Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 www.elsevier.com/locate/solener Prospects for solar cooling – An economic and environmental assessment Todd Otanicar a,⇑, Robert A. Taylor b, Patrick E. Phelan c b a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA 90045, United States School for Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia c School for Engineering of Matter, Transport and Energy, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, United States Received 25 August 2011; received in revised form 16 November 2011; accepted 21 January 2012 Available online 17 February 2012 Communicated by: Associate Editor Yogi Goswami Abstract Producing refrigeration and/or air conditioning from solar energy remains an inviting prospect, given that a typical building’s cooling load peaks within 2 or 3 h of the time of maximum solar irradiation. The attractiveness of “free” cooling obtained from the sun has spawned a wealth of research over the last several decades, as summarized in a number of review articles. Obstacles—especially high initial costs—remain to the widespread commercialization of solar cooling technologies. It is not clear at the present time if thermally driven systems will prove to be more competitive than electrically driven systems. We therefore describe a technical and economic comparison of existing solar cooling approaches, including both thermally and electrically driven. We compare the initial costs of each technology, including projections about future costs of solar electric and solar thermal systems. Additionally we include estimates of the environmental impacts of the key components in each solar cooling system presented. One measure of particular importance for social acceptance of solar cooling technologies is the required “footprint,” or collector area, necessary for a given cooling capacity. We conclude with recommendations for future research and development to stimulate broader acceptance of solar cooling. The projections made show that solar electric cooling will require the lowest capital investment in 2030 due to the high COPs of vapor compression refrigeration and strong cost reduction targets for PV technology. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Solar cooling; Photovoltaic; Solar thermal; Absorption chiller 1. Introduction Using sunlight to produce cooling is a long-sought goal. Intuitively, the need for cooling is proportional to the solar intensity, thus nearly matching the time of peak cooling demand with the time of maximum sunlight. Given this close coincidence between resource and need, it is no wonder then that considerable effort has been devoted to producing economical solar cooling technologies. These can be divided into roughly two approaches—heat-activated systems which rely on solar thermal energy, such as an ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 310 338 3872. E-mail address:
[email protected] (T. Otanicar). 0038-092X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2012.01.020 absorption refrigeration cycle that is driven primarily by heat input, and work-activated systems like the conventional vapor-compression cycle which requires compressor work input that is normally electrically powered. The question remains as to which approach is more practical, i.e., more economical? The answer to this question depends in part on the scale of the system. Here, we restrict our analysis to a size suitable for a typical single-family residence. In short, our work attempts to provide an answer to this question: for a given climatic zone (here we will assume the southwestern USA), for a typical residence (5 ton, or 17.5 kW of cooling), is it better to use a solar thermal cooling system, or one driven by solar photovoltaic (PV) panels? We base our analysis entirely on the initial cost of all systems are normalized by the same amount of cooling. As such. Their conclusion was that solar thermal cooling. This is compared to the following selected solar–thermal cooling technologies: the first type that we consider is based on a solid desiccant. The second type of thermally driven system is absorption cooling. an extensive evaluation of solar cooling technologies coupled with building cooling demand for Hong Kong (Fong et al. creates a “thermal compressor” that replaces a conventional electrically driven compressor.. Water is sprayed into the dehumidified air stream. again at the residential scale.. we consider both NH3/H2O and H2O/aqueous LiBr types of absorption cycles. operation and (ideally) maintenance costs of a solar cooling system are low when compared to the initial capital cost. Henning. We believe this is appropriate since solar systems essentially require the user to come up with lifetime system costs up front while fuel/electricity costs are usually negligible. 2007. 2009) – especially in comparison of the various solar thermal systems (Anyanwu. Florides et al. 1983). The third. It is not expected that the maintenance costs over the life of the systems will be significantly different enough to alter the results and are not considered in the resulting analysis. and electrical storage for the PV-driven system—are included in the analysis. compared with an NH3/H2O absorption system. The study that is the closest in intent to the present work is also the oldest report that we have discovered. Papadopoulos et al. did not seem to be considered in this analysis. rather than by a vapor compressor that requires much more mechanical input. in effect. 1988. upon consideration of both the initial and operating costs that a PV-assisted vapor-compression system could be cost-competitive with an absorption system driven by solar thermal energy. compared with a number of solar thermal technologies. Pesaran and Neymark. as that has been admirably done in a number of publications (Balaras. where the refrigerant vapor is adsorbed onto the surface of a solid adsorbent.. type of thermally driven system is the adsorption cycle.. 1995. In all cases. 2000. 2. and did not provide a rigorous comparison between thermal and PV systems. Klein and Reindl (2005) concluded that only PV-driven cooling would be viable for providing sub-zero (freezing) solar refrigeration. The first type of solar cooling technology considered is PV-driven air conditioning. are more competitive than the other solar cooling technologies. Gordon and Ng. Fong et al. 2008. Rather. means for storing energy—thermal storage for the thermally driven systems. 2001. Kim and Ferreira. Cost.1288 T. Comparisons for both current costs as well as projected future costs are presented. That is. Critoph. some notable exceptions. however. As mentioned above. which when heated desorbs the vapor and thus pressurizes the vessel in which the vapor is contained. 