29 1.86 0.07 5.22 1.62 31.0 1.93 26.0 2.4 5.29 2.42 294 622 92 10.40 0.54 5.62 2.19 3.43 19.4 93.7 88.3 3.25 2.01 0.08 5.35 1.73 35.6 2.07 29.8 9.4 5.56 2.97 369 780 112 10.84 0.56 6.07 2.23 3.84 28.8 97.6 86.6 3.26 2.01 0.09 5.36 1.94 38.6 2.14 35.0 18.8 5.72 3.61 417 882 131 10.94 0.57 6.23 2.22 4.02 33.1 99.6 85.7 3.23 1.98 0.09 5.30 2.04 42.8 2.10 41.5 23.1 5.73 4.21 468 990 142 10.85 0.57 6.18 2.20 3.98 31.2 98.7 86.1 3.30 1.97 0.09 5.36 2.04 46.5 2.15 44.2 21.2 5.76 4.57 487 1030 148 10.52 0.58 6.10 2.10 4.00 23.5 95.4 87.6 3.67 1.92 0.09 5.68 2.16 45.8 2.38 41.5 13.5 5.96 4.76 462 977 145 9.76 0.57 5.56 1.98 3.58 12.2 90.9 89.6 3.78 1.83 0.08 5.69 2.04 47.4 2.33 41.6 2.2 5.81 4.66

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

226 478 69 7.21 0.51 3.68 1.56 2.12 10.9 81.4 81.4 2.95 1.44 0.05 4.45 1.40 32.7 1.50 30.5 20.9 4.33 2.21

204 431 69 8.28 0.52 4.31 1.78 2.53 3.0 84.8 84.8 3.16 1.65 0.06 4.87 1.51 30.3 1.76 26.0 13.0 4.83 2.21

48.2

44.2 Installed Capacity 3.50

1599

1600

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

ally for net consumption from the grid, but does not pay the homeowner for net excess generation, then zeroes any credits to begin a new annual billing cycle. So, systems are usually sized to very nearly satisfy, but not exceed, annual consumption. Net metering allows the homeowner to sell excess electricity to the utility at the seasonal residential (retail) rate. If net metering is not in eect, then a second meter is needed for tabulating excess generation and the utility credits the homeowner at only the wholesale rate, roughly 2/kW h, as compared with the retail rate of 8 to 20/kW h. Net metering is currently available in 39 states, including 10 of the 15 southern Sunbelt States considered herein. However, more and more states are legislating or utilities are allowing net metering, so it is assumed herein that net metering is applicable in all 24 cities considered. The annual average daily peak PV output (rightmost column) needed to oset annual cooling for the 24 cities ranges from 39% (Southern California Coastal Mediterranean climate) to 74% (Hawaii, tropical) of the peak value for the sunniest month. This means that much less energy can be banked in wintertime in tropical climates since the weather remains balmy year round. The upshot is that signicantly larger PV arrays are needed in tropical climates to oset cooling. 2. Economic analysis 2.1. Installed cost of cooling systems 2.1.1. Installed cost of grid dependent electric heat pump (EHP) In this study the homeowner has already decided to install a 3 kW peak output PV array to oset annual non-HVAC consumption. He is content to wait for the long-term payo when the initial and upkeep cost of the PV is exceeded by the value of foregone consumption from the electric grid. Therefore, it is assumed the homeowner will opt for an EHP with the highest available COPC = 5.66 (SEER = 19.3), despite its higher initial cost, to replace the existing unit with performance in the range of SEER 10-12 (COPC = 2.93.5) if it is around 1015 years old. The initial cost, IEHP, of an EHP includes capital cost, installation, and search cost for the outdoor unit (compressor, condenser, and cooling fan) of a central air conditioning system. The preexisting indoor evaporator, blower, and ductwork are retained. Installed cost is computed as $2500 for 7.0 kW (24,000 Btu/h), plus $250 more for each 1.8 kW (6000 Btu/h) increment in capacity, e.g., $3000 for 10.6 kW (36,000 Btu/h) capacity. This is based on a survey of major manufacturers: Lennox, Ruud, Trane, Carrier, Frigidaire, and Goodman. The installed cost of an EHP, properly sized for the model house in all 24 cities considered, is listed in Table 5. For this scenario the homeowner has decided not to install additional PV capacity to oset electricity consump-

tion for summer cooling. This serves as the baseline against which to compare the economic viability of the solar electric (SE) and solar thermal (ST) cooling systems. 2.1.2. Installed cost of solar electric (SE) cooling system In this scenario, the homeowner has already selected an electric heat pump with highest available eciency (COPC = 5.66, SEER 19.3) described above for the baseline scenario. The initial cost of the solar electric cooling system, ISE, is for purchase and installation of the portion of the PV system needed to totally oset electricity consumption for cooling in year 1, before subtracting any rebates or tax credits, plus IEHP for a new electric heat pump with highest available SEER = 19.3 (COPC = 5.66). IEHP and IPV are listed separately in Table 5. It is assumed the homeowner has decided to convert completely to solar energy on a net annual basis, requiring 3 kW of PV capacity to oset non-HVAC related consumption. This equates to 3 kW 5.5 sun hours/ day 365 days = 6023 kW h/year = 502 kW h/month = 16.8 kW h/day, a modest amount for a 279 m2 (3000 ft2) house with energy ecient appliances. The additional PV capacity for HVAC is added to the baseline 3 kW capacity and ranges from 1.06 kW in Albuquerque to 3.58 kW in Miami (Table 5). Installed cost of additional PV capacity (above 3 kW) for HVAC is computed as follows: Grid-connected, residential 2 kW (annual avg. peak) PV system is $17,865, or $8933/kW, as quoted on www.solarbuzz.com [8] (downloaded 10/22/06), which includes 20% added to the purchase price for installation. This website maintains a regularly updated tracking of all worldwide price points from all PV vendors and installers. The DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) website [9] lists a typical installed cost of $16,000$20,000 for a 2 kW system ($8000/kW $10,000/kW) and $30,000$40,000 for a 5 kW system ($6000/kW$8000/kW) as of Dec. 2003. This analysis uses a sliding scale of $18,000 for a 2 kW system (or $9000/kW, rounded from the current price $17,865 [8]), to $37,500 for a 5 kW system ($7500/kW) from the average on the DOE website [9] for a 5 kW system ($7000/kW) adjusted for ination at 2.5% per annum from Dec. 2003 to Oct. 2006. _ W PV is in kW. _ _ I PV W PV $10; 000 $500 W PV The baseline (non-HVAC usage) 3 kW system has installed cost $25,500 ($8500/kW). The following example illustrates how the cost of additional PV capacity is computed. Assume 3 kW is needed to oset electricity consumption for summer cooling. Total system output is 6 kW (3 kW nonHVAC + 3 kW HVAC) and costs $42,000. Thus,

