See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/302951503

Economic Comparison between PV Powered Vapor Compression Refrigeration

System and Solar Thermal Powered Absorption Refrigeration System

Conference Paper · March 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2547.8001

CITATIONS READS

8 7,597

2 authors:

Ammar Bany Ata Handri Ammari

American University of Madaba Mu’tah University
7 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 410 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ammar Bany Ata on 13 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Economic Comparison between PV Powered Vapor Compression Refrigeration

System and Solar Thermal Powered Absorption Refrigeration System

Handri Ammaria and Ammar Bany Atab

aProf., Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mutah University, P.O Box 7, Al-Karak 61710 Jordan
bM.Sc., Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Mutah University, P.O Box 7, Al-Karak 61710 Jordan

Abstract
This work provides an economic comparison between a vapor compression refrigeration system
powered by a photovoltaic array and a vapor absorption refrigeration system powered by a solar
thermal unit. The comparison between these two technologies is conducted based on energy
efficiency, cost and payback period perspectives. The results have indicated that both systems
are cost effective. The total cost of the absorption refrigeration system including the solar
evacuated tubes unit is $9142 with a payback period of 1.36 years, whereas that of the vapor
compression refrigeration system including the photovoltaic array is $7176 with a payback
period of 1.88. The comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of both systems has also
favored the vapor compression refrigeration system to that of the absorption refrigeration system
due to various parameters examined.

Introduction
Absorption refrigeration systems and vapor compression systems powered by solar energy are
used generally to reduce the energy bill as well as to reduce the detrimental effect of greenhouse
gases pollution on the environmental. In recent years, research has been increased to improve the
performance of the refrigeration systems and one way of improving efficiency is through
thermodynamic analysis and optimization.
Many researchers studied such systems which use solar irradiation to cover the electrical or
thermal power required to drive the refrigeration cycles. To name only a few; Eicker et al [1]
made economic evaluation of solar thermal and photovoltaic cooling systems through simulation
in different climatic conditions. Hartmann et al [2] made a comparison of solar thermal and
photovoltaic options for solar cooling in two different European climates. Aman et al [3]
analyzed an ammonia-water absorption cooling system for energy and exergy. Noro et al [4]
compared between thermal and photovoltaic solar cooling systems economically and on energy
analysis. Lazzarin [5] made a thermodynamic and economic analysis for solar cooling using
ammonia as a refrigerant. Beccali et al [6] made life cycle performance assessment of small solar
thermal cooling systems and conventional plants assisted with photovoltaics. Sarbu et al [7]
demonstrated the solar cooling absorption systems. Weber et al [8] studied the solar cooling with

1
 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

water-ammonia absorption chillers and concentrating solar collector. Ozgorena et al [9] studied
the hourly performance prediction of ammonia-water solar absorption refrigeration.
The goal of this work is to check, for the same arbitrary chosen refrigeration capacity, which is
more economically cost effective; a standard vapor compression refrigeration system powered
electrically by photovoltaic (PV) array system, or a vapor absorption refrigeration system
powered thermally by solar evacuated tubes system.

Description of Models
The Vapor Compression Refrigeration Cycle (VCRC) is described as work operated cycle
because the elevation of pressure of the refrigerant is accomplished by a compressor that requires
electrical power. The Vapor Absorption Refrigeration Cycle (VARC), on the other hand, is
referred to as a heat operated cycle because most of the operating cost is associated with
providing the heat that drives off the vapor refrigerant from the high pressure liquid solution in
the generator. Indeed there is a requirement for some power in the absorption cycle to drive the
pump, but the amount of power for a given quantity of refrigeration is minor compared with that
needed in the vapor compression refrigeration cycle.
The VCRC consists of four parts; Compressor, Evaporator, Expansion valve, and Condenser.
The principle of compression process is that the refrigerant is compressed electrically. The
electrical power can now be provided by photovoltaic array system which are a lot cheaper than
they were two or more decades ago. Unlike vapor compression refrigeration systems, absorption
cooling technologies use a source of heat to produce cooling. This characteristic makes
absorption cooling machines a very useful sink of waste heat or solar energy. The VARC
consists of five parts; Absorber, Pump, Expansion valves, Generator, Condenser and Evaporator.
Both absorption and compressor refrigerators use refrigerants with low boiling point. In both
types, when this refrigerant evaporates, it takes some heat away with it, providing the cooling
effect. The main difference between the two types considered is the way the refrigerant is
changed from a gas back into a liquid so that the cycle is repeated. Another difference is the
refrigerant used. Compressor refrigerators typically use Ammonia, a HCFC or HFC, while
absorption refrigerators typically use inorganic refrigerants, mainly Ammonia or Water.
In this paper, the refrigerant considered was Ammonia for the VCRC which would be
electrically driven by using a PV system (see Fig. 1), whereas Ammonia-water pair is used for
the VARC with the heat source provided by solar evacuated tubes utilizing the solar radiation
thermal energy (see Fig. 2).