2004a. Best and Ortega. Halliday et al. in particular a single-effect H2O/aqueous LiBr absorption system. and a second thermal system in which solar heat powers a Rankine cycle that in turn provides mechanical input to a vaporcompression cycle. an economic comparison between solar thermal and solar PV cooling systems. this is the ASTM standard flux value. Hwang et al.58 kW). It is first instructive to provide a brief review of solar cooling technologies. thus lowering its temperature and providing a cooling effect. which generate electricity that is distributed to conventional vapor compression units at the point of use. There are. in which the refrigerant vapor is absorbed into a liquid. No clear conclusions were reached after a fairly rigorous evaluation of cost and other variables.. 2007. As described below. More details on the refrigeration cycles and storage systems are provided below. followed next by H2O/silica gel adsorption and double-effect H2O/aqueous LiBr absorption systems. this analysis considers performance and initial costs for a number of different types of solar cooling technologies. we focus on a strictly economic comparison (first cost) between solar–thermal-driven and solar–PV-driven air conditioning technologies. Much later. however. Hang et al. based on both technical and economic considerations. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 the system. 2002. in which solar heat is used to regenerate the desiccant after it has absorbed water from an incoming air stream. 2003. The solar irradiance is assumed to be a peak value of 1000 W/m2. and using a constant flux value such as . 2011. including PV-driven systems. and final. Casals (2006) compared local (decentralized) solar absorption cooling with cooling provided by centralized solar thermal power plants. Srikhirin. 1999. Economic analysis The economic analysis focuses on current and projected costs for the equipment associated with the proposed solar powered cooling schemes outlined in Figs. The results to date are mixed.. 2009). In a somewhat similar manner. perhaps more importantly. 2010. Kim and Ferreira (2008) reported a comprehensive study of several solar thermal and solar PV cooling systems. Klein and Reindl. Zhai and Wang. relatively few studies have undertaken a technical and.. This. motivating our interest to conduct further analysis. Otanicar et al. Finally. In summary. Most previous studies of solar air conditioning tended to focus on just thermally driven technologies. 2009. We do not attempt here an extensive technical review. 2008. This type of system uses a conventional vapor compression air conditioning cycle in which the electrical input is provided by solar PV panels. 2005. 2002. 2002. 2010) reported that solar PV-driven systems had the greatest potential to deliver the highest annual energy savings. It was found. 1 and 2.. as it was published in 1983 (Ayyash and Sartawi.. Thus. the amount of cooling to be provided by these systems is 5 tons (17. Grossman. Wang et al.b. but will have different solar collector area and storage capacity requirements to deliver the necessary energy. Desideri et al. This ideal condition is chosen because solar cooling will be most likely sited in high flux locations. thus allowing its pressure to be economically increased by a pump. These three technologies comprise the power input side of the solar cooling system. Schematic of potential solar photovoltaic cooling system. Regulations on new installations of air conditioners require COP values of at least 3 ( Energy Savers.T. and battery bank. the output throughout the year for each system is not considered. Program. Since the heart of the analysis is to determine the initial (capital) cost variation. inverter. 2020 and 2030 respectively (Solar Photovoltaic Roadmap. efficiency values of 17%. Since research and development into photovoltaic technology has been widely supported by a variety of government research agencies. The projections for battery efficiency reveal relatively stable levels of efficiency for PV systems at 80%. In order to achieve a stable cooling solution we also include a storage system capable of providing up to 8 h of energy storage. but readers are referred to the detailed performance analysis in Fong et al. Projections for new technologies being developed for large-scale energy storage suggest 80% efficiency is a reasonable expectation (U.S. The required electrical power output from the PV system is determined . 2. this will make comparison between various technologies straight forward. while the vapor compression refrigeration unit is the actual cooling system. 2006). 2010).1. inverter.C. 1. albeit at greater expense (Infinity Series Central Air Conditioner. Based on the International Energy Agency projections for single crystal silicon PV modules. 2. 19% and 21% are used for years 2010. the efficiencies referenced are used in combination with the peak solar flux and cooling load. 1 the solar electric system is comprised of four major components: PV modules. Fig. To determine the size of the PV collector. Schematic of potential solar thermal cooling system. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 1289 Fig. battery and vapor compression cooling system.T. These efficiencies form the basis for calculating the necessary system sizes given the desired cooling demand and input solar irradiance. The inverters used in most PV systems have already achieved high levels of efficiency (90% by 2010) with projections forecasting efficiencies at levels of 95–98% by 2020–2030 (Navigant. Solar photovoltaic systems As shown in Fig. 2010). Otanicar et al. many efficiency forecasts and projections are available. (2010). 2005). 2010) while systems with COPs nearing 6 are readily commercially available. For each of these four components it is necessary to determine the current efficiency or coefficient of performance (COP) and to project these values into 2030. Of course. COP. 4 shows. 2004. Savings Calculator..55/W) (Navigant.9/W) (Solar Photovoltaic Roadmap. Wang et al. Otanicar et al.85/W). can be found with the following: qcool ð2Þ APV ¼ COP gst ginv gpv gsun where gPV is the PV efficiency and qsun is the input solar irradiance. 2020 – $0. 2009).. Because of this. one must define the temperatures needed to run the thermal A/C system. the solar array. In general. no particular combination of these components has proven dominant. Fig. The resulting component costs for current and future years of solar PV cooling are displayed in Fig. not including the inverter. Nonetheless. and concentrating collectors. . falling into the medium temperature class of collectors. 2004a.65/W ($0. a thermal storage tank. 2020 – $1. evacuated tube collectors. ginv is the inverter efficiency. It should be noted that the efficiency for any thermal collectors goes down as the temperature difference between the working fluid and the ambient is increased. 