Comparative Analysis of Ground Source and Air Source Heat Pump Systems under Different Conditions and Scenarios
[EN] The current energy context demands the use of environmentally friendly solutions that contribute to the displacement of traditional fossil fuels. In this regard, heat pumps have become an important tool in the decarbonization of the heating and cooling energy system. With the aim of providing n...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de León |
| Repositorio: | BULERIA. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de León |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:buleria.unileon.es:10612/22445 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/3/1289 https://hdl.handle.net/10612/22445 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Ingenierías GSHP ASHP Subsoil Geology External air conditions Heating energy system 3322.05 Fuentes no Convencionales de Energía 2506 Geología 3308 Ingeniería y Tecnología del Medio Ambiente |
| Sumario: | [EN] The current energy context demands the use of environmentally friendly solutions that contribute to the displacement of traditional fossil fuels. In this regard, heat pumps have become an important tool in the decarbonization of the heating and cooling energy system. With the aim of providing new information in the field, this research is conducted to analyze the suitability of a Ground Source Heat Pump (GSHP) and an Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) in two different scenarios. Systems are designed to cover the heating needs of a building placed in a cold climate area, characterized by being in a thermally and geologically favorable formation (Case 1), and in a mild climate location where the geology is not so appropriate for the thermal exchange with the ground (Case 2). Results highlight the need to perform an exhaustive study of the subsoil and the external conditions of the area for a reliable selection. In Case 1, the ASHP option is discarded due to the demanding outdoor air requirements that rocket the operating costs of the system. In Case 2, both solutions are viable, with the geothermal alternative preferred if the initial investment can be assumed, providing economic advantages from the 17th year of the system operation. |
|---|