• Journal of the Korean Solar Energy Society
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.175-182
• /
• 2007

Geothermal-energy has been getting popular as a natural energy source for green buildings these days. As a result Geothermal Source Heat Pump System (GSHPs) was being recognized effective alternative systems to conventional heating and cooling systems owing to their higher energy utilization efficiency. But GSHPs has not been popularized thereby the large amount of initial cost of the system and insufficiency of studies for economic estimation. Therefore GSHPs are being developed to make up for the weak points that are the large amount of initial cost of the system and much annual electricity consumption. In this paper, economic estimation was conducted by payback period method and it shows that the pay back period of Heat Storage Type GSHPs was calculated 6.8 years compared with the absorption Chiller-Heater system and 8.2 years compared with the Ice storage-Boiler system. Heat Storage Type GSHPs also has the lower annual source energy consumption than the conventional heating and cooling systems because of using nighttime electricity.

• Korean Journal of Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Engineering
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.167-174
• /
• 2018

The geothermal heat pump systems were installed for heating and cooling of public buildings in Jincheon Eco-friendly Energy town. The heat pump system was operated at night to save on operational costs, and the cold heat was stored in thermal energy storage (TES). In this study, the performance of geothermal heat pump systems with the TES during the summer season was analyzed, and the operational costs with and without the TES were compared. The electric chiller model was used to simulate a heat pump applied without the TES system. Electric rates of each system were measured to calculate operational costs. When the TES is used in the air conditioning system, the electric load (30.4 MWh) calculated in the daytime can move to off-peak load time, and the operational cost is reduced by 36~54%.

• Proceedings of the SAREK Conference
• /
• 2008.11a
• /
• pp.27-32
• /
• 2008

The present study has been conducted economic analysis of heat storage type ground source heat pump system(HSGSHP) and normal ground source heat pump (GSHP) which are installed at the same building in the shared an apartment house. Cost items, such as initial cost, annual energy cost and maintenance cost of each system are considered to analyze life cycle cost (LCC) and simple payback period (SPP) with initial cost different are compared. The initial cost is a rule to the Government basic unit cost of production. LCC applied present value method is used to assess economical profit of both of them. Variables used to LCC analysis are prices escalation rate and interest rate mean values of during latest 10 years. The LCC result shows that HSGSHP (1,050,910,000won) is more profitable than GSHP by 68.9% initial cost. And SPP appeared 3.0 year overcome the different initial cost by different annual energy cost.

• KIEAE Journal
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.57-63
• /
• 2015

Purpose: Ground source heat pump system has been attracted in the horticulture industry for the reduction of energy costs and the increasing of farm income. Even though it has higher initial costs, if it uses in combination with heat storage, it is able to reduce the initial costs and operate efficiently. In order to have significant effect of heat storage type ground source heat pump system, it is required to design the capacity considering various conditions such as energy load pattern and operating schedule. Method: In this study, we have designed heat storage type ground source heat pump system in 5 cases by the operating schedule, and examined the system to find the most economic and having superb performance regarding the system COP(Coefficient of Performance) and energy consumption, using dynamic energy simulation, TRNSYS 17. Result: Conventional ground source heat pump system has lower energy consumption than heat storage type, but following the result of LCC(Life Cycle Cost) analysis, the heat storage type was more economic due to the initial costs. In addition, it has the most efficient performance and energy costs in the case of the smallest heat storage time.