ARTICLE IN PRESS

Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Achieving total domestic hot water production with renewable energy

A.L. Biaoua, M.A. Bernierb,
a
Econoler International, Ville de Québec, Canada
b
École Polytechnique de Montréal, Départment de génie mécanqiue, C.P. 6079, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3A7
Received 8 December 2005; received in revised form 11 April 2006; accepted 13 June 2006

Abstract

Various means of producing domestic hot water (DHW) with renewable energy in zero net energy homes (ZNEH) are examined for
two climates (Montréal and Los Angeles). Four alternatives are examined: (i) a regular electric hot water tank; (ii) the desuperheater of a
ground-source heat pump (GSHP) with electric backup; (iii) thermal solar collectors with electric backup; and (iv) a heat pump water
heater (HPWH) indirectly coupled to a space conditioning GSHP. Results show that heating DHW with thermal solar collectors with an
electric backup (which is either provided by the photovoltaic (PV) panels or the grid in a ZNEH) is the best solution for a ZNEH. The
second part of this paper focuses on determining what should be the respective areas of the thermal solar collectors and PV array to
obtain the least expensive solution to achieve total DHW production with renewable energy.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Zero net energy homes; Hot water; Simulation; TRNSYS; Desuperheater; Solar collector; Heat pump water heater

1. Introduction like the present investigation, they compared four

Zero net energy homes (ZNEH) are energy-efficient grid-
connected buildings with on-site electrical production from
renewable energy sources (in most cases through photo-
voltaic (PV) panels). ZNEH send electricity to the utility
when there is a surplus and draw from the same grid in the
case of on-site production shortage. The ‘‘zero-net’’
concept implies that, on an annual basis, the excess energy
sent to the utility balances the amount received from the
grid.
ZNEH have been the subjects of many investigations
which have been summarized by Biaou [1] and Biaou et al.
[2,3]. Christian [4] examined four ultra-low energy
residences in Tennessee, USA. Even though these homes
are strictly not ZNEH, they show that a judicious mix
of energy-efficient measures and solar generated electricity
can reduce the total energy cost to under $1US/day.
As far as domestic hot water (DHW) heating is concerned,
the article by Merrigan and Parker [5] is noteworthy. Much
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 340 4711x4381;
fax: +1 514 340 5917.
E-mail address: michel.bernier@polymtl.ca (M.A. Bernier).
alternative water heating technologies: standard electric
water heating; heat pump water heaters; solar hot water
systems; and heat pump desuperheaters. Each of the
four systems was monitored in 20 single-family residences.
After two years of monitoring, the authors concluded
that the solar hot water systems are the most efficient,
followed by heat pump water heaters, desuperheaters and
electric resistance water heaters. The solar hot water
systems had the greatest electric peak demand reduction.
The heat pump water heaters had approximately half the
peak demand of electric water heaters in the winter but
were unable to reduce summer peak demand by any
significant amount. With the same peak demand reduction
in winter and in summer, desuperheaters provided less
peak demand reduction than the two other alternative
technologies.
The ZNEH studied in this paper is presented schema-
tically in Fig. 1. The four alternatives for DHW produc-
tion, which will be presented shortly, use this basic house
configuration. It consists of a well-insulated two-story
156 m2 residence with an unheated half-basement. It is
equipped with a PV array whose size will depend on several
factors including how DHW is produced.

0360-1323/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.032
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
652 A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the ZNEH.

The direct current (DC) electricity generated by the PV cold water hot water
array is converted to alternating current using an inverter. from mains to load
Then, the solar electricity is either used in the house or sent
to the grid in the event of a surplus. When solar electricity Storage electric
production is insufficient, the house draws the necessary tank resistances
power from the grid.
One key element of this ZNEH is the closed-loop water-
to-air ground-source heat pump (GSHP) which is used for Fig. 2. Electric water heating (Alternative 1).
space heating and cooling. As shown in Fig. 1, a fluid is
pumped from the GSHP to a ground heat exchanger which
acts either as a source (heating) or as a sink (cooling). On warm water from hot water
desuperheater to load
the air side, the heat pump distributes cool or warm air in
desuperheater
the house for space conditioning. With its relatively high
COP in both heating and cooling, the GSHP enables an circulator
Hot water tank electric
efficient use of solar electricity. hot refrigerant resistances
Appliances (including lights) require electricity which compressor
influences the size of the PV array. Also, electricity fed to of the GSHP