2
 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Fig. 1 Vapor Compression Refrigeration Cycle (VCRC) electrically powered by grid-tie PV

system.

Fig. 2 Vapor Absorption Refrigeration Cycle (VARC) thermally powered by evacuated tubes.

3
 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Performance Calculations
The same arbitrary refrigeration capacity for both refrigeration systems of study was chosen, and
the weather data of a typical year in Jordan was considered. Both models employ solar
irradiation to power their cycles, although different solar systems.
(a) Solar Evacuated Tubes System
Solar evacuated tubes are a solar collector that converts solar radiation into thermal energy.
Thus, it is used as the heat source to supply the VARC generator with a thermal energy needed to
separate the refrigerant and absorbent mixture in the VARC.
The performance of solar evacuated tubes can be represented as a graph or set of three
performance variables, values of which may be provided based on gross area of tubes array,
aperture area, or absorber area. More often the aperture or absorber area is used. In this work,
however, the absorber area is used. Thus, the solar evacuated tubes performance can be
represented by the following equation (www.apricus.com),
η(x) = η0 - a1  (x) – a2  G  (x) 2 (1)
where, x = (Tm – Ta)/G
where, Tm is the average inlet-outlet water temperature to the solar evacuated tubes assumed
from experience to be about 70°C, and Ta is the ambient temperature in the location of the
system = 20°C annual daily average, G is the solar irradiation assumed to be = 1000 W/m2 for all
cases, η(x) is the evacuated tubes efficiency of heating up the water from the solar thermal
energy, the η0 is a conversion factor = 0.717, a1 is a loss coefficient = 1.52 W/ (K2. m2), and a2 is
another loss coefficient = 0.0085 W/ (K2. m2).
The actual peak output of each evacuated tube, Qevac,tube, is then determined from,
Qevac,tube = Area of each pipe  G  η(x) (W) (2)
The VARC temperatures of the major components were assumed as follows; the evaporator at –
5°C, the condenser at 45°C, the generator at 90°C, and the absorber at 25°C. The heat exchanger
in the absorption cycle is assumed to have an efficiency of 75%.
First, the heating load at the generator, Qgen, in kW thermal and its annual energy consumed in
kWh/year are estimated using the data from the absorption cycle. Second, the efficiency of the
solar evacuated tubes η(x) is estimated from Eq. (1) using the data given, then the peak output of
each evacuated tube collector is estimated using Eq.(2), upon which, the number of evacuated
tubes that would cover the thermal power needed at the generator is determined by,
Number of evacuated tubes = Qgen / Qevac,tube (3)
The annual savings of energy covered by the evacuated tubes in kWh/year and in $ are then
estimated based on a conversion factor from thermal to electrical power, and on a fixed energy
rate cost for industrial organizations in Jordan. The investment cost is then estimated, which

4
 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

includes the VARC system cost and that of the evacuated tubes, in addition to the installation
and yearly maintenance cost.
The payback period in years is then estimated by,
Payback period = investment cost / savings per years (years) (4)

(b) Photovoltaic System

PV is one of energy conversion methods that convert solar radiation into electrical energy
directly. Thus, the electricity generated by PV modules is direct current DC, which means that
either, one would employ a DC motor driven compressor for the VCRC or install an inverter to
convert the DC produced by the PV modules into AC to power the VCRC compressor. Since the
market normally has AC motor driven compressors, this option was considered for the VCRC
system.
The total peak power of the PV array system required to supply the compressor electrical load
depends on, solar radiation, ambient temperature, inverter efficiency and on a safety factor to
compensate for the various system losses and temperature effect.
The number of PV modules required to cover the VCRC electrical requirement is computed by
the following relation (www.retscreen.net),
Number of PV modules = Pinv,kWh / Pmax,actual (5)
where, Pinv,kWh is the daily actual power produced by the PV array which would necessarily
represent the power input of the inverter (i.e. the amount of energy required per day in kWh to
cover the electrical demand of the VCRC compressor), and can be calculated using the following
equation,
Pinv,kWh = (Pdemand,max  operation hours/day) / inv (kWh/day)
where Pdemand,max is the maximum demand in kW required by the VCRC compressor that can be
computed from the cycle given specifications (the evaporator temperature at – 5°C and that of
the condenser at 45°C), the efficiency of the compressor is assumed to be 90%, and inv is the
efficiency of the inverter.
Pmax,actual is the daily actual power produced by a single PV module in kWh taking into account
the various losses, which reduce its delivered energy, is given by,
Pmax,actual = (1-LT) (1-LC) (1-LM) (1-LD) × Pnominal  PSH (kWh/day) (6)
where Pnominal is the maximum nominal power produced by one PV module of the selected
type in Wp at standard conditions. LT, LC, LM, and LD are the loss factors due to temperature
losses, cable losses, module mismatching losses, and dust accumulation losses, consequently.
PSH is the number of peak sun hours per day, which is merely an estimation of the amount of
time hours per day that the irradiance is equal to a peak sun of 1000 W/m2, and since PV
modules are rated for their output under peak sun conditions, the number of daily peak sun hours
indicates how many hours of each day the PV array will operate at its full nominal power output.

