A discounted cash flow analysis (DCFA) and a cost benefit analysis (CBA) have been implemented in order to investigate the economic aspects of ground-coupled heat pump (GCHP) for space heating and cooling, in comparison to traditional condensing boiler (CB). The DCFA allows the analysis of investment costs, operating costs and savings of the two different systems in order to understand if the GCHP’s pay back periods (PBPs) is more interesting than that of CB in coming years. The first financial model (DCFA) takes account for economic factors as prices, costs and growth, while the economic approach (CBA) include the carbon price into the calculation, considering the social costs of carbon dioxide emissions. The whole analysis is implemented adopting a parametric approach, in which all the economic terms are linked to energy labels, degree-days and energy mix ratios (EMRs), the latter obtained as ratio between the cost of electricity and natural gas paid by the householder. Relating to different EMRs, the PBPs are presented in matrixes in which energy labels and degree-days are the row/column indexes, to confront the benefits of choosing between GCHP versus CB. The PBPs are also calculated with the introduction of the carbon price, so that some considerations about the environmental aspects are presented. The results show that all higher energy labels have a good profitability ratio between costs and payback periods and demonstrate that GCHP system does pay off.

Financial and economic analysis for ground-coupled heat pumps using shallow ground heat exchangers

GABRIELLI, Laura
;
BOTTARELLI, Michele
2016

Abstract

A discounted cash flow analysis (DCFA) and a cost benefit analysis (CBA) have been implemented in order to investigate the economic aspects of ground-coupled heat pump (GCHP) for space heating and cooling, in comparison to traditional condensing boiler (CB). The DCFA allows the analysis of investment costs, operating costs and savings of the two different systems in order to understand if the GCHP’s pay back periods (PBPs) is more interesting than that of CB in coming years. The first financial model (DCFA) takes account for economic factors as prices, costs and growth, while the economic approach (CBA) include the carbon price into the calculation, considering the social costs of carbon dioxide emissions. The whole analysis is implemented adopting a parametric approach, in which all the economic terms are linked to energy labels, degree-days and energy mix ratios (EMRs), the latter obtained as ratio between the cost of electricity and natural gas paid by the householder. Relating to different EMRs, the PBPs are presented in matrixes in which energy labels and degree-days are the row/column indexes, to confront the benefits of choosing between GCHP versus CB. The PBPs are also calculated with the introduction of the carbon price, so that some considerations about the environmental aspects are presented. The results show that all higher energy labels have a good profitability ratio between costs and payback periods and demonstrate that GCHP system does pay off.
2016
Gabrielli, Laura; Bottarelli, Michele
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
SCS-D-15-00146R1-vr.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Versione post review
Tipologia: Post-print
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.36 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.36 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Financial and economic analysis_2016.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 1.47 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.47 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2334933
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 35
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 28
social impact