Table 5 Solar array area and installed cost of solar electric and solar thermal cooling systems for 24 cities across US Sunbelt (south of 37N) City Solar electric cooling system PV area (m2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 RaleighDurham, NCa Charleston, SCa Atlanta, GAa Miami, FLb Tampa, FLb Montgomery, ALa Jackson, MSa Nashville, TNa Little Rock, ARa New Orleans, LAa Oklahoma City, OKa Austin, TXa Brownsville, TXb El Paso, TXc Albuquerque, NMc Phoenix, AZc Las Vegas, NVc Fresno, CAd Los Angeles, CAd Burbank/ Glendale, CAd Ontario, CAd San Bernardino, CAd San Diego, CAd Honolulu, HIb 13.5 19.8 14.2 27.7 23.5 17.1 17.9 15.8 14.9 20.9 12.7 18.1 25.6 9.1 6.2 14.7 11.3 10.5 10.0 15.0 PV peak output _ W PV (kW) 1.57 2.34 1.68 3.58 3.13 2.10 2.22 1.70 1.86 2.64 1.71 2.37 3.41 1.59 1.06 2.52 1.98 1.60 1.48 2.21 PV installed cost IPV $9731 $13,660 $10,335 $18,657 $16,996 $12,475 $13,053 $10,466 $11,309 $14,990 $10,500 $13,792 $18,073 $9888 $6883 $14,468 $11,920 $9903 $9259 $13,042 Peak cooling load, 0.4% design _ day Qcool;max (W) 9673 9875 9314 8824 9408 9772 10,207 9858 10,562 9809 10,419 10,000 10,230 9618 8161 11,408 10,589 11,436 5974 9642 Installed cost of electrical heat pump SEER = 19.3 COPC = 5.66 $3000 $3000 $3000 $3000 $3000 $3000 $3000 $3000 $3250 $3000 $3000 $3000 $3000 $3000 $2750 $3250 $3250 $3250 $2500 $3000 Solar thermal cooling system CPC area (m2) 84.1 115.8 77.6 104.1 96.6 77.4 74.3 69.1 62.2 87.2 50.4 61.3 60.8 29.3 23.8 40.3 31.7 25.0 36.2 54.1 CPC Installed Cost ICPC $31,521 $43,416 $29,113 $39,044 $36,207 $29,010 $27,845 $25,913 $23,336 $32,705 $18,901 $22,980 $22,816 $10,993 $8922 $15,127 $11,880 $9362 $13,569 $20,305 EFP area (m2) 56.1 77.7 52.4 73.0 64.4 52.9 52.4 48.2 46.4 60.1 39.8 51.2 51.4 27.9 23.1 39.2 32.8 27.0 33.7 50.5 EFP installed cost IEFP $14,024 $19,424 $13,102 $18,253 $16,092 $13,235 $13,107 $12,047 $11,611 $15,014 $9962 $12,797 $12,842 $6972 $5779 $9797 $8201 $6747 $8423 $12,628 Total cooling load, 0.4% design day Qcool (MJ/ day) 520 575 521 569 556 540 557 532 586 575 571 553 601 460 385 667 588 527 366 493 Installed cost of adsorption heat pump COPC = 1.5 and ice reservoir $7500 $8000 $7500 $8000 $8000 $8000 $8000 $7500 $8000 $8000 $8000 $7500 $8000 $7000 $6500 $9000 $8000 $7500 $6000 $7000

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

21 22

16.4 14.8

2.52 2.36

$14,483 $13,722

11,008 11,313

$3250 $3250

58.7 52.2

$22,024 $19,590

55.9 50.4

$13,981 $12,593

538 515

$7500 $7000

23 24
a b c d

9.3 24.7

1.38 3.50

$8711 $18,361

8221 7983

$2750 $2750

37.7 48.2

$14,150 $18,071

33.8 44.2

$8450 $11,050

451 494

$6500 $7000

Southeastern/south central location; hot, humid summers and mild to moderate winters. Tropical or subtropical climate, balmy year round or most of the year. Southwest Desert; very hot, dry summers and short, cool winters. Southern California Coast, similar to Mediterranean climate.

1601

1602

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

the cost of the portion of the PV array for osetting summer cooling is $42,000 $25,500 = $16,500 (equates to $5500/kW for the additional 3 kW). Installed cost of the SEER 19.3 electric heat pump, IEHP, is given in Section 2.1.1. 2.1.3. Installed cost of solar thermal (ST) cooling system In this scenario the homeowner has chosen a solar thermal cooling system comprised of an adsorption heat pump with COPC = 1.50, ice thermal reservoir, and either CPC or EFP solar collectors. The initial cost of the ST cooling system, IST, includes search cost, purchase, and installation, before subtracting any rebates or tax credits. The initial cost of the CPC and EFP collectors is listed separately from the cost of adsorption heat pump and ice reservoir in Table 5. 2.1.3.1. Installed cost of CPC and EFP solar collectors. Installed cost of CPC collectors is taken to be $375/m2, the sum of $300/m2 retail for the collectors, plus $25/m2 for the automatic tilt mechanism, plus $50/m2 for installation. The retail price is the average of quotes from the very few vendors. The installation cost is deduced from an estimate of 4 hours labor per panel (or 2 h/m2) at an overall labor rate of $25/h, including overhead. Installed cost of EFP collectors is taken to be $250/m2, the sum of $200/m2 retail for the panels plus $50/m2 for installation (same as CPC), or $100 to install a 2 m 1 m panel. The retail price is deduced from a current retail price of $150/m2 for at panel collectors, single-glazed, with solar selective coating. $50/m2 is added to cover: * Etching low-iron, alkali-borosilicate glass to minimize solar reectivity ($$15/m2). * Internal posts to support cover glass and berglass shell against vacuum ($$15/m2). * Proportionate share of vacuum tubing connecting panel to vacuum pump ($$5/m2). * Vacuum pump capable of attaining soft vacuum of 0.001 atm to eliminate convection ($$15/m2 equates to a pump price of $600 for a 40 m2 array).

der, rubber hose, wood, structural shapes, fasteners, activated carbon, valves, controllers, etc. The few custom parts such as the end caps, tube sheets, and internal tube ns for the adsorber vessels, and the HTF distribution manifold, can be machined or extruded from billet. Prices are from quotes and catalogs. The cost of materials and components for a 633 MJ/day heat pump is $4237. Table 7 lays out the labor ($2118) and overhead ($775) costs for manufacturing the 633 MJ/day heat pump and ice thermal reservoir, which requires 82 h labor per unit. This is based on a start-up small business that builds and installs 1000 heat pumps per year in a viable market, such as central and southern California or Hawaii. The labor for installing the EFP collectors is already included in the retail cost of $250/m2. The salaries and wages listed in Table 7 are average or above for states with high costs of living, such as California and Hawaii. Personnel (95 total: owner/inventor plus 94 employees): The inventor/owner/chief engineer and four employee engineers handle design, manufacture, and sales. The 37 manufacturing sta is a mix of highly skilled master machinists and CNC operators with foreman duties ($5), skilled journeyman machinists ($12) and electronic technicians, and a number of semi-skilled fabricators ($20). The 48 installers are in 8 teams of 6, and each team completes an installation in two days. There are three clerical sta. Factory: The factory is either leased or purchased at $100,000 per year. Tools and equipment: $1,000,000 of tooling is nanced at $100,000 per year. Optional components: A gas-red heater can allow the heat pump to operate in case of a fault in the EFP array or the ice reservoir. It adds $534 to the cost of production, and is excluded, assuming the manufacturer provides rapid service in repairing any faults.