appliances will ultimately be converted to heat. If this heat

is released in the conditioned space, then it will decrease the
heating load in winter and increase the cooling load in
summer.
The four alternatives for DHW production will now
be examined. The first system studied is a conventional
electric hot water tank (Fig. 2). Two electric resistances
provide the power to heat the water from the mains
temperature to the set point temperature. They operate in
master/slave mode, with the highest priority assigned to the
top element.
cold water
refrigerant from mains
vapor
Fig. 3. Domestic hot water heating using a desuperheater (Alternative 2).
The second water heating system under consideration
uses a GSHP desuperheater combined with a regular
electric hot water tank. As shown in Fig. 3, a desuperheater
is a refrigerant-to-water heat exchanger located between
the compressor and the condenser. Heat exchange is only
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660
possible when the GSHP is providing space heating or
cooling. When the heat pump is activated, a circulator
draws cold water from the tank bottom, passes it through
the heat exchanger and returns it to the top of the hot water
tank. When the GSHP is in cooling mode, there is a ‘‘free’’
heat exchange in the desuperheater, which reduces the load
on the condenser and, consequently, the amount of heat
rejected to the ground. In heating mode, the heat recovered
in the desuperheater translates into a loss of space heating
capacity normally provided by the condenser of the GSHP.
Thus, the GSHP has to operate for a longer period to meet
the space heating requirements. In this case, the hot water
produced is not ‘‘free’’ but nonetheless obtained with a
relatively high COP.
The third alternative is a thermal solar system. The
configuration chosen (Fig. 4) is typical for climates where
freezing is a concern. As shown in Fig. 4, the system is
composed of flat plate solar collectors, an external heat
exchanger (EHX), a solar water storage tank and a regular
electric backup water tank, two circulators and a tempera-
ture controller. The solar tank is connected to a regular hot
water tank equipped with two electric resistances which
provide auxiliary heating if necessary. The solar system is
operated by a differential thermostat. Two temperature
sensors give the fluid temperature at the outlet of the solar
collectors and at the bottom of the solar water tank.
Whenever the heat exchanger hot side inlet temperature is
higher than the temperature of the water at the bottom of
the tank by more than 5 1C, the two pumps are switched
on. The pumps are turned off whenever this difference is
lower than 1 1C.
The last water heating system studied here is a heat
pump water heater (HPWH) [6]. As shown in Fig. 5, a
HPWH uses air as its energy source to heat water. In doing
so, it cools the air. The cooled air can then be exhausted
into the house (ambient-air HPWH) or exhausted outside
the house (exhaust-air HPWH). In the first configuration,
used here, the cooled air increases the house heating load in
winter and decreases the cooling load in summer. The
water is circulated from the tank to the HPWH condenser
where the hot refrigerant transfers its heat to the water.
The heated water then returns to the storage tank where
electric elements provide the supplementary heat if
required. The operation of the HPWH is regulated by a
hot water
to load
C
flat plate controller
collectors
solar tank backup
tank
antifreeze
fluid
circulator external
exchanger
heat water
cold water
from mains
Fig. 4. Solar domestic water heating system (Alternative 3).
653
controller
electric C
input
hot refrigerant
heat water hot water
from HPWH to load
HPWH
compressor
cool air
to zone ambient air
heat storage electric
output tank elements
evaporator cold condensor
refrigerant
pump cold water
expansion from mains
valve
Fig. 5. Heat pump water heater system (Alternative 4).
controller which turns on the compressor whenever the
temperature of the water at the bottom of the storage tank
is lower than 50 1C. The system is turned off when this
temperature reaches 55 1C. When combined with a space-
conditioning GSHP in heating mode, the utilization of an
ambient-air HPWH consists in transferring energy from
the ground to the air and then to the water. The efficiency
of this two step heating process is a function of the COP of
the GSHP and of the HPWH. For example, if both COPs
are equal to 3, then the HPWH will require 1/3 kW of
electricity for each 1 kW of hot water produced with
2/3 kW taken from house air. The GSHP will compensate
for the 2/3 kW load using 2/9 kW (2/3 kW divided by a
COP of 3) of electricity. Thus, for every kW of hot water
produced, 5/9 kW is required. In other words, this hot water
system produces 1.80 kW of hot water for every 1 kW of
electricity sent to the GSHP and HPWH. In cooling mode, the
HPWH reduces the house-cooling load seen by the GSHP.
The first alternative is not the best way to produce hot
water in a ZNEH. However, it is useful as a point of
reference for the other three alternatives. As for the other
three alternatives, it is not so clear which one should be
used. In the first part of this paper, the four alternatives are
simulated for two different climates (Montréal and Los
Angeles) to determine the size of the PV array necessary in
each case. The second part of this paper focuses on
determining the respective areas of the thermal solar
collectors and PV array necessary to obtain the least
expensive solution and to achieve total DHW production
from renewable energy.
2. Methodology
The ZNEH is simulated using TRSNYS 15.3 with the
IISIBAT 3.0 interface [7]. Most components are modeled
electric
using TRNSYS’s standard library. Following is a descrip-
resistances tion of the main components used. The reader is referred to
an earlier work for a more complete description [2]. Annual
simulations are performed using a one-hour time-step.
The WYEC2 weather files [8] for Montréal and Los
Angeles are used.
The house studied is a two-story 156 m2 residence with
an unheated half-basement. The house characteristics are
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
654 A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660