2009). a thermal system can absorb over 95% of the incoming radiation (Duffie and Beckman. Again the above equation is only used to determine the output power from the PV system. and a heat exchange system to transfer energy between components and the conditioned space. but most have been built and tested over the years (Anyanwu. In order to choose between these. 2010. 2010). 2: a solar collector array.b. a solar thermal cooling system consists of four basic components as shown in Fig. 2002. 2008). Since the purpose of a thermal collector is to convert light into heat (which is rather easy to do) thermal collectors have no such limitation. 2. and 2030 – $0. can vary significantly in complexity. Projection of PV System Prices. the efficiency of thermal collectors improves as the ambient temperature is increased. 2007).2.e. most concentrating collectors are expected to be too expensive as an input for residential solar cooling systems.35/W). and gst the storage efficiency. and 2030 – $1. 1988. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 only from the cooling demand. what happens to the solar spectrum when it strikes a conventional PV collector.45/ W). roughly.. 2001. Options for the first component. A challenging aspect of compiling the economic projections are the wide variety of data sources as well as determining what components (for example PV projections often are for the full system including inverter) are included..25/W ($1. 2007). Critoph. the sizing of the PV system itself is completely tied to the PV system efficiency. This is an additional reason for using a ceiling-floor approach. 2006. Inverter prices are drawn from a variety of projections based on current prices as well as from the target price goals set forth by the United States Department of Energy. an approach was taken that looks at the ceiling and floor estimates of the projections to determine ranges of potential overall costs. Srikhirin. One can see that much of the incoming solar power is converted to heat and cannot be used to generate electricity in a PV system. In each component category there are several options. The cost of the 5-ton vapor compression refrigeration system with a COP of 3 is considered to have a present and future unit cost of $3501 (EnergyStar.81/W ($2. storage efficiency and inverter efficiency: qcool ð1Þ QPV ¼ COP gst ginv where qcool is the ideal cooling energy. These options can be roughly categorized as the following: flat plate. Depending on the absorbing medium. the largest decrease in cost comes from the PV module itself while the decrease in the cost of the inverter has less impact. At present. selected flat plate collectors. evacuated tube.58/W). Itron.2/W ($0. another important aspect of system adoption. Due to the relatively stable and widespread use of electrical energy storage costs for battery storage are projected to remain constant at $150/kW h (Ton et al. the following values are taken as the prices for the noted year (the ceiling prices are in parentheses): 2010 – $4. 2010) while it is assumed that a system with a COP of 6 will be three times the cost (EnergyStar. Joshi et al. a thermal air conditioning unit. For the PV module. The footprint of the system (i.. and concentrating collectors of low concentration are all technically viable options. and are assumed as the following: 2010 – $0.25/W ($0. Due to the added complexity of tracking. the collector area APV). Solar thermal systems The main promise of using thermal systems is that they can utilize more of the incoming sunlight than photovoltaic systems.1290 T.. 2010. not all of this is converted to useful energy due to inefficiencies/losses along the way. In a similar method the amount of power into the inverter required to meet the cooling load can be found as follows: qcool qinv ¼ ð3Þ COP ginv The amount of energy stored can be found based on the assumption that 8 h of cooling capacity will be stored: Qst ¼ tst qcool COP gst ginv ð4Þ where tst is the storage time.e.. Halliday et al. As displayed. In most cases this is between 60 and 100 °C – i. These three parameters form the basis for calculating the cost associated for each component of the proposed solar cooling system. Thus. Savings Calculator. 2006). The associated costs for each component are based on estimates from a variety of references that compile average prices as well as generate forecasts of projected prices. Looking at this fact the other way. Itron. This is opposite to how PV modules respond to ambient temperature changes. collection efficiencies for commercial solar thermal collectors are generally more than double that of crystalline photovoltaic solar collectors (Choudhury et al.8/W ($5. 3. a1. qsun. it will pull 210 kW h energy out of a cold storage tank. (Note: If COP is greater than unity. 2006): gtc ¼ ao a1 Tm Ta ðT m T a Þ2 a2 qsun qsun ð5Þ That is. This means a significant reduction in tank size. cold storage will require a smaller volume tank than hot storage for low COP systems. hot storage would be a more efficient system design choice – akin to storing electricity as discussed above. if ice storage is used. the COP of the thermal A/ C system is decreased because the system is forced to oper- . To estimate future efficiencies we have extended the trends of historic efficiency improvement (assuming a logarithmic shaped curve).) Fig. the thermal storage tank. a2. a2 = 4. gtc. Since most thermal A/C systems have COPs less than unity. we will assume solar thermal collection efficiency can be approximated by the following general equation (Duffie and Beckman. and EIA (2010). in the solar collector and the ambient temperature. a1 = 0. For our analysis we chose the following constants to represent selected commercial evacuated tube and flat plate collectors. Solar spectrum used in a PV system. It is also a function of the solar irradiance.T. These constants account for different geometries and collector types. Ta.83 and 3. if 300 kW h of thermal energy is put into an A/C system with a COP of 0. Tm. 2006). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend. 5 – data were collected from AET (2011). If constants a1 and a2 are large. we will assume that we need a storage system which can store cold.39 and 0.9 103. For example. Otanicar et al. the reader is referred to the web version of this article. we assume thermal collector efficiency. Current and projected component and storage costs of solar electric technologies (blue-inverter component cost.) That is. we will limit our analysis to using water. solar thermal collection efficiencies are expected to stay in the range of 20–40% between now and 2030. This projection is shown in Fig. all things being equal. Thus.7 103 and 1. respectively: a0 = 0. mainly involve the type of storage medium and the temperatures desired. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 1291 Fig. Because of its low environmental impact and high specific heat.39. assuming the storage medium has the same approximate storage capacity per unit volume at those temperatures. red-PV collector component cost. In this analysis we will consider sensible chilled water storage and ice (water) storage for the cold storage. To find common ground between different designs.7. and constants a0. Of course. black-battery storage cost). The efficiency of the thermal collector is expected to increase over time. Energy distribution from (Duffie and Beckman. however. 4. Options for the second component. collector efficiency will drop off quickly at high operating temperature. 3. is a function of the difference between the mean temperature. Apricus (2011). Note: this range is valid for the outlet temperatures that are needed to run a thermal A/C system.69. and a thermal wheel which heats and cools inward and outward flows. the COP is defined as the following: q COP ¼ cool ð7Þ qth where qcool is the heat removed from the conditioned space and qth is the heat input to the thermal A/C system. After the thermal wheel. For this analysis. In this analysis all the systems will provide the same amount of cooling (5 tons) to be directly comparable to each other and to the PV system discussed above. Absorption Both absorption cycles that we are using in this study work in a similar manner. this hot air passes through the desiccant wheel so that it can dry the desiccant material on its way out of the cycle. In both cases. the main differences between them are found in their overall COP and their necessary fluid input temperature. One assumption made in using this equation is that we are in a linear region where (all things being equal) changing the cold side temperature proportionally changes the COP. humid. Otanicar et al. and adsorption cooling. water is now the absorbent and NH3 is the refrigerant. cool. Another important parameter is the efficiency of storage. and a represent ice conditions (0 °C). the air is cooled further by being re-humidified. 5. Current and projected efficiencies for the thermal A/C systems and medium temperature solar thermal collectors. When .2. it goes to the thermal wheel which pre-cools this dry. In general.. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 Fig. respectively. Warm. the job of the compressor (in a conventional vapor compression system) is replaced by an absorber and a generator.2. Concentrated absorbent enters the absorber. Lastly. each solar-powered A/C unit operates as follows. As such. conditioned air is humidified to saturation and is used to cool off the thermal wheel. This is accounted for in our analysis by de-rating the system efficiency by a fraction of the Carnot COP at the given temperature. normal cold-side operating conditions (5– 25 °C). normal. toplevel view of these systems. and the absorber temperature input conditions (60–85 °C). 2. LiBr is the absorbent and water is the refrigerant. warm air.2. absorption using ammonia (NH3). Desiccant A desiccant system is usually an open cycle where two wheels turn in tandem – a desiccant wheel containing a material which can effectively absorb water. The main difference between them is which substances are used as the refrigerant and absorbent. we will need to assume that the storage tank is big enough to store 8 h worth of cooling. outside air enters the desiccant wheel where it is dried by the desiccant material. 2003). ate at a lower temperature. our analysis will include the following potential cooling options: Desiccant. the now warm humid air is heated further by solar heat in the regenerator.1292 T. In order to meet demand overnight. Briefly. In an NH3 absorption system.1. When leaving. which is connected to the evaporator. If we take a simple. The following equation is used to do this: COP ice ¼ COP normal T ice T a T ice T normal T a T normal ð6Þ where the subscripts ice. Options for the thermal A/C component are the real focus of this study. 2. This equation was derived from the Carnot efficiency of absorption refrigeration systems (Carmargo et al. Next. one can expect to get back 90% of the energy that was put into storage. Next. absorption using lithium bromide (LiBr). This means that over the course of a day. we will conservatively assume that the round trip efficiency of the storage system is 90%. In an LiBr system. 7 kW hth/m3 as compared to 85. the mixture moves to the generator where solar heat is supplied to boil off the refrigerant. 2011). however. while adsorption system COP is improving the fastest. (2001).2. counter-flow heat exchanger with an effectiveness of 0. desiccant cooling systems currently have the highest COP and are projected to keep that advantage. the heat exchange system cost is assumed to be accounted for in the other components. Liquid refrigerant goes back into the evaporator. the price floor (and ceiling) prices for storage are the following: 2010 – $25.. are numerous as well.75/kW hth ($116.. Once this reaches the proper temperature/pressure the refrigerant desorbs and leaves this container as pressurized vapor. 1293 A similar ceiling-floor approach is used to determine current and future costs of each system component. 2003). the vapor has been compressed with thermal energy. Garday and Housley. Absorption system COP is found between the adsorption and desiccant systems with relatively minor differences projected between LiBr and NH3 into 2030. where it can be used again to take in heat from the conditioned space.9 (Geankoplis. Overall.. Alsema et al. Thermal storage prices are estimated to currently be $1585/m3 ($6/gallon) (Hot Water Tank Price. Thus.15/kW hth ($129. Our assumptions for thermal A/C unit COP improvements to 2030 (assumed to follow logarithmic curves) are shown in Fig.84/Wth). In our analysis we considered the thermal collectors. (2010). which completes the loop. Florides et al. we will conservatively assume the unit will have a constant price over time. Options for the final component. 2005.23/kW hth). Kalogirou. and the cost of thermal storage to be the main contributors to the thermal cooling capital cost. This vapor then travels to a condenser where it turns to liquid by rejecting heat to the surroundings. Zalba.81/kW hth) . 2006..50/Wth ($0. The results of this approach are shown in Fig. Many researchers and companies have developed heat exchangers which can be optimized for almost any application. As mentioned above.68/Wth ($0.94/kW hth).42/Wth of cooling (Carmargo et al. This makes a very large difference since more energy can be stored per cubic meter with latent storage – 11. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 refrigerant is boiled off in the evaporator (removing heat from the conditioned space).1 kW hth/m3. since with the exception of some absorption systems. 5. the following values are taken as floor (and ceiling) prices for the given year: 2010 – $0. 2003) and we estimate this price will fall at 1% per year to 2030. an adsorption unit – $1. The following costs were assumed for each 5-ton unit: a LiBr absorption unit – $1. 2007. 2010. vapor (of relatively high pressure) then moves to the LiBr/water absorber where it is absorbed. That is. It is important. the ceiling price reflects storage using chilled water as sensible heat (with a temperature change of 10 °C) and the floor price is for latent heat in ice (water) storage.. Wang et al.83/Wth ($0. Environmental impact Although the economic cost represents one of the major obstacles preventing widespread adoption of solar cooling systems more and more emphasis will be placed on the environmental impact of future refrigeration systems. Fong et al. but not necessary. (2003).T. 2004) while only limited studies have assessed the impact of the cooling technologies themselves (Florides et al.95/Wth) (EIA. to include a heat exchanger effectiveness since it increases the size and cost of the thermal collector array and the thermal storage system to make up for heat exchange losses. High-pressure refrigerant vapor then travels to the condenser where heat is rejected to the surroundings to condense the refrigerant back to liquid. low-pressure liquid refrigerant then flows over the evaporator which pulls heat from the conditioned space to boil off the refrigerant. it will take many more Watts or kWatt–hrs to achieve the same cooling effect. Heikkila. 2. and 2030 – $20.89/Wth). Robur (2011). 2011). A summary of the range of component efficiencies and costs for both the solar thermal and solar electric cooling systems can be found in Table 1. Note that these prices are deceptively low since they are normalized on a per thermal W (Wth) or kW h (kW hth). These categories address the following impacts: life- . The environmental impact of utilizing solar energy as a means to offset fossil fuel usage has seen widespread investigation (see e. Henning et al.$22. the COP is likely to increase over time. and 2030 – $0. and a desiccant unit – $1. Adsorption In this cycle. 2003). Tchernev (1979). and Yazaki (2011). In order to provide a more broad approach to the environmental impact of solar cooling.3. 2010). Data for historic trends come from Balaras (2007). Pita (1991). since thermal A/C units run at a much lower COP. Thermal A/ C system (5-ton) costs are difficult to estimate. Note that diurnal cycles are convenient. 2020.28/Wth of cooling (Robur.g. Based on historic improvements. Sozen (2001). 6. (2010). The major difference between our estimated ceiling and floor price is in sensible versus latent thermal storage.. the diurnal adsorption cooling cycle is complete. Ardente et al. That is. Otanicar et al. Harrison and Sasaki (1978). For the thermal collectors. 2002. according to our assumptions. a NH3 absorption unit – $0. Since we intend to exchange heat between two liquids we will simply pick a good parallel-plate. the heat exchange systems. 3. That is. The refrigerant vapor can then be adsorbed again by the cool adsorbent material easily at night. 2010). Next. 2004). Fthenakis and Alsema. Carmargo et al.14/Wth of cooling (Wang et al. the most important parameter in this analysis is the COP.14/Wth of cooling (Yazaki. 2020 – $0. Since cost trends in that area are hard to predict with little historic data to draw from. Thus. the A/C unit. not many commercial systems are on the market. Expanded. solar heat is directed to a sealed container containing solid adsorbent saturated with refrigerant.59/kW hth ($105. 2005. four categories are investigated for their respective impact on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. (2002). Thus. have the advantage of not having any associated GWP (Bovca et al. It should be noted that the embodied energy of the mechanical equipment associated with each of the different refrigeration systems is assumed to be equal. 1999). 4. the indirect effects from any backup power supplied to the chiller.. this is less important as PV system prices . Fthenakis and Alsema. while the use of a desiccant system would not be expected to lead to any GWP either. 2005) while lead-acid batteries result in 24 g CO2/kW h of stored electrical energy (Rydh. Likely replacements such as R-410A are noted to have lower ozone impact but similar GWP and will not have a drastic result on the projected equivalent carbon dioxide release over the life of the system (Bovca et al. The associated costs of storage can be found in a similar fashion with thermal storage having an embodied energy resulting in 66– 77 g CO2/kW hth of stored thermal energy (Ardente et al.. Current and projected component and storage costs of solar thermal technologies (blue-thermal A/C component cost. the direct impact of the refrigerants used. and lastly. First. 2010). Thus. As can be seen all of the numbers are normalized based on the energy output of the component while it is useful to normalize the results in terms of the cooling provided based on the component outputs (input energy to refrigeration system).. 2005). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend.) time (20 years) impact of solar collection. 3. the reader is referred to the web version of this article. Based on the results of Florides et al. 6. Kalogirou. is shown below: g CO2 g CO2 1 ¼ kW hcooling kW hinput COP ð8Þ In addition to the component environmental impacts the impact of any used refrigerant on potential global warming can be assessed based on the global warming potential (GWP) of the refrigerant. Results and discussion The results of the cost projections for solar electric cooling are shown in Fig. 2007) of the refrigerant. 2005. (2002) the impact of using R-22 in a 5-ton refrigeration system can be estimated at 18 g CO2/kW h of cooling provided. while the thermal systems all assume natural gas backup at 170 g CO2/kW h of natural gas energy consumed (EPA. which accounts for the cooling system COP. This normalization. The environmental cost associated with utilizing PV cells to produce electricity has been projected to have anywhere from 25 to 35 g CO2/ kW h of electricity produced over the lifetime of the cell (Alsema et al. The thermal systems that use refrigerants. 70% efficiency.1294 T. 7. and 6 kW h/m2/day of irradiance) (Ardente et al.. Otanicar et al. as outlined in Fig. Two major observations can be made from the projections. Second. the cooling system cost decreases in a similar fashion. 