2.1.3.2. Installed cost (List Price) of adsorption heat pump and ice thermal reservoir. Table 6 lists the cost of materials and components for an adsorption heat pump and ice thermal reservoir with ice making capacity of 633 MJ/day (600,000 Btu/day), averaging 17.6 kW (60,000 Btu/h) over 10 useful sun hours, with a maximum rate of 29.3 kW (100,000 Btu/h). Nearly all materials and components are readily available, stock sizes and shapes sold in mass quantities: e.g., steel, aluminum, and PVC piping, tubing, and ttings, sol-

2.1.3.3. Protability. The cost of producing and installing the adsorption heat pump and ice reservoir is the sum of materials, labor, and overhead. Production costs and installed (list) prices are given in Table 7 for three capacities: 633, 506, and 380 MJ/day. The before tax prot on 1000 heat pumps and ice reservoirs (for an equal mix of 633, 506, and 380 MJ/day units) is $885,000/year. A typical 40 m2 EFP array has installed cost of $10,000 ($250/m2 retail). The adsorption heat pump manufacturer would purchase 40,000 m2 of EFP per year, and negotiate a wholesale price 6 200/m2 (680% retail). Twenty percent prot on 1000 arrays adds $2,000,000 to gross prot for a total of $2,885,000 minus 20% corporate tax rate for a net prot of about $2,300,000. One-thousand complete systems would result in gross annual sales of $17,500,000 ($7500 for the heat pump and ice reservoir, $10,000 for the EFP array). So, net prot is about 13% of gross annual sales.

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611 Table 6 Material costs for 633 MJ/day (600,000 Btu/day) adsorption heat pump Cost for adsorbers: shell and tube with helical annular ns on tubes Adsorber shell (1): 4 in. nominal, schedule 40 aluminum alloy pipe (4.50 in. O.D., 0.120 in. wall), $100 for 21 0 , cut to 36 in. lengths Adsorber end caps (2): aluminum alloy, 4.5 in. diameter, 0.50 in. thick, 3/4 in. holes (7) drilled for HTF tubes, 0.6 lb 2 at $1.50/lb HTF tubes (7): aluminum alloy (0.75 in. O.D, 0.040 in. wall, 36 in. long), with aluminum annular helical ns (1.5 in. O.D., 0.010 in. thick, 10 ns per inch), $2.00/ft Extruded, six-pointed asterisk internal ns for HTF tubes (7): aluminum alloy, 36 in. lengths, 0.040 in. thick spokes, at $0.50/ft Extra Coarse (grade #4, %100 lm ber dia.) aluminum wool, loosely packed b/w annular ns, 6% by volume, 1.7 lb at $2.00/lb 3/4 in. tube elbows for HTF tubes (14): aluminum alloy, in quantity HTF manifolds (2), aluminum alloy cylinders, 1.5 in. O.D. by 1.25 in. long, with 7 3/4 in. holes, 0.4 lb at $1.50/lb Higher melting temperature tinsilver solder, 0.1 lb at $5.00/lb Adsorbent: activated carbon, 19 lb at $0.50/lb in quantity 2 in. berglass insulation with aluminum backing, 6 ft2 @ $0.25/ft2 Subtotal per adsorber Subtotal for 20 adsorbers Ammonia condenser and HTF cooler: cooled by natural convection, max. heat rejection rate = 167,000 Btu/h = 100,000 Btu/h max. ice-making rate (1+1/COPC) Tubes (96 = 57 for NH3 and 39 for HTF), aluminum alloy (1.00 in. O.D., 0.060 in. wall, 8 0 long) with alum. annular helical ns (3.0 in. O.D., 0.015 in. thick, 3.54 ns per inch), clear anodized for low solar absorptivity and corrosion protection, $2.00/ft Manifold tubing and ttings, anodized aluminum, tees (32) and 180 elbows (80), $0.25 each; tube (1.00 in. O.D., 0.060 in. wall, 10 0 ) $5.00 Subtotal for HTF cooler: Pumps and valves HTF gear pump: 10 l/min, 50 psig dierential R-134a gear pump: 5 l/min, 5 psig dierential Ball check valves for ammonia (40): 20 to condenser and 20 to evaporator, 1/2 in.NPT 1/2 in. comp., $5.00 each in quantity Thermostatic expansion valve (TEV) for ammonia On/o solenoid valve for ammonia; $3.00 in quantity HTF circuit: anodized aluminum; tubing (0.50 in. 100 0 annealed coil) $0.25/ft, compression ttings (80) $0.50 each HTF distribution manifold, anodized aluminum, milled from billet ($25.00) on CNC; O-rings ($5.00); stepper motor ($20.00) NH3 circuit: anodized aluminum; 1/2 in. ttings = nipples (40) + tees (40) @ $0.50 ea, tubing (0.50 in. 20 0 annealed coil) $0.25/ft Subtotal for pumps and valves: Frame: Unistrut channel, 8 0 lengths (8) @ $10.00 each Unistrut connector tees (4 $1.00), corners braces (8 $2.00) Unistrut 1/2 in. 1 in. bolts (64 @ $0.20) and additional fasteners Stainless sheet cover panels to protect adsorbers from weather Subtotal for frame: Ice making HEX (ammonia evaporator): max. ice-making rate = 100,000 Btu/h [29.3 kW] 1600 0 of elastomeric tubing (1 in. O.D., 0.040 in. wall), in 24 66 0 sections, each coiled around 8 0 lengths of 3 in. PVC pipe (3.5 in. O.D.), 60 turns per coil, $0.05/ft Anodized aluminum crimped hose nipples (48), $0.25 each Anodized aluminum tubing for NH3 evaporator manifolds (2), 0.75 in. O.D., 0.060 in. wall, 10 0 , $5.00 each Anodized aluminum ttings: 3/4 in. tees and elbows (50), $0.25 each PVC: 24 10 lengths of 3 pipe, 48 ttings, and cement Subtotal for ice making HEX (NH3 evaporator): Ice thawing HEX (R-134a condenser): 50,000 Btu/h capacity [14.7 kW] Tubes (10), aluminum alloy (0.75 in. O.D., 0.060 in. wall, 7.5 0 long), with aluminum annular helical ns (2.0 in. O.D., 0.010 in. thick, 6.0 ns per inch), anodized, $2.00/ft Anodized aluminum tubing, R-134a condenser manifolds (2), 10 0 0.75 in. tubing (1), $10.00 each Anodized aluminum ttings: 3/4 in. tees and elbows (25), $0.25 each Subtotal for ice thawing HEX (R-134a condenser): Deck to cover ice reservoir and support heat pump Plywood (2), 4 0 8 0 3/4 in., pressure treated, $15.00 each Lumber: 2 in. 6 in. 10 0 (6), $6.00 each Wood screws, anti-corrosion coated, 1 lb box (2), $2.00 OSB sheets, 4 0 8 0 (4), for foam in place insulation, $7.50 each Foam-in-place poly-isocyanurate, 100 ft3 @ $1.00/ft3 Spray-on waterproof liner, 250 ft2 Subtotal for ice reservoir and cover deck: Controller: weatherized, programmable, with thermocouples Total for materials

1603

$14.30 $1.80 $42.00 $11.00 $3.40 $3.00 $0.60 $0.50 $9.50 $1.50 $87.60 $1752.00

$1536.00 $33.00 $1569.00 $30.00 $15.00 $200.00 $50.00 $3.00 $65.00 $50.00 $45.00 $458.00 $80.00 $20.00 $32.80 $25.00 $157.80 $80.00 $12.00 $10.00 $12.50 $300.00 $263.00 $150.00 $10.00 $6.25 $166.25 $30.00 $36.00 $4.00 $30.00 $100.00 $50.00 $250.00 $30.00 $4797.50

2.1.4. Comparison of installed costs Table 5 lists the installed cost of SE and ST cooling systems. It includes areas and prices of PV, CPC, and EFP arrays for all 24 cities considered, as well as prices for a

properly sized EHP (SEER 19.3) and a correct capacity adsorption heat pump (COPC = 1.50) with associated ice reservoir. CPC collectors cannot compete with EFP collectors and are eliminated from consideration.