Table 1 25
House characteristics MONTREAL

Dimensions 20
Conditioned area 156 m2 (6 m  13 m  2 floors)

Mains temperature (°C)

Conditioned volume 468 m3(6 m  13 m  3 m  2 floors)
Roof area (south/north) 88.4 m2/64.35 m2 15
Attic volume 187.2 m3
Basement (height/volume) 1.5 m/117 m3
Window area 38.4 m2
10
East/south/west/north 3.6/27.3/3.6/3.9 m2
Envelope
Window Triple pane, low-e 5
U ¼ 0.4 W/m2 1C, SHGC ¼ 0.408
Conditioned space walls U ¼ 0.21 W/m2 1C
Conditioned space floor U ¼ 0.27 W/m2 1C 0
Conditioned space ceiling U ¼ 0.112 W/m2 1C 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Basement wall U ¼ 0.28 W/m2 1C Day of the year
Roof PV arrays on the south, tilted at 451

26 LOS ANGELES
25
Total consumption = 240 L/day 24
Mains temperature (°C)
20
DHW demand (liters)

22
15
20
10

18
5

16
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Hours Day of the year

Fig. 6. Hourly domestic hot water consumption. Fig. 7. Daily average mains temperature for Montréal and Los Angeles.

given in Table 1. The overall UA-value of the building

envelope is approximately 85 W/1C including windows.
As shown in Table 1, most of the window area is located
on the south side of the house to take advantage of passive
solar gains in winter. The window selected has a low U-
value in order to reduce heat losses at night. Finally, as
shown in Fig. 1, overhangs are used on the south side to
avoid overheating in mid-seasons and in summer.
The DHW consumption profile used in the present study
is given in Fig. 6. It is based on a study by Perlman and
Mills [9]. The energy required for hot water heating
depends on the mains water temperature. Fig. 7 presents
the daily average mains water temperature for Montréal
and Los Angeles. The data for Montréal were collected by
Dumas [10] whereas the mains water temperature for Los
Angeles is calculated using the relationship developed by
NREL [11]. The mains temperature varies from a low of
1.8 1C in February to a high of 23 1C in August for
Montréal. In the case of Los Angeles, the temperature
fluctuates between 17 1C in February and 25 1C in August.
Considering that water is heated to a set point temperature
of 55 1C in both Montréal and Los Angeles, the annual hot
water load is lower in Los Angeles.
3. Models
3.1. House
The house is modeled using TRNSYS’s TYPE 56 as
three distinct thermal zones: living quarters, attic and
basement. The last two zones are unconditioned and,
therefore, the temperatures in these spaces are free-floating.
The living zone and the attic are modeled in Prebid
(TRNSYS’s building input description pre-processor)
while basement heat losses are handled with a model
developed in-house [2]. House infiltration is calculated
using a technique presented by ASHRAE [12] which is
detailed in the previous investigation by Biaou et al. [2]. It
is assumed that the house is occupied by a family of four
persons who perform light work. The hourly electrical
power demand profile from the electrical appliances
(including lights) is based on the work of Gunes and Ellis
[13]. When cumulated over a year, the annual electricity
consumption for appliances is 4659 kWh [2]. It is assumed
that the entire electrical load is instantly converted into
heat and thus becomes a heat gain.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660 655