5
 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

The selected PV module is ThermoPower monocrystalline type of 300 W nominal power. The
inverter chosen is Solar Family type which has a maximum efficiency of 98.1%. The PV module
losses assumed are; temperature loss of 5%, cable loss of 4%, mismatching loss of 4%, and dust
accumulation loss of 5%, which are adequate for this study. Furthermore, an annual average
daily PSH of 5.60 hours is assumed for Jordan region. Based on data given above and Eq. (5),
the number of PV modules can be computed.
The annual savings of energy covered by the PV system in kWh/year and in $ are then estimated
based on the fixed energy rate cost for industrial organizations in Jordan. The total investment
cost is then estimated, which includes the VCRC system cost and that of the PV system, in
addition to the installation and yearly maintenance cost.
The payback period in years can then be estimated by using Eq. (4).

Results and Discussion

The refrigeration capacity for either refrigeration system of study was chosen to be 15 kW. The
energy demand was limited to 8 operating hours a day with 300 sunny days during a typical year
in Jordan. A solar radiation of 1000 W/m2 (1 Sun), and 20oC annual daily average ambient
temperature conditions were considered according to typical weather data of Jordan.
Power generated calculations by the two solar systems were as follows:
It was found that in the VARC system we needed a heating load for the generator equal to 28.07
kW, as a result, the number of evacuated tubes required was 160 to cover the generator heating
load. The generator heating load 28.07 kW thermal is considered equivalent to 10.667 kW
electrical power by assuming that the conversion factor from thermal to electrical power as the
thermal efficiency of a combined cycle power plant of 38%. In the VARC system the electrical
energy generated for a year was determined to be equal to 26,806 kWh/year.
The work required by the VCRC compressor was determined to be equal to 3.585 kW. The PV
calculations performed showed that we needed 21 modules of 300 Watt capacity each required to
power the VCRC compressor, upon which the total electrical energy generated by the PV system
amounted to 12,576 kWh/year.
Investment cost calculations for the two models were as follows:
A good offer obtained for the VARC system was $3000 for the chiller system with $548
maintenance cost and $300 cost of installation. Based on data given above and Eq. (3), the
number of solar evacuated tubes required was determined to be 160 with a cost of $5294.
Therefore, the total investment cost for the VARC amounts to $9142.
On the other hand, the VCRC chiller system cost obtained was $2000 with $82 as a maintenance
cost and $123 cost of installation. The PV system cost was $0.65/Watt of a module, and based on
data given above and Eq. (4), the number of PV modules was determined to be 21. The cost for
the 21 modules of 300 Watt capacity was $4095, with $876 for the cost of the inverter. When
adding all costs up, the total investment cost of the VCRC amounts to $7176.

6
 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Savings cost calculations for the two models were as follows:

The annual savings of energy covered by the solar evacuated tubes in the VARC system in $ is
estimated based on a fixed energy rate cost for industrial organizations of 0.25 ¢/kWh electrical,
which turned out to be $6,702.
The annual savings of energy covered by the PV system in the VCRC system in $ is estimated
based on the fixed energy rate cost for industrial organizations of 0.25 ¢/kWh electrical, which
turned out to be $3,144. In addition, there would be an over generation of power which would be
sold to the electrical distribution company in Jordan at a rate of $0.17/kWh, according to the
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency law approved in 2012. This would involve extra
savings of $675 per year. Thus, the total annual savings for using the PV system in the VCRC
system would amount to $3819.
Simple Payback Period
The payback period in years is estimated by using Eq. (3), which turned out to be 1.36 years for
the VARC system powered by the solar evacuated tubes, and 1.88 years for VCRC system
powered by the PV array system.
A summary of the study using various parameters is presented in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 shows
a comparison between the VARC and VCRC systems, and Table 2 shows a comparison between
PV system and solar evacuated tubes system.

Table 1 Comparison between VARC and VCRC systems.

