Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters
South Africa currently has the highest carbon emission intensity per kilowatt of electricity generation globally, and its government intends to reduce it. Some of the measures taken by the government include a reduction of emissions in the building sector using solar water heating (SWH) systems. How...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2024-06-01
|
| Series: | Energy Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484723016578 |
| _version_ | 1827391154011766784 |
|---|---|
| author | Ephraim Bonah Agyekum Jeffrey Dankwa Ampah Tahir Khan Nimay Chandra Giri Abdelazim G. Hussien Vladimir Ivanovich Velkin Usman Mehmood Salah Kamel |
| author_facet | Ephraim Bonah Agyekum Jeffrey Dankwa Ampah Tahir Khan Nimay Chandra Giri Abdelazim G. Hussien Vladimir Ivanovich Velkin Usman Mehmood Salah Kamel |
| author_sort | Ephraim Bonah Agyekum |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | South Africa currently has the highest carbon emission intensity per kilowatt of electricity generation globally, and its government intends to reduce it. Some of the measures taken by the government include a reduction of emissions in the building sector using solar water heating (SWH) systems. However, there is currently no study in the country that comprehensively assesses the technical, economic, and environmental impact of SWH systems across the country. This study therefore used the System Advisor Model (SAM) to model two different technologies of SWH systems (i.e., flat plate (FPC) and evacuated tube (EPC) SWH) at five different locations (i.e., Pretoria, Upington, Kimberley, Durban, and Cape Town) strategically selected across the country. According to the study, the optimum azimuth for both the evacuated tube and flat plate SWH system in South Africa is 0°. Installing FPC and EPC at the different locations would yield payback periods of 3.2 to 4.4 years and 3.5 to 4.3 years, respectively. Comparably, levelized cost of energy for the FPC and EPC will range from 7.47 to 9.62 cents/kWh and 7.66 to 9.24 cents/kWh, respectively, based on where the SWH system is located. Depending on where the facility is located, the annual cost savings for the FPC system would be between $486 and $625, while the EPC system would save between $529 and $638. Using SWHs can reduce CO2 emissions by 75–77% for the evacuated tube system and 69–76% for the flat plate system annually, depending on the location. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T17:06:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-227a20f05cb74ae1af2bd959cef1cf80 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2352-4847 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T17:06:36Z |
| publishDate | 2024-06-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Energy Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-227a20f05cb74ae1af2bd959cef1cf802024-01-04T04:39:39ZengElsevierEnergy Reports2352-48472024-06-0111963981Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heatersEphraim Bonah Agyekum0Jeffrey Dankwa Ampah1Tahir Khan2Nimay Chandra Giri3Abdelazim G. Hussien4Vladimir Ivanovich Velkin5Usman Mehmood6Salah Kamel7Department of Nuclear and Renewable Energy, Ural Federal University Named after the First President of Russia Boris Yeltsin, 19 Mira Street, Ekaterinburg 620002, RussiaSchool of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, ChinaCollege of Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, ChinaDepartment of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Centurion University of Technology and Management, Jatni 752050, Odisha, India; Centre for Renewable Energy and Environment, Centurion University of Technology and Management, Jatni 752050, Odisha, IndiaDepartment of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden; Faculty of Science, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt; Applied Science Research Center, Applied Science Private University, Amman 11931, Jordan; MEU Research Unit, Middle East University, Amman 11831, Jordan; Corresponding author at: Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden.Department of Nuclear and Renewable Energy, Ural Federal University Named after the First President of Russia Boris Yeltsin, 19 Mira Street, Ekaterinburg 620002, RussiaDepartment of Business Administration, Bahçeşehir Cyprus University, Lefkosa, Northern Cyprus; Remote Sensing, GIS and Climatic Research Lab (National Center of GIS and Space Applications), Centre for Remote Sensing, University of the Punjab, Lahore, PakistanDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Aswan University, 81542 Aswan, EgyptSouth Africa currently has the highest carbon emission intensity per kilowatt of electricity generation globally, and its government intends to reduce it. Some of the measures taken by the government include a reduction of emissions in the building sector using solar water heating (SWH) systems. However, there is currently no study in the country that comprehensively assesses the technical, economic, and environmental impact of SWH systems across the country. This study therefore used the System Advisor Model (SAM) to model two different technologies of SWH systems (i.e., flat plate (FPC) and evacuated tube (EPC) SWH) at five different locations (i.e., Pretoria, Upington, Kimberley, Durban, and Cape Town) strategically selected across the country. According to the study, the optimum azimuth for both the evacuated tube and flat plate SWH system in South Africa is 0°. Installing FPC and EPC at the different locations would yield payback periods of 3.2 to 4.4 years and 3.5 to 4.3 years, respectively. Comparably, levelized cost of energy for the FPC and EPC will range from 7.47 to 9.62 cents/kWh and 7.66 to 9.24 cents/kWh, respectively, based on where the SWH system is located. Depending on where the facility is located, the annual cost savings for the FPC system would be between $486 and $625, while the EPC system would save between $529 and $638. Using SWHs can reduce CO2 emissions by 75–77% for the evacuated tube system and 69–76% for the flat plate system annually, depending on the location.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484723016578Solar water heatingDomestic hot waterTechno-economic analysisEvacuated tubeFlat Plate SWH |
| spellingShingle | Ephraim Bonah Agyekum Jeffrey Dankwa Ampah Tahir Khan Nimay Chandra Giri Abdelazim G. Hussien Vladimir Ivanovich Velkin Usman Mehmood Salah Kamel Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters Energy Reports Solar water heating Domestic hot water Techno-economic analysis Evacuated tube Flat Plate SWH |
| title | Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters |
| title_full | Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters |
| title_fullStr | Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters |
| title_full_unstemmed | Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters |
| title_short | Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters |
| title_sort | towards a reduction of emissions and cost savings in homes techno economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters |
| topic | Solar water heating Domestic hot water Techno-economic analysis Evacuated tube Flat Plate SWH |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484723016578 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ephraimbonahagyekum towardsareductionofemissionsandcostsavingsinhomestechnoeconomicandenvironmentalimpactoftwodifferentsolarwaterheaters AT jeffreydankwaampah towardsareductionofemissionsandcostsavingsinhomestechnoeconomicandenvironmentalimpactoftwodifferentsolarwaterheaters AT tahirkhan towardsareductionofemissionsandcostsavingsinhomestechnoeconomicandenvironmentalimpactoftwodifferentsolarwaterheaters AT nimaychandragiri towardsareductionofemissionsandcostsavingsinhomestechnoeconomicandenvironmentalimpactoftwodifferentsolarwaterheaters AT abdelazimghussien towardsareductionofemissionsandcostsavingsinhomestechnoeconomicandenvironmentalimpactoftwodifferentsolarwaterheaters AT vladimirivanovichvelkin towardsareductionofemissionsandcostsavingsinhomestechnoeconomicandenvironmentalimpactoftwodifferentsolarwaterheaters AT usmanmehmood towardsareductionofemissionsandcostsavingsinhomestechnoeconomicandenvironmentalimpactoftwodifferentsolarwaterheaters AT salahkamel towardsareductionofemissionsandcostsavingsinhomestechnoeconomicandenvironmentalimpactoftwodifferentsolarwaterheaters |