3.2. Geothermal system fed to the top of the tank in order to improve heat transfer
in the desuperheater and to avoid destratification. A small
The geothermal system includes the GSHP and the circulator pumps the water from the tank to the
ground heat exchanger (GHE). The GSHP model used desuperheater. Details on the modeling of the desuperhea-
here was developed by Lemire [14]. A thermostat TYPE, ter can be found in the work of Biaou et al. [2].
also written by Lemire [14], controls the operation of the
heat pump. It calculates the time of operation required, 3.6. Solar water heating (Alternative 3)
during a simulation time step, to maintain the heating and
cooling set point temperatures. These set point tempera- Alternative 3 consists of a typical solar water heating
tures are 20 1C in heating and 25 1C in cooling (with a system. It is presented schematically in Fig. 4 and the key
deadband of 1 1C). The modeled GSHP is a high features are summarized in Table 2. All components used
performance Energy Star model [15]. It has a nominal in this system are modeled using standard TRNSYS 15
cooling capacity of 8.75 kW (2.5 tons) and a COP ranging models. The flat plate solar collector model performs an
from 3 to 6. The performance of this GSHP is modeled energy balance to obtain the amount of heat transferred to
using coefficients generated by curve-fitting the manufac- the fluid. The model uses the characteristics of the collector
turer’s data [2]. The GHE consists of a closed-loop U-tube (area, fin efficiency, loss coefficient, emittance and absorp-
made of high density Polyethylene. The so-called DST tance of the absorber plate), the weather conditions
model of Hellström et al. [16] is used to model the GHE. (irradiances, ambient temperature, and wind speed) and
Based on preliminary simulations, a 100 m borehole length the installation features (collector slope, heat transfer fluid
was chosen. This length is sufficient to keep the fluid specific heat). The collector and storage loops are separated
temperature at the GSHP inlet within the limits recom- by an EHX (EHX) which is modeled here by assuming a
mended by the manufacturer. constant UA value. Both tanks are modeled using TYPE
60 of TRNSYS.
3.3. PV system
3.7. Heat pump water heater (Alternative 4)
Electricity is generated by a PV system composed of PV
modules and an inverter. No on-site electrical storage is Due to the unavailability of HPWH models and detailed
provided. The PV array is modeled using TRNSYS’s performance data, a simple HPWH model was created to
TYPE 94. TYPE 94 uses a so-called ‘‘four parameter’’ simulate the behavior of Alternative 4. Since the evapora-
model which treats a PV array as an irradiance and tor (house) and condenser (tank) sides of a HPWH operate
temperature dependent current source connected in parallel at two relatively constant temperatures, the model assumes
with a diode and in series with a resistor and the load. a constant COP of 2.4 [18]. Given this value and using
Details on this model can be found in the works of Fry [17], other typical characteristics (Table 3) such as the nominal
Biaou et al. [2] and Biaou [1]. The module used here is a
1.22 m2 mono-crystalline silicon panel with a peak power Table 2
of 175 watts at standard test conditions. The module Solar water heating system characteristics
nominal efficiency is 13.3%.
Flat plate solar collector
Collectors area Montréal: 6 m2 (2 panels)
3.4. Electric water heater (Alternative 1) Los Angeles: 3 m2 (1panel)
Slope of collector 451 southern roof
The hot water tank is modeled using TYPE 60 of Absorber (selective surface) absorptance ¼ 94%;
emittance ¼ 5%
TRNSYS. The model simulates a stratified storage tank by
Collector fin efficiency 0.8
performing an energy balance on ten fully mixed nodes to Bottom and edge losses coefficient U ¼ 0.48 W/m2 1C
evaluate the fluid temperature, the energy transferred to the Heat transfer fluid Mix of water and propylene glycol
water, the required heating rate and tank heat losses. The (30%); Cp ¼ 4 kJ/kg 1C
simulated tank has the following geometry: volume of Heat exchanger
0.21 m3, height of 1.5 m and a diameter of 0.42 m. It is Overall heat transfer coefficient 380 W/1C
equipped with two 0.75 kW electric resistance heaters Cold side flow rate 50 kg/h
located at a height of 0.35 and 1 m from the bottom of Hot side flow rate 150 kg/h
Pumps(2) 20 W nominal power
the tank.
Solar storage tank
3.5. Desuperheater (Alternative 2) Capacity 0.21 m3
Insulation R ¼ 2.8 m2 1C/W

As shown in Fig. 3, the warm water produced by the Backup water tank
desuperheater is fed to a regular 0.21 m3 hot water tank Capacity 0.21 m3
Insulation R ¼ 2.8 m2 1C/W
equipped with two backup electrical resistance heaters. The
Electric resistances 2  0.75 kW
cold water is drawn from the tank bottom and hot water is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
656 A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660