2006. As R-22 is phased out of use due to the large ozone impact other refrigerants may scale this number based on the GWP (Bovca et al. 2004). For the PV systems the indirect effect is comprised of the CO2 emissions related to the creation of electricity. 2007). we have not factored it into any of the forthcoming discussions. black lines-storage costs). However. set at 784 g CO2/ kW h of electricity used. red-solar thermal collector component cost. 2007). / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 Fig.. absorption and adsorption. as the projected price of the solar module goes down. while solar thermal collectors are projected to have embodied energy requirements resulting in 12 g CO2/kW h of thermal energy provided over the lifetime (this assumes a 20year life. the lifetime (20 years) impact of the storage system.. the COP of the vapor compression system has a drastic effect on the overall system cost for current PV prices. EnergyStar. As a percentage of the overall system cost the PV component represents greater than 69% and 52% of the total cost for 2010 for a system with a COP of 3 and 6 respectively. (2008) and Duffie and Beckman (2006) Gordon and Ng (2000). whereas. Otanicar et al.22 $25. at most 20 MWth of thermal collectors are installed (depending on efficiency numbers) (EIA. It should be noted that NH3 absorption systems are of lower cost simply because the A/C unit price is much lower $5000 compared to $20. Fig. Srikhirin (2001) Anyanwu (2004a) $0. (2002). while desiccant-based systems are the most affordable. Current and projected cooling system costs for solar electric cooling.61 $20. Carmargo et al. Energy Savers (2010) and Infinity Series Central Air Conditioner (2010) Zhai and Wang (2009) Anyanwu (2004a) – Anyanwu (2004b) and Critoph (1988) Pesaran and Neymark (1995).76–0.83 Gordon and Ng (2000). conventional vapor compression units compete in a large.80/W Solar thermal collector 26–38% $217–317/m2 Inverter Battery Thermal storage Vapor compression cooling Absorption cooling (LiBr) 90–98% 80% 90% 3–6 U.000 Joshi et al. 2010). Additionally decreasing cost projections for PV systems lead to large cost reduction potential whereas little cost reduction is forecast in the solar thermal technologies leading to relatively flat cost projections. Further. as the cost of the PV system decreases the difference between a high performance and an average vapor compression system is minimized.T. particularly ammonia absorption and desiccant-based systems are . For solar electric cooling the COP of the system has a large impact on the system cost due to the large impact on the PV system cost. Program (2005). The adsorption system has the highest projected and current costs mainly due to the low COP. 8A shows the cost projections for absorption-based technologies and reveals very minor differences in the overall costs of cooling. In terms of overall cost it appears that solar–thermal-based cooling systems. especially for systems with lower COP values. (2010) Gordon and Ng (2000) and Joshi et al.40–0. Fig. These projected reductions are much lower than those for PV cooling.S.000 for a LiBr system.C. where thermal A/C units are rarely found. System/component Efficiency/COP range Reference Cost range References Photovoltaic cell 11–21% Pesaran and Neymark (1995) $1. neighborhood of those expected by the International Energy Agency. (2009) Gordon and Ng (2000) and AET (2011) decrease-shown by the merging of the two COP-based cost projections. (2008) Absorption cooling (NH3) 0.503 Zhai and Wang (2009). 7. Almost 1 GW of solar PV has been installed in the United States. Duffie and Beckman (2006) and Choudhury et al.000 Ton et al.06–1.25–4. Kim and Ferreira (2008). Kim and Ferreira (2008). This demonstrates that as the PV cost is reduced the remaining components begin to have larger impacts. (2003) Ayyash and Sartawi (1983) $20. mature residential market.75/W $150/kW h $21–135/kW h $3501–10. (2009) EIA (2010). due to the highest value of COP for the thermal systems. The cost reductions over time are in the Fig. Srikhirin (2001) Wang et al. Itron (2007). Ton et al.000 AET (2011) 0. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 1295 Table 1 Component efficiency and cost ranges. Itron (2007). Savings Calculator (2010). 2007). That is. (2009) Desiccant/evaporative cooling 1. Comparing the costs of cooling for solar electric and thermal systems reveals some important considerations regarding solar cooling. 8B compares the cooling costs of adsorption and desiccant-based systems. In 2030 these percentages are reduced to 40% and 23% for a system with a COP of 3 and 6 respectively. 8A and B shows the costs for the solar thermal cooling technologies.62 $5000 EnergyStar.57–0.20–0. Fig. This is likely due to the fact that the market is much smaller for the components in a thermal cooling system.T. Halliday et al. The IEA projects a drop of 35–45% reduction in total system cost for solar thermal cooling by 2030 (IEA. Savings Calculator (2010) Adsorption cooling 0. That is. Fig.6 times the footprint. currently competitive with solar electric systems using high performance vapor-compression systems. Some of the disadvantage in COP of the thermal systems is made up in the higher collection efficiency of solar thermal collectors in comparison to a PV system. While the difference in cost of the proposed systems represents an important factor in the decision of installing a solar cooling system it is also important to consider the collector footprint or area necessary. The results of Table 2 show the associated amount of CO2 needed for the production and operation of the solar collection. This can especially be noted in the desiccant based system with a COP near 1 requiring nearly triple the energy input of COP = 3 solar electric system but needing only about 1. Otanicar et al. 8. Footprint of solar collector to meet 5-ton cooling load. . 9 shows the projected areas for the discussed systems with the PV systems typically requiring half of the area as a thermal based system. The electric systems all have high COPs resulting in lower collector energy requirements than a thermal system of the same load. By 2030 the costs of solar electric cooling will decrease to levels at or below that of solar thermal cooling for both COP level vapor compression systems. Again this is almost entirely due to the COP of the system. given our assumptions.1296 T. 9. Current and projected cooling system costs for solar thermal cooling: (A) absorption systems (LiBr darker shade) and (B) desiccant and adsorption systems. Table 2 presents the results for the total CO2 impact for each proposed solar cooling system analyzed. This shows total CO2 release Fig. storage. One metric that can be used is the amount of carbon dioxide associated with each system. and refrigeration system (refrigerant impact only) based on the amount of cooling energy provided. In addition to the importance of the economic cost the environmental impact of the technologies needs to also be considered. we predict that solar PV-powered cooling will become more cost effective than thermal-based systems going forward. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 Fig. 2004a. M. 2011. In: 21st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference. For solar electric cooling the system cost is highly dependent on the system COP when PV prices remain at the current levels. Alsema. Solar Hot Water Evacuated Tube Collector Technical Information.62 19 106 0 323 0. <http://www. the lower COP of the thermal-based cooling systems results in larger indirect effects. Apricus. Although natural gas results in lower values of CO2 for a given amount of energy in comparison to electricity. E.. have a lower projected emission value of carbon dioxide per kW hth of cooling than any of the thermal technologies. For solar thermal cooling the cost of solar collection is much lower as a percentage of the overall cost. <http://www. expected sizes in 2010 are between 24 and 48 m2 – depending on system COP. One additional favorable aspect to solar electric cooling systems is the collector area footprint.. Conclusions The results of the economic and environmental analysis of a variety of solar cooling schemes reveal some key details regarding system choice. Storage (g CO2/ kW h cooling) Direct effect (g CO2 eq/ kW h cooling) Indirect Effect (g CO2/ kW h cooling) 8 18 261 6 4 18 131 0. Alternative Energy Technology. The major reason for this is due to the much larger COP values associated with solar electric cooling. For solar PV systems. Environmental impacts of PV electricity generation – a critical comparison of energy supply options. From an environmental standpoint solar electric cooling.. Energy Conversion and Management 45. Anyanwu. de Wild-Scholten. E. but when prices are lowered the impact of COP becomes diminished. V. 2006. Thus. 2004b. even with the associated impact of refrigerants with global warming impact.apricus. E. References AET. Otanicar et al. If the costs of refrigeration were to come down as well as thermal refrigeration COP increases. 301–312.aetsolar. if solar thermal systems are to be cost-competitive by 2030. Energy Conversion and Management 44. but the cost of the refrigeration system often represents a larger percentage of the cost. Acknowledgment PEP gratefully acknowledges partial support provided by Arizona Public Service.76 16 87 0 263 0.T. It should be noted that the proposed system would have enough storage capacity to not require backup during normal operation but if periods of low daytime irradiance occurred the resulting backup energy to create cooling is captured by the indirect effect. The impact of COP is also reflected in the comparison of the thermal systems since the highest COP systems (absorption) result in the lowest values of CO2 impact.J. The impact of CO2 is only one metric for evaluating the environmental impact and it should be noted that each technology has additional issues resulting in a variety of environmental concerns. especially to values greater than 1.M.57 21 116 0 351 0. it could be expected that solar thermal cooling costs would be competitive with solar electric cooling costs. Flat Plate Solar Thermal Collector Technical Information. even when the global warming impact of the refrigerant is included. 1279–1295. Anyanwu. Review of solid adsorption solar refrigerator II: an overview of the principles and theory. Review of solid adsorption solar refrigerator I: an overview of the refrigeration cycle. . was found by looking at the amount of CO2 released from electricity or natural gas consumption. Germany. Dresden. 2011. Inc. COP improvements and/or thermal collector costs will need to see some considerably favorable shift(s) beyond current trends. This is mainly due to the high values of COP associated with vapor-compression refrigeration resulting in smaller collectors and energy storage mechanisms. On the other hand. Additionally the indirect CO2 impact. 5. Fthenakis. solar thermal system footprints are expected to be between 78 and 106 m2.45 27 147 0 444 System/component COP Collector (PV includes inverter) (g CO2 eq/kW h cooling) PV-electric (vapor compression with battery) PV-electric (vapor compression with battery) Flat plate thermal (Li Br absorption) Evacuated tube thermal (NH3 absorption) Flat plate thermal (adsorption) Flat plate thermal (desiccant/evaporative) 3 12 6 per kW hth of cooling for solar electric cooling is less than the other systems analyzed. htm>.com/ AEseries. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 1297 Table 2 Environmental impacts of proposed solar cooling components..html>. Additionally the costs for solar thermal cooling are not projected to decrease as much as PV cooling over the next 20 years due to the relatively stable cost of collection and storage. resulting from emissions if backup energy is needed.com/html/solar_collector_efficiency.. D. 2004. 279–288. USA. 2008.C. 53–62. Tchernev. U.gov/your_home/space_heating_cooling/index. Zhao. Carmargo. Solar Energy 84..-M. S.A. Transport Processes and Separation Process Principles. Ton. Economical and environmental assessment of an optimized solar cooling system for a medium-sized benchmark office building in Los Angeles.K.A.A.. C. IEA. 1734–1749. B. Lee. C. Henning. J. Harrison. International Journal of Refrigeration 31. Garday. C..P.. Potential of solar cooling systems for peak demand reduction. 2010. Beccali. Hot Water Tank Price. 2008. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 5. Srikhirin. Thermal Storage System Provides Emergency Data Center Cooling. R. Sozen. Review of solar cooling technologies. 2004–2030.. Cabello..cfm?c=cac. 1999. 2006. J.F. PRO Chiller Line.. 2010.energystar.. Proietti. 2003. Home Depot. Comparative life cycle assessment of commonly used refrigerants in commercial refrigeration systems. Chan. 2009..gov/cneaf/ solar.S. Wang. Australia. Ge.1298 T..cfm/ mytopic=12440>. Fthenakis.T. J. Performance limitations of adsorption cycles for solar cooling. Klein. K. Ortega. R. S.. Solar air conditioning in Europe – an overview.B. Solar cooling economic considerations: centralized versus decentralized options. Chatterjee.. Hindenburg. Building and Environment 39. Gordon. Ayyash. The use of solar desiccant cooling in the UK: a feasibility study. Renewable Energy 30.J. 1133–1140. 557–572. Wrobel. 2005. T. 1376–1386. F. 2006. <http://www. D... 2008.. Ebinuma. Review of solar and low energy cooling technologies for buildings.. 299–314. A. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 7. D. U. Journal of Power Sources 80. 