1604

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

Table 7 Labor and Overhead for Fabricating and Installing 633 MJ/day (600,000 Btu/day) Adsorption Heat Pump LABOR: Eort per heat pump: Highly skilled (5): $50,000 annual gross = $25.00/h 40 h/wk 50 wk/yr; Skilled (12): $40,000 annual gross = $20.00/h 40 h/wk 50 wk/yr; Semiskilled (20): $30,000 annual gross = $15.00/h 40 h/wk 50 wk/yr; Average labor rate = $25.00/h ($18.00/h avg. wage + fringe (20%) + payroll tax ($8%) + workmens compensation (10%)) Set up and machine/drill/cut apart end caps on CNC mill in batch (20 2) for entire heat pump (2 h 20) $2.50 Swaging internal ns into HTF tubes (20 7 = 140) (6 h) $150.00 Wrapping aluminum wool between helical annular ns on HTF tubes (20 7 = 140) (8 h) $200.00 Cleaning, assembling, heating, and soldering HTF shells, tubes, elbows, and manifolds (20 7) (8 h) $200.00 Filling adsorbers with activated carbon and simultaneous vibratory compaction (20) (2 h) $50.00 $50.00 Assembling Unistrut frame (2 h) Installing adsorbers (20) in frame (2 h) $50.00 Cutting refrigerant (NH3) tubing, and connecting ball check valves (40), solenoid valve, and TEV (8 h) $200.00 Cutting HTF (glycol-water) tubing and connecting adsorber inlets/outlets (20 2) to distribution manifold (4 h) $100.00 Installing HTF and R-134a pump, pressure testing HTF circuit (1 h) $25.00 Subtotal for building and installing 20 adsorbers (40 h) $1027.50 Cutting manifold tubing for NH3 Condenser and HTF cooler (1 h) $25.00 $200.00 Assembling nned tubes for NH3 Condenser (57 tubes) and HTF cooler (39 tubes) with manifold tubes and ttings, then soldering (8 h) Pressure testing and installing condenser and HTF cooler (2 h) $50.00 Subtotal for assembling NH3condenser and HTF coolers (11 h) $275.00 Cutting PVC pipe, assembling with ttings, and cementing (3 h) $75.00 Cutting NH3 hosing (24 66 0 ) and crimping hose nipples (48) (3 h) $75.00 Cutting manifold tubing, assembling w/ttings, and soldering (3 h) $75.00 Coiling NH3 hoses (24) on PVC frame, connecting nipples to manifolds (48), and pressure testing (3 h) $75.00 $300.00 Subtotal for ice making HEX (NH3evaporator) (12 h) Cutting manifold tubing for R-134a Evaporator, assembling with ttings, and soldering (3 h) $75.00 Assemble R-134a nned tubes (10) and manifolds and soldering (2 h) $50.00 Subtotal for ice thawing HEX (R-134a condenser) (5 h) $125.00 Subtotal: Installing controller and thermocouples (1 h) $25.00 HTF distribution manifold: set-up, milling, drilling on CNC (1 h) $25.00 Assembly, installing inlet/outlet ttings, and pressure testing (4 h) $100.00 Subtotal: fabricating HTF distribution manifold (5 h) $125.00 Total for entire heat pump and ice reservoir components (74 h) On-Site Installation: Excavation of pit: 9 0 L 5 0 W 5 0 D with backhoe in 3 hours (1/2 day per job, one in morning, one in afternoon) $75.00 Leased backhoe: $500/month = $12.50 per 1/2 day (for 20 work days per month), $12.50 per 1/2 day for diesel (5 gal $2.50/gal), lube, oil, $40.00 and maintenance $200/month = $10.00 per 1/2 day Install oriented strand board (OSB) forms in excavated hole, add poly-isocyanurate foam and spray-on waterproof liner (3 h) $75.00 Install ice making HEX and ice thawing HEX (1 h) $25.00 Build, foam ll, waterproof, and install plywood deck (1 h) $25.00 Subtotal for on-site installation (8 h) $240.00 TOTAL for LABOR (82 h) $2117.50 OVERHEAD: Small business producing and installing 1,000 heat pumps per year so that costs are distributed over 1,000 units Personnel 92 employees: 37 manufacturing, 4 engineering and sales, 3 accounting and clerical, 48 installation (8 crews of 6) Factory: 20,000 ft2 lot in industrial park ($750 k valuation) with 15,000 ft2 steel bldg. ($500 k valuation); lease = $100 k/year ($75 k for $100.00 principal and interest, $25 k for prot to property owner) Tooling: ($1 M) depreciated and/or replaced over 10 years @ $100 k/year, distributed over 1,000 heat pumps per year $100.00 Utilities: Gas: 1,000 MMBtu/yr @ $10.00/MMBtu = $10,000/yr; Electricity: 125,000 kW h/yr @ $0.12/kW h = $15,000/yr; $40.00 Water: 1000 HCF (HCF = 100 ft3) @ $5.00/HCF = $5000/yr; Sewer $5000/yr and waste $4000/yr Accounting/Clerical: 3 $35,000/yr (w/fringe/payroll tax/comp.) $105.00 Engineering and Sales: 4 $70,000/yr (w/fringe/payroll tax/comp.) $280.00 Advertising: $100,000/yr $100.00 Insurance and Licenses: $50,000/yr $50.00 TOTAL for OVERHEAD $775.00 TOTAL for MATERIALS, LABOR, and OVERHEAD $7690.00 List price for 633 MJ/day unit, production cost $7690.00 $8500.00 List price for 506 MJ/day unit, production cost $6615.00 $7500.00 List price for 380 MJ/day unit, production cost $5541.00 $6500.00

2.2. Lifecycle cost of cooling systems The economic viability of the solar electric and solar thermal cooling systems versus the baseline, a grid-connected electric heat pump, and each other is determined below.

2.2.1. Lifetime monetary benet and payback period 2.2.1.1. Present value of solar electric cooling system versus grid dependent heat pump. The present net value V0,SE of the complete SE cooling system [photovoltaic modules, inverter, batteries, and charge controller, paired with a SEER 19.3 (COPC = 5.66) electric heat pump] as compared

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611 Tax credit = 30% of installed cost, up to a maximum of $2000, minus state tax credits or rebates Rebate of 35% of installed cost up to a maximum of $10,500 $500 tax credit on installed cost Sales tax exemption Rebate of $4.00/W up to $12,000, all applied to the baseline 3 kW array for non-HVAC usage, meaning zero rebate for the HVAC portion of the PV array Tax credit of 25% of installed cost up to $1000, plus $4.00/W or 50% of installed cost, whichever is less Rebate of $3.00/W up to $15,000, $9000 of which would be applied toward the baseline 3 kW array for non-HVAC usage Tax credit of 35% of installed cost up to a maximum of $1750 Rebate of $2.80/W in the rst half of 2006, decreasing $0.20/W every six months thereafter. A number of California cities and counties have more attractive rebates which may be claimed in lieu of the state rebate

