Comparison of Different Solar-Assisted Air Conditioning Systems for Australian Office Buildings

Yunlong Ma, Suvash C. Saha, Wendy Miller and Lisa Guan
Additional contact information
Yunlong Ma: School of Chemistry, Physics, and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George Street, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia
Suvash C. Saha: School of Chemistry, Physics, and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George Street, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia
Wendy Miller: School of Chemistry, Physics, and Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), 2 George Street, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia
Lisa Guan: University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Design Architecture and Building, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia

Energies, 2017, vol. 10, issue 10, 1-27

Abstract: This study has investigated the feasibility of three different solar-assisted air conditioning systems for typical medium-sized office buildings in all eight Australian capital cities using the whole building energy simulation software EnergyPlus. The studied solar cooling systems include: solar desiccant-evaporative cooling (SDEC) system, hybrid solar desiccant-compression cooling (SDCC) system, and solar absorption cooling (SAC) system. A referenced conventional vapor compression variable-air-volume (VAV) system has also been investigated for comparison purpose. The technical, environmental, and economic performances of each solar cooling system have been evaluated in terms of solar fraction ( SF ), system coefficient of performance ( COP ), annual HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) electricity consumption, annual CO 2 emissions reduction, payback period ( PBP ), and net present value ( NPV ). The results demonstrate that the SDEC system consumes the least energy in Brisbane and Darwin, achieving 56.9% and 82.1% annual energy savings, respectively, compared to the conventional VAV system, while for the other six cities, the SAC system is the most energy efficient. However, from both energy and economic aspects, the SDEC system is more feasible in Adelaide, Brisbane, Darwin, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney because of high annual SF and COP , low yearly energy consumption, short PBP and positive NPV , while for Canberra and Hobart, although the SAC system achieves considerable energy savings, it is not economically beneficial due to high initial cost. Therefore, the SDEC system is the most economically beneficial for most of Australian cities, especially in hot and humid climates. The SAC system is also energy efficient, but is not as economic as the SDEC system. However, for Canberra and Hobart, reducing initial cost is the key point to achieve economic feasibility of solar cooling applications.

Keywords: solar energy; desiccant dehumidification; absorption cooling; building simulation; EnergyPlus; economic feasibility; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (17)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/10/1463/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/10/1463/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:10:y:2017:i:10:p:1463-:d:112930

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().