419–438. Program. Z.gov/index. B. H. Solar sorption cooling systems for residential applications: options and guidelines. Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications 14 (2006).. P. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 128. 2003. Solar Thermal Collector Manufacturing Activities. Sasaki.C. Florides. 2010. K. Itron.J. Lin. 507–528. 2001. Carrier. P. P. M. Beckman. Solar assisted air conditioning of buildings – an overview.. In: 14th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. 2006. 2010. Duffie. 2003. P. Life cycle assessment of a solar thermal collector.. <www.R.. 1983.A.. 526–530.. Business News Publishing Co. J..T.carrier.. Erpenbeck. C. Economic comparison of solar absorption and photovoltaic-assisted vapour compression cooling systems.com/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Residential/h_d1/N-5yc1vZbqow/ h_d2/Navigation?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&Nu =P_PARENT_ID&storeId=10051&catalogId=10053&langId=-1>. Japan. International Journal of Refrigeration 32. 1313–1325. 685–690. Choudhury. Navigant.. S. 1327–1338.residential. H. Oxizidis. 1988.. eGRID2007.. 2005.com/products/>.S. Chen. Reddy. Ferreira. X.com/products/acheatpumps/ac/infinity. Best.A. Solar Energy 72... Chow.. Hanley. Solar Energy Grid Integration Systems – Energy Storage (SEGIS–ES). Wiley.C. In: International Energy Agency. Alsema. Desideri. Otanicar et al. 2070–2073. Alili. Renewable Energy 36. High-efficiency solar cooling. Solar-powered cooling systems: technical and economic analysis on industrial refrigeration and air-conditioning applications.A. J. C. I. Photovoltaics energy payback times. EPA. Environmental impact assessment using a weighting method for alternative air-conditioning systems. 2007. 2004..A. simulation and warming impact assessment of a domesticsize absorption solar cooling system.. e. Modelling. Tassou. Cellura.htm>.V. Ng. 1999. Critoph.Q. C. International Journal of Energy Research 7. EIA.. 231–236.A. 2010. M. United States Environmental Protection Agency. D. Solar-powered systems for cooling.. v. Balaras. G. Reindl.. 2005. Solar refrigeration options – a state-ofthe-art review. Silveira. 3075–3092.epa..homedepot.. Hang. F.S. 21–29.. Perspectives of solar cooling in view of the developments in the air-conditioning sector. R. Comparative study of different solar systems for buildings in subtropical city... Performance analysis of photovoltaic systems: a review.iea. C.C. 2001.. Sarkar. Thermoeconomic analysis of an evaporative desiccant air conditioning system. N.. 227–244... Hwang. C. Ma. 1884–1897.R..robur. Applied Thermal Engineering 22... 2010. Applied Thermal Engineering 22. Infinity Series Central Air Conditioner.S. Pesaran.A.. 2007. 2010. Refrigeration Principles and Systems: An Energy Approach. Kim. S. 648–658... Sartawi. In: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. BOyes. S. 2004. Kyriakis.S.G. Sandia National Laboratories. third ed. L. 220–229. Heikkila.. V.. G. 2001.D. S. 299–307. Solar Photovoltaic Roadmap. Kalogirou... Geankoplis..gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.. Casals. Radermacher. E... 2007. Querol. S. 2010. California. 23–31.H. A. Solar refrigeration. greenhouse gas emissions and external costs: 2004-early 2005 status. Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes. Fong. 1978. Neymark.. Henning.. Y.M. Papadopoulos. The European PV Technology Platform. 2009. Robur. Applied Thermal Engineering 22. 638–660.. J. Bovca.. S. Rydh. I. Dincer. 2002.. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13.. 2011. Sdringola.J. Prentice Hall..asp?PUBS_ID=1975>. Pita.. html>. T. 1537–1549. Applied Energy 86. Energy Star. 1031– 1054.eia. Bliss.. A. Energy Savers. I.. J. Renewables for Heating and Cooling: Untapped Potential. <http://www.. Kubo.A. G. Florides.. T.. 21–31.. Peek... <http://www. International Journal of LCA 12. In: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. third ed. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 6. 2000. United States Department of Energy. EnergyStar. G.. Savings Calculator. R. Sleigh. Renewable Energy 16.shtml>. International Journal of Refrigeration 24. <http:// www. Qu. 2007. <http://www.org/roadmaps>.. Kalogirou.. R. The potential of solar energy use in desiccant cooling cycles. A review of PV inverter technology cost and performance projections. Grossman. pp. Lo Brano. S. <http://www. J. PV Platform Working. Effect of heat exchangers on performance of absorption refrigeration systems. Environmental assessment of vanadium redox and leadacid batteries for stationary energy storage.A. Joshi.. Xiong. Q. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14.T. Boston.A.org/publications/ free_new_Desc.. A. Santamaria. Beggs. G. Kalogirou.energysavers. D. MA. <http://www..S..I.renewables/page/solarreport/solar. 1313–1325. 3–15. S. 2011. 2002. Robur.Z. Y.. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 Ardente. S. M. 2007. W.. Solar Energy 41. A review of absorption refrigeration technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11. 2002. High Efficiency Heating and Cooling. . L. 2010.. Halliday. 2005..doe.A. D. Technology Options for the Near and Long Term. dehumidification and air-conditioning. M.A. K. 2009.L.A.-M. Europe. 2002. Tassou. 1995.. Applied Thermal Engineering 27. Review paper on solar-powered air-conditioning through adsorption route.. Studies of Solar Collector Performance at NRC. Intel White Paper. 1979. CPUC Self-generation Incentive Program – Solar PV Costs and Incentive Factors.I.. Housley. International Energy Agency. ASHRAE Journal 47. J. 2189–2195.K. Solar refrigeration and cooling.M. Applied Thermal Engineering 23.. Energy Conversion and Management 45.pr_central_ac>. Environmental benefits of domestic solar energy systems. Solar Energy 68..iea. L. Group 2. C.. 275– 280.D. Energy Information Administration. N. C. 2007.G. 1991. Z. 343–372. A. Projection of PV System Prices. <http://www. HVAC&R Research 14. Wrobel. 3–15..P.com/products.htm#waterfired> <http://www.yazakienergy. 344–353.. D.. D. Y. A review on adsorption refrigeration technology and adsorption deteriorations in physical adsorptions systems. Y. 251–283. 2011. A review for absorption and adsorption solar cooling systems in China. Yazaki.com/products. 2010.htm>.. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31. Wang.Q. / Solar Energy 86 (2012) 1287–1299 Wang. <http://www..yazakienergy. Applied Thermal Engineering 23. Li. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 14. Yazaki Energy Systems. 1299 Zalba. Zhai. Fired Single-effect Chillers Information. J. Otanicar et al. Review on thermal energy storage with phase change: materials.C. Xia.Z.Z. B.. . heat transfer analysis and applications. 2003. R.T. X. 2009.. Li..H. Zhang.