1605

with the same electric heat pump (EHP) fully dependent upon the power grid is:
V 0;SE I SE " SE BSE OSE I EHP C EHP BEHP OEHP C  j N X 1e F 0 1 0:01j 1 1i j1 RSE;j M SE;j S SE;j 1 tincome tprop GSE;j tincome mLSE;j j j j 1 i 1 i 1 i

2.2.1.2. Present value of solar thermal cooling system versus grid dependent heat pump. The present net value V0,ST of the ST cooling system [evacuated at panel (EFP) collectors, adsorption heat pump (COPC = 1.5), and ice thermal reservoir] versus a SEER 19.3 (COPC = 5.66) electric heat pump (EHP) fully dependent upon the power grid (EHP) is:
V 0;ST I ST " ST BST OST I EHP C EHP BEHP OEHP C  j N X 1e RST;j M ST;j S ST;j F 0 1i 1 ij j1 # 1 tincome tprop GST;j tincome mLST;j j j 1 i 1 i

The net monetary benet aorded by the solar thermal cooling system as compared with the solar electric cooling system over its lifetime is: V 0;STSE V 0;ST V 0;SE 2.2.1.3. Denition of terms and assignment of input parameters. BEHP, BSE, BST = Cost of building modications necessary to support the EHP, SE, or ST cooling systems. All are minimal and already included in (installed) costs: IEHP, ISE, IST. CEHP = $250 typically for a higher eciency heat pump (SEER > 16). CSE = credits to homeowners for installing the portion of the PV system dedicated to cooling (i.e., >3 kW) as listed in Table 8, plus CEHP = $250 for the SEER 19.3 electric heat pump. CST = credits to homeowners for installing the solar thermal cooling system. Utilities typically pay a rebate for installing new equipment that reduces peak grid load, called peak shedding, as compared with existing equipment. The rebate is taken to be $250/kW reduction in peak grid load. It is assumed that the solar thermal cooling system replaces an older (10+ years) electric heat pump with typical SEER 12; C ST  $250 _ _ Qcool;max =COPC Qcool;max 3:412=SEER. This credit is assumed to be awarded in $125 increments by rounding to the nearest 0.5 kW of peak reduction. North Carolina grants a rebate of 35% of installed cost up to a maximum of $10,500. Hawaii allows a tax credit of 35% of installed cost up to a maximum of $1750.

Table 8 Subsidies for photovoltaic panels in the Southern USA Sunbelt

Federal North Carolina Georgia Florida Texas, Austin only Arizona Nevada Hawaii California

1606

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

e = annual escalation rate in fuel (electricity and gas). This is assumed to be 6%, since an ever greater proportion of electricity is generated by gas turbines, and the price of gas has been climbing for several years as a result of the dash to gas because it is cleaner burning than coal and does not entail the enormous capital cost and waste disposal problem of nuclear. F0 = fuel (electricity) cost in the present year to operate a SEER 19.3 electric heat pump ( 0 for year 1 for both the SE and ST system, i.e., totally independent of the grid). F0 is assumed to remain zero over the 20 year useful life of the ST cooling system. But for the SE cooling system, F0 rises at 1% per annum after year 1 to 19% of consumption in year 20 due to degradation of the PV modules. See the denition of RSE,j + MSE,j SSE,j below. GEHP,j, GSE,j, GST,j = Assessed value of the new SEER 19.3 electric heat pump, SE cooling system, or ST cooling system in year j. i = interest rate on earnings from investing in duciaries rather than on a SE or ST system. It is assumed to be 6% for a 50/50 mix of bonds (3% return) and large cap securities (9% return) typical of the portfolio for a middleaged person with a managed retirement account. IEHP = initial cost of grid dependent electric heat pump, described and valued in Section 2.1.1. ISE = initial cost of SE cooling system, which includes IEHP, valued in Section 2.1.2. IST = initial cost of ST cooling system, described and valued in Section 2.1.3. LSE,j = Additional outstanding mortgage loan attributed to the portion of the solar photovoltaic system used for cooling in year j, as compared with a grid dependent EHP, since the SE cooling system is probably entirely nanced on a 2nd or 3rd mortgage so LSE,j  V0,SE. LST,j = analogous to SE system, so LST,j  V0,ST. m = mortgage interest rate expressed as a decimal. Assume 8% for a 2nd (or 3rd) mortgage, which is probably what would be used to nance a solar PV or thermal system. N = number of years from the present. N can be either the useful lifetime of the system Nuseful  20 years, or the number of years necessary to achieve payback (when VSE = 0 or VST = 0). OEHP, OSE, OST = Cost of space occupied by EHP, SE or ST cooling system. All are assumed  0. RSE,j + MSE,j SSE,j = present value of replacement and repair costs RSE,j in year j, plus maintenance costs MSE,j in year j, less the salvage value SSE,j of those parts replaced in year j for all N years for the portion of the solar PV system used for cooling. This is estimated at an average per annum expense of 1.3% of installed cost for four-season climates or 2.5% of installed cost for tropical or subtropical climates over the 20 year design lifetime. Most PV module manufacturers guarantee no more than 20% reduction in output over a typical 20 year warranty according to www.solarbuzz.com [8]. Utili-

ties do not pay homeowners for excess generation supplied to the grid. Therefore, it is assumed the PV array is sized to match demand at the time of installation, and that output decreases 1% per annum to 80% of consumption (assumed steady) at the end of 20 years. DC/AC inverter is solid state and assumed to last the entire 20 year design lifetime. Batteries are assumed used to provide not only backup power, but also to permit more substantial peak shedding of residential demand at sucient market penetration. They comprise about 15% of total installed cost [8]. Solar systems employ lead-acid batteries that require replacement every % 1000 cycles when nearly fully discharged each cycle, occurring daily during the peak of the cooling season. The number of approximately full cycles can range from $100 per year for four-season climates, to $200 for subtropical, to 300+ for tropical. So, batteries are assumed to be replaced at 10 year intervals in four-season climates at an average annual expense of 1.5% of ISE, and at 5 year intervals in subtropical and tropical climates at an average annual expense of 3% of ISE. Salvage price of the lead is assumed to reduce these to 1.3% and 2.5%, respectively. Charge controller (solid state) is $10% of installed cost [7], and lasts the entire 20 years. RST,j + MST,j SST,j = present value of replacement and repair costs RST,j in year j, plus maintenance costs MST,j in year j, less the salvage value SST,j of those parts replaced in year j for all N years for the solar thermal HVAC system. This is projected at an average per annum expense of 0.7% of installed cost over the 20 design lifetime of the system. Etched glass cover, aluminum absorber sheet and tubing with black nickel solar selective coating, and berglass box (with UV protective paint) are not subject to signicant degradation over 20 years. Silicone sealants, for making a vacuum-tight seal between the cover glass and berglass box, are often warranted for well over 20 years, even when exposed to direct sunlight. Low iron cover glass and aluminum absorber sheet and tubing are salvageable for new solar collectors, but their value is likely oset by the cost of removal and transportation. Mechanical vacuum pumps can be very reliable, so the pump is assumed to last the entire 20 year design lifetime. The oil is changed every few years at negligible cost. Heat transfer uid (HTF) is 50/50 ethylene glycol and water. Newer liquid corrosion inhibitors can protect for several years, so the HTF is assumed to be changed every 5 years, with a negligible annualized cost of less than 0.1% of total installed system cost.