Table 3 MONTREAL Cooling

Characteristics of the HPWH 4

Space heating/cooling loads (kW)

Heat pump water heater 2
Nominal heating capacity 1500 W
COP 2.4 0
Air flow rate 900 kg/h
Water flow rate 100 kg/h
-2 Heating
Storage tank
Capacity 0.210 m3 -4
Insulation R ¼ 2.8 m2 1C/W
Electric resistances (two) 0.75 kW each -6

-8

heating capacity, the model performs simple energy 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
balances to obtain the electric input and the amount of Hours
energy removed from the ambient air. This energy is 7
considered as a heat loss in the house model. The HPWH is LOS ANGELES
coupled with a regular water storage tank which 6

Space heating/cooling loads (kW)

is simulated using TRNSYS’s TYPE 60.
5 Cooling

4. Results 4

4.1. Loads
Results presented in this section are based on the
house described in Table 1. Fig. 8 shows the hourly
space conditioning loads for Montréal and Los Angeles.
The house located in Montréal needs both heating and
cooling. Annual space heating and cooling energy require-
ments are 11340 and 2031 kWh, respectively. The peak
heating and cooling loads are approximately 8.5 and 4 kW,
respectively. In the case of Los Angeles, only space cooling
is required. The peak cooling load is approximately
7.3 kW. The annual cooling energy requirement is about
7600 kWh.
4.2. Equipment performance
Figs. 9 and 10 present the annual performance of two
key technologies, i.e. the GSHP and the PV arrays. Fig. 9
shows the hourly average COP of the GSHP. For the
Montréal house, it ranges from a minimum of 3 in winter
to a maximum of 6 at the beginning of the spring season
(for an annual average of 3.9). The lowest COP is reached
in heating when the entering fluid temperature to the
GSHP is at its lowest at the end of the winter. The highest
COP values are obtained at the end of the winter season
when the GSHP switches to cooling. During that period
the entering fluid temperature to the GSHP is relatively
cold since the ground has been cooled all winter due to the
energy removal from the ground over the heating season.
In the case of Los Angeles, the COP varies from 3.3 in
winter to 5.5 in summer (for an annual average of 4.7). The
entering fluid temperature is always lower than 43 1C, the
high limit recommended by the heat pump manufacturer in
cooling mode.
3
2
1
0
Heating
-1
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Hours
Fig. 8. Hourly space heating and cooling loads for Montréal and Los
Angeles.
With such high efficiency in both heating and cooling,
the space conditioning needs are 4222 and 2646 kWh for
Montréal and Los Angeles, respectively. For Montréal,
space conditioning represents only about one third of the
overall energy consumption of the house. The other two
thirds are spilt about equally between DHW heating
(4605 kWh) and appliance requirements (4659 kWh). For
Los Angeles, the electricity consumed by the GSHP
represents 24% of the total needs while electric water
heating requires 33% of the total electricity consumption.
Thus, as indicated earlier, DHW heating becomes at least
as important as space conditioning in a ZNEH equipped
with a GSHP.
As shown in Fig. 10, the efficiency of the PV modules
varies from a minimum of 10% to a maximum of 16% for
Montréal whereas these efficiency range from 10% to
14.5% in Los Angeles with the highest efficiencies
occurring in winter. As indicated earlier, this is due to a
negative temperature coefficient which causes an increase
in cell efficiency in cold weather. The yearly solar electricity
produced is 197.3 kWh/m2 for Montréal and 291 kWh/m2
for Los Angeles.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660 657

6.5 0.16
MONTREAL
6.0 0.15

5.5
0.14
COP of the GSHP

PV efficiency
5.0
0.13
4.5
0.12
4.0
MONTREAL
0.11
3.5

3.0 0.10

2.5 0.09
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Hours Hours

5.5 0.15
LOS ANGELES

0.14
5.0
COP of the GSHP

0.13
4.5 PV efficiency

0.12
4.0 LOS ANGELES
0.11

3.5
0.10

3.0 0.09
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Hours Hours

Fig. 9. Coefficient of performance of the ground source heat pump. Fig. 10. PV arrays efficiency for Montréal and Los Angeles.