Parameter VARC VCRC
Initial cycle cost $3000 $2000
Maintenance Complex Easy
Volume needed 1.3 m3 0.79 m3
Component Complex Simple
Availability less available More available
Weight 730kg 180kg
Vibration and noise Quiet and vibration-free Noisy
Emergency button Required Not Required
Losses High Low
Kind of energy required Thermal Energy Electrical Energy
Refrigerant Ammonia Ammonia
Total investment cost $9142 $7176
Payback period 1.36 years 1.88 years

7
 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Table 2 Comparison between PV array and Evacuated Tubes unit.

Parameter Evacuated Tubes PV
Initial cost $5294 (160 tubes) $4095 (21 modules)
Inverter cost  $876
Maintenance cost $300 – Frequently $82 – Rare
Installation cost $548 - Complex $123 - Easy
Power generated 10.667 kWe 3.585 kWe
Energy generated 26,806 kWh/year 12,576 kWh/year
Annual savings $6,702 $3819
Area needed 30 m2 41 m2
Availability Available Available
Breakage High Low
Losses Low losses Medium losses
Energy storing Thermal Power to the grid
Freeze Yes No
Overheat Yes No
Lifespan 20 yrs 25 yrs

It can be seen that each system has some advantages and disadvantages over the other. The total
cost of the VCRC system is about 27% cheaper than that of the VARC system, although the
payback period is more by about half a year for the former. The VCRC would require more land
for its PV array system than would the VARC for its solar evacuated tubes, but the latter is more
bulky and complex regarding components and maintenance. The VARC is, however, less noisy
than the VCRC.

Conclusions
An economic comparison is made between a vapor compression refrigeration system VCRC
powered by photovoltaic array and a vapor absorption refrigeration system VARC powered by
solar evacuated tubes unit. The comparison between these two technologies is carried out based
on energy efficiency, cost and payback period perspectives.
The results have indicated that either system, VCRC or VARC, is cost effective regarding their
payback period, which was less than two years for both systems, although the VARC yielded
shorter recovery time. However, after examination of all of the parameters considered, one
would prefer and go for the VCRC system, although it involves noisy compressors, since it’s;
lower in total price; less bulky and easily available in the market; simpler and requires low
maintenance; wider system applications in industry and commercial buildings. But, one would
also note that VARC systems can also be used with waste heat recovery systems, in addition to
the possibility of being combined with domestic hot water systems.

8
 5th Jordanian IIR International Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

Nomenclature
G Solar irradiation, W/m2
L Losses, %
P Power, W
Q Rate of heat transfer, W
T Temperature, °C
 Efficiency, %

References
[1] Ursula Eicker, Antonio Colmenar-Santos, Lya Teran, Mariela Cotrado, and David Borge-
Die, Economic evaluation of solar thermal and photovoltaic cooling systems through
simulation in different climatic conditions, Energy and Buildings 70 (2014) 207–223.
[2] N. Hartmann, C. Glueck, and F.P. Schmidt, Solar cooling for small office buildings:
Comparison of solar thermal and photovoltaic options for two different European climates,
Renewable Energy 36 (2011) 1329-1338.
[3] J. Aman, D.S.-K. Ting, and P. Henshaw, Residential solar air conditioning: Energy and
exergy analyses of an ammonia-water absorption cooling system, Applied Thermal
Engineering 62 (2014) 424-432.
[4] M. Noro, and R.M. Lazzarin, Solar cooling between thermal and photovoltaic: An energy
and economic comparative study in the Mediterranean conditions, Energy 73 (2014) 453-
464.
[5] Renato M. Lazzarin, Solar cooling: PV or thermal? A thermodynamic and economical
analysis, International Journal of Refrigeration 39 (2014) 38-47.
[6] Marco Beccalia, Maurizio Cellura, Pietro Finocchiaro, Francesco Guarino, Sonia Longo,
and Bettina Nocke, Life cycle performance assessment of small solar thermal cooling
systems and conventional plants assisted with photovoltaics, Solar Energy 104 (2014) 93–
102.
[7] Ioan Sarbu, and Calin Sebarchievici, Review of solar refrigeration and cooling
systems, Energy and Buildings 67 (2013) 286–297.
[8] Christine Weber, Michael Berger, Florian Mehling, Alexander Heinrich, and Tomas
Nu´n˜ez, Solar cooling with water-ammonia absorption chillers and concentrating solar
collector-Operational experience, International Journal of Refrigeration 39 (2014) 57-76.
[9] Muammer Ozgorena, Mehmet Bilgili, and Osman Babayigit, Hourly performance
prediction of ammonia-water solar absorption refrigeration, Applied Thermal Engineering
40 (2012) 80-90.

View publication stats