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

1607

Adsorbent canisters have no moving parts, and the adsorbent can be cycled essentially indenitely. The HTF gear pump and motor can easily last 20 years. The solenoid valves comprising the HTF manifold are very reliable, often lasting millions of cycles. It is assumed that replacing faulty parts would cost < 0.1% of IST per annum over 20 years. Expandable rubber tubing in the ice thermal reservoir, which serves as the ammonia evaporator, will become dry-rot every several years, requiring periodic inspection and replacement at an annual average cost of 0.5% of total installed system cost. tincome = income tax rate in the highest bracket paid. Federal income tax is 25% or 31.6% for middle or upper middle income brackets. State income taxes in the southern Sunbelt range from 0% (FL, TN, TX, and NV) to 9.3% (CA), and are deductible from federal income tax. tprop = property tax rate, although a number of states allow renewable energy systems to be excluded from property value assessments. Property tax is also deductible from federal income tax. In many states, assessed (taxable) value is not necessarily equal to fair market value, making the eective rate dicult to determine. Local millage rates (1/1000th of a percent) added onto the state property tax rate further complicate the matter. For cities in which the exact rate proved hard to ascertain, an estimate of 1% is used.

2.2.2. Interpretation of lifecycle economic model Tables 9A and 9B present the lifecycle (20 year) costs of SE and ST cooling systems, respectively, as compared with a grid dependent EHP with highest available COPC = 5.66 (SEER = 19.3). The economic equations for the SE and ST cooling systems are given in Sections 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.1.2, respectively, while input parameters are dened and assigned values in Section 2.2.1.3 The last column in each table lists the present net value of the cooling systems, V0,SE (in Table 9A) or V0,ST (in Table 9B); positive values are net costs and negative values are net savings. 2.2.2.1. Solar electric cooling system. For the conditions of the present analysis, the SE system cannot provide savings compared with the relatively low or middling residential electric rates in the Southeast, South Central, and part of the Desert Southwest (El Paso, TX and Albuquerque, NM). Even in NC, the one state in these regions oering a substantial rebate ($4456), the SE cooling system costs more to the homeowner than a grid dependent COPC = 5.66 (SEER 19.3) heat pump. In AZ and Central and Southern CA, generous subsidies do provide a savings to the homeowner, with payo in 912 years, as indicated by bold numbers in parentheses in the last column following negative V0,SE (net savings) over 20 years. The generous subsidy in NV yields payo at 17 years.

However, the net societal economic eect in all but one location is a cost rather than a savings, determined by adding state and federal subsidies CSE and the V0,SE, ranging from $$200 to $$5600. The only location aording a net societal savings, approx. $1500, is Fresno, CA, representing the average for the huge Central Valley with a population of several million. This is largely due to very high electric rates charged by Pacic Gas & Electric Co. These predictions are sensitive to the electric rate or fuel cost F0,j. An increase in the escalation rate e of electricity, as compared with the interest rate i on investments, would hasten payo, whereas a decrease in the ratio of e to i would extend payo. Long term i has changed little over the past 80 years, whereas e has been much more volatile, especially recently since an ever greater proportion of electricity is generated from gas, which is a highly volatile market. It is assumed in Section 2.2.1.3 that e = 6%, about twice the average ination rate over the past two decades. At e = 6%, electric rates would increase to 321% of present rates over the 20 year projected useful lifetime of the SE cooling system. A nominal ination rate of 3% would raise the price of everything else to 181% of present prices. So, electricity would be 77% (=321%/181%) relatively more expensive in 20 years than it is now. Unless a very pessimistic outlook is taken regarding electric rates, a value of e = 6% seems suciently large. For a 1% reduction of e from 6% to 5%, with i steady at 6%, the net societal savings in the CA Central Valley, the only region aording such savings, is reduced from $1500 to a mere $400. 2.2.2.2. Solar thermal cooling system. The solar thermal cooling system (Table 9B) would pay for itself within 14 years in Fresno, CA (Central Valley), with savings to the homeowner of about $4000. The net societal benet (CST + V0,ST) is about $3200. The ST cooling system also aords a net savings to the homeowner in the eastern Los Angeles basin (e.g., Ontario, San Bernardino, and Riverside). But the payo is 1819 years. And the net societal value is about $0 (nil) to about $600 (a savings). The far and away most advantageous location for a ST cooling system is Hawaii, where the net savings to the homeowner is nearly $9500, which is 52% of the installed cost of about IST = $18,100. The societal savings (CST + V0,ST) is about $7100, about 39% of IST. The payo is 11 years. This signicant savings is due in part to the high electric rate, but also because the climate is tropical, balmy year round, resulting in a large annual cooling load. If e drops from 6% to 5%, while i is constant at 6%, the homeowners savings are reduced to $7400 (41% of IST) and the societal savings are $5000 (28% of IST). The payo is 12 years. 2.2.3. Economic projections 2.2.3.1. Solar electric cooling system. Photovoltaic modules represent $50% of total installed system cost and thus are the principal driver in cost [8]. The remainder of cost is for

1608

Table 9A Net cost over 20 years of solar electric cooling system in comparison with grid dependent electric heat pump for 24 cities across US Sunbelt (south of 37N); negative net cost indicates savings with respect to grid dependent heat pump City Residential electric rate ($/kW h) RaleighDurham, NCa Charleston, SCa Atlanta, GAa Miami, FLb Tampa, FLb Montgomery, ALa Jackson, MSa Nashville, TNa Little Rock, ARa New Orleans, LAa Oklahoma City, OKa Austin, TXa Brownsville, TXb El Paso, TXc Albuquerque, NMc Phoenix, AZc Las Vegas, NVc Fresno, CAd Los Angeles, CAd Burbank/ Glendale, CAd Ontario, CAd San Bernardino, CAd San Diego, CAd Honolulu, HIb 0.0904 Annual electric usage for cooling by SEER 19 H.P. (kW h) 3142 Installed cost of same SEER 19 H.P. 3000 Installed cost of gridtied PV system for cooling and same SEER 19 H.P. 12,731 State credit, rebate, etc. 4456 Federal credit, rebate, etc. 0 Dierential loan amount and assessed value 5275 Annual avg. maintenance, repair, and salvage 166 Net state and federal income tax rate (assume 25% fed. rate) 0.3119 Property tax rate Annual payment Net cost over 20 years with credits, nancing, maintenance, utility savings (years payo) 1309

537

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0.0863 0.0986 0.0907 0.0833 0.0584 0.0720 0.0709 0.0738 0.0982 0.0826 0.1062 0.1054 0.1113 0.1144 0.1231 0.1190 0.2160 0.1718 0.1718

4705 3375 7190 6275 4208 4447 3417 3741 5298 3430 4762 6855 3200 2136 5061 3983 3206 2969 4442

3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3250 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2750 3250 3250 3250 2500 3000

16,660 13,355 21,657 19,996 15,475 16,053 13,466 14,559 17,990 13,500 16,792 21,073 12,888 9633 17,718 15,170 13,153 11,759 16,042

0 500 0 0 0 500 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9859 5952 3832 5176 5311

2000 1500 2000 2000 2000 1500 1500 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 0 0 0 0 0

11,660 8355 16,657 14,996 10,475 11,053 8466 9309 12,990 8500 11,792 16,073 7888 4883 4609 5968 6071 4083 7731