4.3. Analysis of the four alternatives
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the energy and power
requirements to obtain a ZNEH for Montréal and Los
Angeles, respectively. All four DHW heating alternatives
are considered. As it can be seen in both tables, the type of
water heating system has an impact on the whole house
energy consumption and consequently on the PV module
area.
For Montréal (Table 4), heating water with an electric
tank (Alternative 1) requires 4605 kWh of electricity per
year whereas this can be done using the GSHP desuper-
heater (Alternative 2) with 36% less electricity (2940 kWh).
The hot water production with thermal solar collectors
(Alternative 3) requires only 1537 kWh of electricity while
the HPHW-GSHP combination (Alternative 4) consumes
2147 kWh. Thus it appears that heating hot water with
thermal solar collectors is the best solution for Montréal as
it leads to the lowest overall electrical needs with a total of
10864 kWh. This amount of energy can be produced by 46
PV panels whose total installed peak capacity is 8.05 kW.
When the best and worst solutions (Alternatives 1 and 3)
are compared, there is approximately a 20% difference in
PV array size. In Alternative 2, part of the heat taken from
the ground is used in the desuperheater to heat the water so
that the GSHP has to operate for longer periods to meet
the heating load which explains why the space conditioning
needs for Alternative 2 are higher (4712 kWh) than the base
case (4222 kWh for Alternative 1). In the case of HPWH,
as the cooled air is directly exhausted into the house, it
increases the heating load. This increases the space
conditioning needs of the GSHP to 4614 kWh (compared
to 4222 kWh for the base case).
As shown in Table 5, the ranking of the four alternatives
for Los Angeles is the same as the one for Montréal. Using
thermal solar collectors is the best alternative with only
600 kWh of electrical needs for a total house requirement
of 8003 kWh. The HPWH is a close second with total house
requirements of 8429 kWh. In this particular case, it is
interesting to note that the space conditioning needs are
much lower (1689 kWh vs. 2475 kWh for Alternative 3)
than for the other three cases. This is due to the fact that
the HPWH contributes to house cooling by withdrawing
heat from the air to heat the water. However, when added
to the energy required to operate the HPWH, the total
house needs are 426 kWh higher than for Alternative 3. The
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
658 A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660

Table 4
Energy and power requirements for a ZNEH in Montréal

ZNEH with one of these alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Space conditioning (kWh) (GSHP) 4222 4712 4237 4614

DHW (kWh) 4605 2940 1537 2147
Appliances (kWh) 4659 4659 4659 4659
Pump for GSHP (kWh) 428 481 431 453
Total electrical needs (kWh) 13914 12792 10864 11873
Number and area (m2) of PV modules 60/73.2 54/65.9 46/56.1 50/61
Required PV power (kW) 10.5 9.45 8.05 8.75
PV production (kWh) 14368 12932 11016 11974

Table 5
Energy and power requirements for a ZNEH in Los Angeles

ZNEH with one of these alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Space conditioning (kWh) (GSHP) 2424 2385 2475 1689

DHW (kWh) 3638 2547 600 1689
Appliances (kWh) 4659 4659 4659 4659
Pump for GSHP (kWh) 264 188 269 392
Total electrical needs (kWh) 10985 9779 8003 8429
Number and area (m2) of PV modules 32/39 28/34.2 24/29.3 24/29.3
Required PV power (kW) 5.6 4.9 4.2 4.2
PV production (kWh) 11364 9943 8523 8523

