Energy and techno-economic assessment of the effect of the coupling between an air source heat pump and the storage tank for sanitary hot water production. (August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Masip, X.; Cazorla-Marín, A.; Montagud-Montalvá, Carla; Marchante, J.; Barceló, F.; Corberán, J.M.
• Is Part Of: Applied thermal engineering. Volume 159(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-08
• Subjects: Heat pump -- Energy efficiency -- Sanitary hot water production -- Thermal energy storage -- Energy optimization -- Techno-economic assessment; Heat engineering -- Periodicals; Heating -- Equipment and supplies -- Periodicals; Periodicals; 621.40205
• DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2019.113853
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1359-4311

Abstract

Highlights: An experimentally tested and fully characterised HP model in TRNSYS was developed. An indirect coupling between the HP and SHW tank means up to 30% of inefficiency. The double wall condenser is the most efficient and cost effective type of coupling. Abstract: Heat pumps are proved to be a highly efficient technology for sanitary hot water production. However, when installing them coupled with the storage tank, an inefficiency up to 30% can be introduced in the system since this coupling cannot be direct according to EN 1717:2000; in order to prevent from any potential pollution of potable water in case of a refrigerant leakage. This research work evaluates three types of indirect coupling in the case of an air source heat pump system for sanitary hot water production: a coil heat exchanger inside the storage tank (CC), an intermediate heat exchanger between the tank and the heat pump (EHXC) and a double wall condenser (DWCC). A techno-economic assessment was carried out for the representative climate conditions around Europe. Results show that the DWCC is always the most efficient and cost-effective solution with a 3.66% lower energy efficiency than the direct coupling (Base Case), whereas the CC is not only the less efficient solution (27.1% lower than the Base Case) but also the less cost-effective, with a 50% lower net present value than the DWCC.