217 174 541 500 201 209 175 189 234 176 218 527 168 125 230 197 171 153 209

0.3025 0.2950 0.2500 0.2500 0.2875 0.2875 0.2500 0.3025 0.2950 0.2999 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.3010 0.2878 0.2500 0.3198 0.3198 0.3198

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0

1188 851 1697 1527 1067 1126 862 948 1323 866 1201 1637 803 497 469 608 618 416 787

6168

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

3849 10,723 10,904 7749 7149 5885 5985 4568 4942 3843 7266 2494 1638 4237 (10) 1008 (17) 5359 (10) 3972 (9) 4782 (11)

21 22

0.1718 0.1718

5067 4732

3250 3250

17,733 16,972

6058 5657

0 0

8425 8065

231 221

0.3198 0.3198

0 0

858 821

5876 (11) 5257 (11)

23 24
a b c d

0.1840 0.1569

2772 7018

2750 2750

11,461 21,111

3313 1750

0 250

5398 16,361

149 528

0.3198 0.3119

0 0

550 1666

2886 (12) 230

Southeastern/south central location; hot, humid summers and mild to moderate winters. Tropical or subtropical climate, balmy year round or most of the year. Southwest Desert; very hot, dry summers and short, cool winters.

Southern California Coast, similar to Mediterranean climate.

Table 9B Net cost over 20 years of solar thermal cooling system in comparison with grid dependent electric heat pump for 24 cities across US Sunbelt (south of 37N); negative net cost indicates savings with respect to grid dependent heat pump City Residential electric rate ($/kW h) Annual electric usage for cooling by SEER 19 H.P. (kW h) 3142 4705 3375 7190 6275 4208 4447 3417 3741 5298 3430 4762 6855 3200 2136 5061 3983 3206 2969 4442 Installed cost of electric H.P. SEER 19 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3250 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2750 3250 3250 3250 2500 3000 Installed cost of EFP solar collectors, adsorption H.P. , and ice reservoir 21,524 27,424 20,602 26,253 24,092 21,235 21,107 19,547 19,611 23,014 17,962 20,297 20,842 13,972 12,279 18,797 16,201 14,247 14,423 19,628 State credit, rebate, etc. Federal credit, rebate, etc. Dierential loan amount and assessed value 10,490 23,924 17,227 22,878 20,717 17,735 17,607 16,047 15,861 19,514 14,462 16,797 17,342 10,597 9154 15,047 12,451 10,372 11,798 16,253 Annual avg. maintenance, repair, and salvage 151 192 144 184 169 149 148 137 137 161 126 142 146 98 86 132 113 100 101 137 Net state and federal income tax rate (assume 25% fed. rate) 0.3119 0.3025 0.2950 0.2500 0.2500 0.2875 0.2875 0.2500 0.3025 0.2950 0.2999 0.2500 0.2500 0.2500 0.3010 0.2878 0.2500 0.3198 0.3198 0.3198 Property tax rate Annual payment Net Cost over 20 years with credits, nancing, maintenance, utility savings (years payo) 4846 16,471

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22

23 24
a b c d

RaleighDurham, NCa Charleston, SCa Atlanta, GAa Miami, FLb Tampa, FLb Montgomery, ALa Jackson, MSa Nashville, TNa Little Rock, ARa New Orleans, LAa Oklahoma City, OKa Austin, TXa Brownsville, TXb El Paso, TXc Albuquerque, NMc Phoenix, AZc Las Vegas, NVc Fresno, CAd Los Angeles, CAd Burbank/ Glendale, CAd Ontario, CAd San Bernardino, CAd San Diego, CAd Honolulu, HIb

0.0904 0.0863 0.0986 0.0907 0.0833 0.0584 0.0720 0.0709 0.0738 0.0982 0.0826 0.1062 0.1054 0.1113 0.1144 0.1231 0.1190 0.2160 0.1718 0.1718

8283 750 625 625 625 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 625 625 750 750 875 375 625

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0

1068 2437 1755 2330 2110 1806 1793 1634 1615 1988 1473 1711 1766 1079 932 1533 1268 1056 1202 1655

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

11,126 11,132 11,443 13,474 11,849 12,133 10,814 8,169 9,234 6211 2403 3177 4518 3160 2648 4048 (14) 839 21

0.1718 0.1718

5067 4732

3250 3250

21,481 19,593

750 750

0 0

17,731 15,843

150 137

0.3198 0.3198

0 0

1806 1614

708 (19) 1329 (18)

0.1840 0.1569

2772 7018

2750 2750

14,950 18,050

625 2375

0 0

11,825 13,175

105 126

0.3198 0.3119

0 0

1204 1342

907 9464 (11)

Southeastern/south central location; hot, humid summers and mild to moderate winters. Tropical or subtropical climate, balmy year round or most of the year. Southwest Desert; very hot, dry summers and short, cool winters. Southern California Coast, similar to Mediterranean climate.

1609

1610

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

inverter ($5%), batteries ($15%), charge controller ($10%), and installation ($20%). From October 2000 through May 2004, the cost of PV modules decreased in real terms (constant dollars) from $5.87/W to a low of $4.94/W. But since then the price has risen to $5.46/W in Oct. 2006, which has been attributed to increased demand for silicon feedstock by the electronics industry that dwarfs the PV industry [8]. The net price change since October 2000 is $0.41/W (7.0%), or 1.2% per annum over the past 6 years. Batteries, inverters, and charge controllers are all mature technologies with nearly static real cost. So, the net price change for complete PV systems with batteries, inverters, and charge controllers has been 0.6% per annum. Extrapolation suggests the economic prospects of PV systems will improve gradually over the next several years, dependent of course on the actual escalation rate e. The price of electric heat pumps in real terms has been fairly constant over several years. The PV industry has lobbied for continued incentives (rebates, tax credits, etc.) on the premise that these will speed market penetration, eventually resulting in substantial price decreases aorded by mass production. Worldwide production has increased 2030% per annum for the past several years, with most of installed capacity ($70%) in energy poor Japan and Germany [8]. Despite steadily increasing production, prices have decreased by only the aforementioned 1% in real terms over the past 5 years. At this pace, the PV industry may become selfsupporting in more advantageous US markets, those with high electric rates (e.g., Central & Southern CA), in perhaps 20 years, well beyond original optimistic projections. 2.2.3.2. Solar thermal cooling system. The installed cost of evacuated at panel (EFP) thermal collectors comprises 4670% of installed cost of a solar thermal cooling system. The installed cost is assumed herein to be a conservatively high $250/m2. But, mass production on the order of tens of thousands of panels per year for sales of 1000+ adsorption heat pumps per year, would justify full automation and associated cost savings. Such savings could readily exceed 10% ($25/m2). So, economic prospects for solar thermal cooling systems would be expected to improve over computations. 3. International applications Interest in the use of solar adsorption chillers for indoor space cooling is still in its formative years, but growing all over the world, driven by the fact that this technology is environmentally friendly and economically advantageous in regions with expensive and perhaps unreliable electricity. Conventional electro-mechanical air conditioning consumes large amounts of electricity, thereby exacerbating utility peaking during summer months, and employs refrigerants that have negative environment eects. Adsorption cooling is also attractive because it can be used year round,