sixth line of Table 5 outlines the effect of each alternative Table 6

on the size of PV arrays. The installed PV power is 4.2 kW Detailed calculations for DHW production with Alternative 3
for Alternative 3, 25% lower than the worst case, i.e. Montréal Los Angeles
Alternative 1. 6 m2 collector 3 m2 collector
A comparison between Tables 4 and 5 indicates that a
ZNEH equipped with thermal solar collectors for DHW Heat output (kWh) 4825 3577
Tank losses (kWh) 359 364
requires about 23% less PV production in Los Angeles
Circulators (kWh) 127 139
than in Montréal. This is due to the milder and sunnier Resistance heaters (kWh) 1410 461
climate of Los Angeles and to its higher water mains Total electricity requirement (kWh) 1537 600
temperature. Overall, the ZNEH in Montréal requires PV array size (for DHW only) (m2) 7.08 2.06
56.1 m2 of PV modules and 6 m2 of thermal solar collectors. Energy sent/received from the grid over a 1074 374
year (for DHW only) (kWh)
The Los Angeles house requirements are about half of
those of Montréal with a PV array of 29.3 and 3 m2 of
thermal solar collectors.
Table 6 presents detailed calculations for DHW produc- Table 6 indicate the PV array size attributable to DHW
tion with Alternative 3 for both cities. The total heat production and the amount of energy exchanged with the
output from the DHW system is about 26% lower for Los grid if only DHW was considered.
Angeles. This is simply due to the fact that the water mains
temperature in Los Angeles is, on average, higher than in 4.4. Zero net energy hot water production
Montréal. Tank losses and the energy used by circulators
are similar for both cities. Fig. 11 presents the monthly The results presented in the last section have established
solar fraction, i.e. thermal solar output over the DHW that thermal solar collectors represent the best alternative
needs, for Montréal and Los Angeles. As expected, the for DHW production in a ZNEH. This section focuses on
solar fraction in Los Angeles is relatively high for every this alternative and attempts to establish the optimum size
month of the year. In Montréal, solar fractions in the of the solar thermal collectors and PV array to obtain a
winter months are relatively low but summer values are zero net energy hot water (ZNEHW) production. The
comparable to those of Los Angeles. The last two lines of concept of ZNEHW production is similar to the concept of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Solar fractions
0.6
0.5
Montreal
0.4 Los Angeles
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Fig. 11. Monthly solar fractions for Montréal and Los Angeles.
ZNEH but is limited to DHW heating; it does not account
for house space conditioning and appliance loads. In other
words, a ZNEHW production system is dedicated to DHW
with on-site electrical and thermal production from solar
energy. The ZNEHW production system is grid connected
as it sends electricity to the utility when there is a surplus
and draws from the same grid in the case of on-site energy
production shortage. On an annual basis, the excess energy
sent to the utility balances the amount received from
the grid.
The optimum size combination is obtained by perform-
ing a simple economic analysis based on overall system
costs of 0.80$ and 8.00$ per nominal peak watt for the
thermal solar collector and PV systems, respectively. On a
unit area basis, these costs translates into 560 and 1150$/
m2 for the thermal solar collector and PV systems,
respectively. The cost of electricity is assumed to be 0.093
$/kWh for Los Angeles [19] and 0.053$/kWh (in US
dollars) for Montréal [20]. Simulations were performed for
Montréal and Los Angeles with several thermal solar
collector areas to determine the PV array size required to
achieve a ZNEHW system. The results of these simulations
are shown in Fig. 12 where total system cost (thermal solar
collector and PV array) is plotted against the thermal solar
collector area. The corresponding PV area required is
shown on the right scale. For example, taking the cases
presented in Table 6, the system cost for producing hot
water exclusively with solar energy is 10,600$ and 4500$ for
Montréal and Los Angeles, respectively. For Montréal, this
cost includes 6 m2 of thermal solar collector and 7.8 m2 of
PV while the corresponding values for Los Angeles are 3
and 2.1 m2. The variation of the total ZNEHW system cost
is quite different depending on whether the system is
located in Montréal or Los Angeles.
The total system cost for Los Angeles reaches a
minimum of around 3600$ for a 4.5 m2 thermal solar
collector area; it is not advantageous to increase the
thermal solar collector size above 4.5 m2. This can be
659
18000 14
Total ZNEHW system cost
16000 PV array area 12
Total ZNEHW system cost ($)
14000
10
PV array area (m2)
12000
Montreal 8
10000
8000 6
6000
4
4000
Los Angeles 2
2000
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Thermal solar collector area (m2)
Fig. 12. Total ZNEHW system cost and PV array area as a function of the
thermal solar collector area for Montréal and Los Angeles.
explained by referring back to Fig. 11 where it is shown
that the solar fraction is already high with an area of 3 m2.
Increasing the thermal solar collector size above 4.5 m2
brings marginal increases in the solar fraction even though
