Loading…

Towards a reduction of emissions and cost-savings in homes: Techno-economic and environmental impact of two different solar water heaters

South Africa currently has the highest carbon emission intensity per kilowatt of electricity generation globally, and its government intends to reduce it. Some of the measures taken by the government include a reduction of emissions in the building sector using solar water heating (SWH) systems. How...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Energy reports 2024-06, Vol.11, p.963-981
Main Authors: Agyekum, Ephraim Bonah, Ampah, Jeffrey Dankwa, Khan, Tahir, Giri, Nimay Chandra, Hussien, Abdelazim G., Velkin, Vladimir Ivanovich, Mehmood, Usman, Kamel, Salah
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:South Africa currently has the highest carbon emission intensity per kilowatt of electricity generation globally, and its government intends to reduce it. Some of the measures taken by the government include a reduction of emissions in the building sector using solar water heating (SWH) systems. However, there is currently no study in the country that comprehensively assesses the technical, economic, and environmental impact of SWH systems across the country. This study therefore used the System Advisor Model (SAM) to model two different technologies of SWH systems (i.e., flat plate (FPC) and evacuated tube (EPC) SWH) at five different locations (i.e., Pretoria, Upington, Kimberley, Durban, and Cape Town) strategically selected across the country. According to the study, the optimum azimuth for both the evacuated tube and flat plate SWH system in South Africa is 0°. Installing FPC and EPC at the different locations would yield payback periods of 3.2 to 4.4 years and 3.5 to 4.3 years, respectively. Comparably, levelized cost of energy for the FPC and EPC will range from 7.47 to 9.62 cents/kWh and 7.66 to 9.24 cents/kWh, respectively, based on where the SWH system is located. Depending on where the facility is located, the annual cost savings for the FPC system would be between $486 and $625, while the EPC system would save between $529 and $638. Using SWHs can reduce CO2 emissions by 75–77% for the evacuated tube system and 69–76% for the flat plate system annually, depending on the location.
ISSN:2352-4847
2352-4847
DOI:10.1016/j.egyr.2023.12.063