for heating in the winter and for cooling in the summer. As these benets of solar thermal energy become recognized more and more globally, the role of adsorption chillers will become more and more prominent. The German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (http://www.german-renewable-energy.com) estimates that by the end of 2005 about 70 systems were installed in Europe that use solar heat for summer air-conditioning. This low gure suggests that this promising technology is yet to emerge as a viable alternative. The challenges seem to be standardization, cost, reliability, and eciency. The COPC has been improved with the introduction of high eciency heat exchangers. Total eciency ratings can be further improved by including adsorption chillers in co-generation or tri-generation applications. European research has also reduced the footprint by 40% by simplifying the internal design, a factor than can prove to be crucial in crowded inner cities. A sensitive temperature sensor in the high eciency evaporator allows the production of chilled water temperatures as low as almost 3 C (37 F). Miller [10] developed the rst commercial adsorption device, which was used for refrigerated box cars in the USA in the 1920s and 1930s. It fell into disuse after the invention of CFCs in 1931 and national electrication. Adsorption technology started being resurrected in the late 1970s after the oil shocks of 197374. The rst modern commercial device was developed in Japan by the Nishiyodo Kuchoki Corp. of Kyoto in the mid-1980s. Adsorption chillers have started to be recently marketed in Houston, Texas, USA. There are two other USA dealers, both in California. To date, only about ve systems have been installed in the USA. Adsorption chillers were introduced to Europe in the early 1990s, and reportedly scores of successful applications have followed. The rst solar-driven adsorption chiller was engineered and installed at the University of Freiburg. Results were later published by the institutes Hans-Martin Henning and by Hendrik Glaser of Universitatsklinikum Freiburg Geschaftsbereich Technik (Sustainable Habitat Design Advisor, http://www.sustainable-buildings.org/les/). The technology is also setting foot in parts of Asia. In November 2003 the National University of Singapore announced that it is signing licensing agreements for adsorption chillers with ve small and medium-sized enterprises to bring technologies developed within research labs at the University to the market. Limited research has also been initiated in Brazil at the Federal University of Ceara [11]. Ambient data collected daily over 18 years were then divided into hourly values to simulate reactor temperature during adsorption/desorption. The adsorbent was salt impregnated with graphite and the refrigerant was ammonia. The refrigerator operated well in Fortaleza and better results are expected in the countryside of the state of Ceara.

M.A. Lambert, A. Beyene / Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (2007) 15931611

1611

As testimony to the growing role of the adsorption cooling, the International Energy Agencys Solar Heating & Cooling Program included solar driven adsorption chillers in its 2001 Annual Report [12] of research activities. Subtasks B and C of the report mention design tools and simulations, market aspects, and environmental benets for solar assisted air conditioning including adsorption chillers. Because of the global availability of solar energy at least for parts of the year, the environmental benets, and the growing pressure on grid-supplied electricity, adsorption cooling technology has a bright global future. 4. Conclusions Solar electric (SE) and solar thermal (ST) cooling systems aord savings to the homeowner only in states with moderately high and greater electricity prices (NV, AZ, CA, and HI). The net societal cost, the sum of taxpayer funded credits, rebates, etc. (CSE or CST) and the net value for the homeowner (V0,SE or V0,ST), makes such systems self-supporting in an even smaller number of locations. SE cooling system is self-supporting only in the CA Central Valley with CSE + V0,SE % $1500, (negative means savings) over 20 years, largely due to exorbitant electric pricing of $0.216/kW h. ST cooling system is also self supporting in this region of CA, with CSE + V0,SE % $3200 over 20 years. In four-season climates, where cooling is needed during only part of the year, SE cooling systems can bank energy generated during the rest of the year with the utility company, to be drawn upon for cooling when needed. This allows for a smaller PV array. This also assumes a net metering agreement is in eect, already in 39 states and increasing. In such regions, SE cooling systems are economically superior to ST cooling systems, the latter of which cannot bank energy for more than a day in the ice thermal reservoir. However, in tropical and subtropical climates, with cooling required year round, or nearly year round, SE cooling systems cannot bank much energy in the cooler season to be used in the warmer season. On the other hand ST cooling systems are used year round, at or near capacity in the warmer season, and at partial capacity in the cooler season instead of lying idle as in a four-season climate. In such locales, the ST system is vastly economically superior to the SE system. Four such tropical or subtropical regions are included in the present study, Florida (Miami and Tampa), South Texas (Brownsville), and Hawaii. Miami, Tampa, and Brownsville are subtropical with minimum winter cooling loads of only 11-22% of maximum summer cooling load, meaning the ST system is not used very much in winter. Monthly average usage is 53-61% of peak capacity.

Moreover, electricity prices in these three cities are relatively low. But in Hawaii, minimum cooling load in the cooler season is 47% of maximum cooling load, and monthly average usage is 72% of peak capacity. This high usage percentage, coupled with a high electricity price (approaching prices in CA) results in substantial savings. With current subsidies, the saving to the homeowner, V0,ST, is 52% of installed cost IST over the 20 year lifecycle. Without subsidies the net savings to the homeowner is still 39% of IST. Hawaii has a population of 1.2 million, about 3/4 of whom live on Oahu and pay an electricity price of about $0.157/kW h. The other 1/4 of the population pays about $0.224/kW h. Hawaii represents a modest market within the US. But there are a number of tropical countries with high electric prices, and less reliable electric grids than the US, representing a very large market. Examples include Brazil, Equatorial Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and the Pacic Islands. Moreover, ST collectors can be fabricated with common machine tools, not in clean rooms with multi-million dollar semiconductor manufacturing equipment, accessible only in the US, Japan, Western Europe, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Indonesia. References
[1] M.A. Lambert, Design of solar powered adsorption heat pump with ice storage, Journal of Applied Thermal Engineering, in press, doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2006.09.016. [2] J.F. Kreider, P.S. Curtiss, A. Rabl, Heating and Cooling of Buildings: Design for Eciency, second ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2002. [3] J.K. Page, The estimate of monthly mean values of daily total shortwave radiation on vertical and inclined surfaces from sunshine records for latitudes 40N to 40S, Paper No. 35/5/98, in: Proceedings of United Nations Conference on New Sources of Energy, Rome, 1961. [4] B.Y.H. Liu, R.C. Jordan, The interrelationship and characteristic distribution of direct, diuse, and total solar radiation, Solar Energy 4 (3) (1960) 119. [5] E.C. Boes, I.J. Hall, R.R. Prairie, R.P. Stromberg, H.E. Anderson, Distribution of direct and total radiation available for the USA, in: Proceedings of the 1976 Annual Meeting of the American Society of ISES, Sharing the Sun, vol. 1, Winnipeg, August 1520, 1976, pp. 238263. [6] J.R. Howell, R.B. Bannerot, G.C. Vliet, in: Solar-Thermal Energy Systems: Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982, ISBN 0-07-030603-6, p. 100. [7] D. Rapp, in: Solar Energy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ, 1981, ISBN 0-13-822213-4, pp. 326329. [8] www.solarbuzz.com, downloaded 12/18/05 to 10/22/06. [9] www.doe.gov, downloaded 12/20/05. [10] E.B. Miller, The development of silica gel refrigeration, American Society of Refrigeration Engineers 17 (4) (1929). [11] M.E. Vieira, H.B.C. Moreira, Solar refrigerating unit with an adsorption reactor and evacuated tube collectors, Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering 14 (3) (1997). [12] P. Murphy (Ed.), Morse Associates, Inc., 1808 Corcoran Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009, USA, March 2002, IEA/SHC/AR01.