collected solar energy is potentially greater. This is because
a thermal-only system would need something close to a
seasonal storage to use all the solar energy impinging on
the collectors. For these cases, it is thus more cost effective
to heat the water with the PV array. The grid-connected PV
array has the advantage of using every watt collected by
storing it over the grid in the event of an on-site surplus
production. Assuming that the cost of buying the electricity
is the same as the cost of selling it over the grid, then the
3600$ ZNEHW leads to a cost saving of 332$ per year
giving a simple payback of 11 years.
For Montréal, the situation is different. As shown in
Fig. 12, the total system cost decreases with an increase in
the thermal solar collector area. Total system cost reaches
somewhat of a plateau at around 7500$ for 12 m2 of
thermal solar collectors and 5.2 m2 of PV. At that point it
would still be more cost effective to increase the size of the
thermal solar collector than to invest in a larger PV array.
At a cost of approximately $7500, total ZNEHW produc-
tion is not cost effective in Montréal with a simple payback
of 29 years.
5. Conclusion
Various means of producing domestic hot water (DHW)
with renewable energy in ZNEH were examined for two
climates (Montréal and Los Angeles). Four alternatives
were examined: (i) a regular electric hot water tank; (ii) the
desuperheater of a GSHP with electric backup; (iii) thermal
solar collectors with electric backup; and (iv) a heat pump
water heater (HPWH) indirectly coupled to a space
conditioning GSHP. Results show that heating DHW with
thermal solar collectors with an electric backup (which is
either provided by the PV panels or the grid in a ZNEH) is
the best solution for a ZNEH.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
660 A.L. Biaou, M.A. Bernier / Building and Environment 43 (2008) 651–660
In the second part of this paper a simple economic
analysis is presented to determine the optimum areas of the
thermal solar collectors and PV array to achieve a zero net
energy hot water production system, i.e. total DHW
production with solar energy. For Los Angeles, the
optimum configuration is a 4.5 m2 thermal solar collector
combined with a 2.06 m2 PV array with a total system cost
of approximately 3600$ and a simple payback of 11 years.
For Montréal, zero net energy hot water production it not
cost effective with a simple payback of 29 years corre-
sponding to an investment of 7500$ to install 12 m2 of
thermal solar collectors and a 5.2 m2 PV array.
References
[1] Biaou AL. Simulation d’une maison à consommation énergétique
nette nulle. MSc.A., département de génie mécanique, École
Polytechnique de Montréal, 2004.
[2] Biaou AL, Bernier M, Ferron Y. Simulation of zero net energy
homes. In the Proceedings of the Canadian conference on building
energy simulation—eSim 2004, Vancouver, 2004. p. 19–26.
[3] Biaou AL, Bernier MA. Domestic hot water heating in zero net
energy homes. In the ninth International IBPSA conference,
Montréal, 2005. p. 63–70.
[4] Christian J. Ultra-low energy residences. ASHRAE Journal 2005;1:20–6.
[5] Merrigan T, Parker D. Electrical use, efficiency and peak demand of
electric resistance, heat pump, desuperheater and solar hot water
systems. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,,
Asilomar Conference Center, Pacific Grove, CA, August 1990.
[6] DOE. Federal Technology Alerts. Residential Heat Pump Water
Heaters, September 1995.
[7] Klein SA, et al. TRNSYS-Reference Manual. Madison, WI (USA):
Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2000.
[8] ASHRAE. WYEC2, Weather Year for Energy Calculations. Atlanta:
ASHRAE, Inc.; 1997.
[9] Perlman M, Mills BE. Development of residential hot water use
patterns. ASHRAE Transactions 1985;91(part2):657–79.
[10] Dumas C. Température de l’eau dans l’aqueduc de Montréal 1994.
[On line]. http://www.ashrae-mtl.org/text/f_ashrae.html [consulted on
Nov. 17, 2003].
[11] National renewable energy laboratory, Building America Research
Benchmark Definition Version 3.1, November 11, 2003.
[12] ASHRAE. Handbook of fundamentals 1981 [Chapter 26].
[13] Gunes BM, Ellis MW. Evaluation of energy environmental, and
economic characteristics of fuel cell combined heat and power
systems for residential applications. ASME Transactions 2003;125:
208–20.
[14] Lemire N. Étude sur les systèmes de pompes à chaleur géothermiques,
MSc.A. École Polytechnique de Montréal: département de génie
mécanique, 1999.
[15] ClimateMaster Genesis Package System, Geothermal Heat Pumps.
Performance Data PSC030, 2003.
[16] Hellström G, Mazzarella L, Pahud D. Duct ground storage model—
TRNSYS version. Sweden: Department of Mathematical Physics,
University Of Lund; 1996.
[17] Fry B. Simulation of Grid-Tied Building Integrated Photovoltaic
Systems. MSc. Madison: University of Wisconsin; 1998. http://
sel.me.wisc.edu/publications/theses/theses2.html
[18] ECR International. Residential Heat Pump Water Heater. Installa-
tion, Operation and maintenance manual. July 2004.
[19] Energy information administration, 2005 prices. http://www.eia.doe.
gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
[20] Hydro-Québec, 2005, Comparaison des prix de l’électricité dans les
grandes villes nord-américaines. http://www.hydroquebec.com/
publications/fr/comparaison_prix/2002/