Techno-economic analysis of ground and air source heat pumps in hot dry climates
Techno-economic analysis of ground and air source heat pumps in hot dry climates
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100825
复制
发表时间：
2019-11
影响因子：
6.4
通讯作者：
F. Alshehri;S. Beck;D. Ingham;Lin Ma;M. Pourkashanian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Alshehri;S. Beck;D. Ingham;Lin Ma;M. Pourkashanian
在寒冷气候中使用地源热泵（GSHP）系统，如北美部分地区、斯堪的纳维亚国家和中国，已经讨论了几十年。然而，全球广大地区都有炎热和干燥的气候，但不幸的是，在炎热和干燥地区使用地源热泵系统的研究并不多。本文旨在探讨地源热泵系统在干热地区的可行性，并以沙特阿拉伯为例。本文首次介绍了一项技术经济分析，以评估在这种类型的气候中使用地源热泵与传统空气源热泵（ASHP）系统的比较。为了比较地源热泵系统与其他HVAC替代方案的经济性，在地源热泵和空气源热泵之间进行了直接的资本成本比较。这是基于初始投资、回收期、成本节能和接地回路长度，使用ASHRAE方法对一个简单的案例进行了计算。尽管地源热泵系统的初始资金成本有所增加，但由于地下循环换热器和管道的钻井成本额外昂贵，地源热泵系统的可行性值得研究。结论是地源热泵是可行的，尽管投资回收期较长，通常为10-20年，具体取决于条件、设置和预测。此外，我们还可以看到，与空气源热泵相比，使用地源热泵可以减少二氧化碳排放，并且可以大大降低总成本。
The use of ground source heat pump (GSHP) systems in cold climates, such as those in parts of North America, Scandinavian countries and China has been discussed for decades. However, hot and dry climates are encountered in vast regions across the globe but, unfortunately, not much research has taken place in the use of GSHP systems in hot and dry regions. This paper aims to investigate the feasibility of using GSHP systems in hot and dry regions, and Saudi Arabia is an example. This paper introduces for the first time of a techno-economic analysis to evaluate the use of GSHPs compared to the conventional air source heat pump (ASHP) systems in this type of climate.In order to compare the economics of geothermal heat pump systems to other HVAC alternatives, a direct capital cost comparison is made between an example GSHP and ASHP. This is based on the initial investment, payback period, cost energy saving and length of the ground loop, which was calculated for a simple case using the ASHRAE method. Despite the increase in the initial capital costs of GSHP, because of the extra expensive drilling costs for the ground loop heat exchanger and piping the feasibility of GSHP system is worthy of investigates.It is concluded that the GSHP is feasible, albeit with a long payback period, typically 10–20 years, depending on the conditions, setup and predictions. Also it will be seen that there is a savings in CO2emissions and there may be a substantially decrease in the total costs using GSHP compared to ASHP.