Economic and environmental evaluation of different operation alternatives to aquifer thermal energy storage in Tehran, Iran

Aquifers are underground porous formations containing water. Confined aquifers are surrounded by impermeable layers on top and bottom, called cap rocks and bed rocks. A confined aquifer with a very low groundwater flow velocity was considered to meet the annual cooling and heating energy requirement...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inScientia Iranica. Transaction B, Mechanical engineering Vol. 24; no. 2; p. 610
Main Authors Ghaebi, H, Bahadori, M N, Saidi, M H
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Tehran Sharif University of Technology 01.04.2017
Subjects
Alternative energy sources
Aquifers
Carbon dioxide
Cold storage
Colleges & universities
Cooling
Cost analysis
Coupling
Economic analysis
Energy consumption
Energy efficiency
Energy management
Energy requirements
Energy storage
Flow velocity
Green buildings
Groundwater
Groundwater flow
Heat exchangers
Heating
Indoor air quality
Life cycle analysis
Life cycle costs
Life cycle engineering
Mechanical engineering
Payback periods
Renewable resources
Residential buildings
Residential energy
Rocks
Solar collectors
Solar energy
Thermal energy
Underground storage
Teheran Iran
Iran
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Aquifers are underground porous formations containing water. Confined aquifers are surrounded by impermeable layers on top and bottom, called cap rocks and bed rocks. A confined aquifer with a very low groundwater flow velocity was considered to meet the annual cooling and heating energy requirements of a residential building complex in Tehran, Iran. Three different alternatives of Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage (ATES) were employed to meet the heating/cooling demands of the buildings. These alternatives were using ATES for: cooling alone, heating alone by coupling with flat-plate solar collectors, and cooling and heating by coupling with a heat pump. For the economic evaluation of the alternatives, a life cycle cost analysis was employed. For the environmental evaluation, Ret Screen software was employed. For the considered 3 operational alternatives, using ATES for cooling alone had the minimum payback period time of 2.41 years and the life cycle cost of 16000 $. In the environmental perspective, among the 3 alternatives, coupling of ATES with heat pump for cooling and heating had the minimum CO2 generation, corresponding to 359 tons/year.