Farklı Büyüklükteki Fotovoltaik Sistemlerin Yaşam Döngüsü Değerlendirmesi: Sıcak İklimde Bir Eğitim Binası Üzerine Çevresel ve Ekonomik Bir Bakış Açısı

Öz

Binalarda fotovoltaik sistemlerin hızlı benimsenmesi, sürdürülebilir enerji çözümleri ihtiyacı ve karbonsuzlaşma hedefleri tarafından yönlendirilmektedir. Bu çalışma, bir fakülte binasının enerji kullanımını, potansiyel enerji üretimini, yaşam döngüsü maliyetlerini ve karbon emisyonlarını değerlendirmektedir. Bina özellikleri, operasyonel programlar ve yük profilleri gibi temel faktörler DesignBuilder kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. PVsyst ile yapılan fotovoltaik sistem modellemesi, çeşitli zemin kaplama oranlarını (GCR) incelemiştir. Yaşam döngüsü maliyet analizi, fotovoltaik sistemlerin ekonomik avantajlarını vurgularken; karbon geri ödeme süreleri, emisyon azaltımlarını ölçmüştür. Sonuçlar, daha yüksek GCR değerlerinin enerji üretimini ve şebekeye satıştan elde edilen geliri artırdığını göstermektedir. Performans oranı değerleri %77 ile %79 arasında değişmiş, özgül üretim oranı ise 1630-1672 kWh/kWp aralığında bulunmuştur. Başlangıç yatırımı yüksek olsa da, GCR'nin artırılması yaşam döngüsü maliyetlerini düşürmekte ve geri ödeme sürelerini kısaltmaktadır. Geri ödeme süresi 6,5 yıl olarak hesaplanmış, bina ise ilk yıl içinde karbon nötrlüğüne ulaşmıştır. Bu metodoloji, farklı bina türleri ve iklimler için uyarlanabilir olup, sıfır enerjili binalar ve karbon emisyonlarının azaltılması gibi geniş çaplı hedefleri desteklemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yenilenebilir enerji
• yaşam döngüsü karbon değerlendirmesi
• yaşam döngüsü maliyet analizi
• eğitim binası

Life cycle assessment of photovoltaic systems of various sizes: An environmental and economic perspective on an educational building in a hot climate

Abstract

The swift adoption of photovoltaic systems in buildings is driven by the need for sustainable energy solutions and decarbonization goals. This study assesses a faculty building’s energy usage, potential energy yield, life cycle costs, and carbon emissions. Key factors such as building characteristics, operational schedules, and load profiles were analyzed using DesignBuilder. Photovoltaic system modeling with PVsyst explored various ground cover ratios (GCR). Life cycle cost analysis highlighted the economic advantages of photovoltaic systems, while carbon payback periods measured emission reductions. Results indicate that higher GCRs enhance energy production and revenue from grid sales. Performance ratio values varied between 77% and 79%, and the specific production rate ranged from 1630 to 1672 kWh/kWp. Although initial investment is high, increasing GCR reduces life cycle costs and shortens payback periods. Payback period was found to be 6.5 years, and the building achieves carbon neutrality within the first year. This methodology can be adapted for various building types and climates, supporting the broader goal of zero energy buildings and carbon emission reduction.

Keywords

• Renewable energy
• Life cycle carbon assessment
• Life cycle cost analysis
• Educational building

Kaynakça

1. [1] Pérez-Lombard L, Ortiz C. Pout C. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy and Buildings 2008; 40(3): 394-398.
2. [2] Sayın S. The Significance of the use of renewable energy in our country’s building sector and the opportunities of utilizing of solar energy in buildings. Selcuk University. M. Sc. Thesis, 2006.
3. [3] Eurostat. Accessed on the date of: 22.01.2023; Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy_balances/enbal.html.
4. [4] MENR, M.O.E.A.N.R. National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (2017–2023). Accessed on the date of; Available from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2018/01/20180102M1-1-1.pdf.
5. [5] Yildiz Y,M Koçyiğit. Energy consumption analysis of education buildings: The case study of Balikesir University. Gazi University Journal of Science 2021;34:665-677.
6. [6] Alshuwaikhat HM, Abubakar I. An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008; 16(16): 1777-1785.
7. [7] Barbhuiya S, Barbhuiya S. Thermal comfort and energy consumption in a UK educational building. Building and Environment 2013; 68: 1-11.
8. [8] Goenaga-Pérez A, Álvarez-Sanz M, Terés-Zubiaga J, Campos-Celador A. Cost-effectiveness and minimum requirements of nZEB for residential buildings under the new Spanish Technical Building Code. Energy and Buildings 2023; 287: 112986.

9. [9] Hassan J, Zin R , Abd Majid M, Balubaid S, Hainin M. Building energy consumption in Malaysia: An overview. Jurnal Teknologi 2014; 70(7).
10. [10] Kitsopoulou A, Pallantzas D, Sammoutos C, Lykas P, Bellos E, Vrachopoulos MG, Tzivanidis C. A comparative investigation of building rooftop retrofit actions using an energy and computer fluid dynamics approach. Energy and Buildings 2024; 315: 114326.
11. [11] Naserabad, SN, Ahmadi P, Mobini K, Mortazavi M. Thermal design and dynamic performance assessment of a hybrid energy system for an educational building. Energy and Buildings 2023; 278: 112513.
12. [12] Zafaranchi M, Sozer H. Enhancing energy efficiency through hourly assessments of passive interventions in educational-office buildings: A case study in a Mediterranean climate. Energy Reports 2024; 11: 423-441.
13. [13] Heracleous C, Michael A, Savvides A, Hayles C. A methodology to assess energy-demand savings and cost-effectiveness of adaptation measures in educational buildings in the warm Mediterranean region. Energy Reports 2022; 8: 5472-5486.
14. [14] Javid AS, Aramoun F, Bararzadeh M, Avami A. Multi objective planning for sustainable retrofit of educational buildings. Journal of Building Engineering 2019; 24: 100759.
15. [15] Ilham NI, Dahlan NY, Hussin MZ. Optimizing solar PV investments: A comprehensive decision-making index using CRITIC and TOPSIS. Renewable Energy Focus 2024; 49: 100551.
16. [16] Anoune K, Bouya M, Astito A, Abdellah AB. Sizing methods and optimization techniques for PV-wind based hybrid renewable energy system: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018; 93: 652-673.
17. [17] Fiorotti R, Yahyaoui I, Rocha HR, Honorato Í, Silva J, Tadeo F. Demand planning of a nearly zero energy building in a PV/grid-connected system. Renewable Energy Focus 2023; 45: 220-233.
18. [18] Emil F, Diab A. Energy rationalization for an educational building in Egypt: Towards a zero energy building. Journal of Building Engineering 2021; 44: 103247.
19. [19] Koo C, Shi K, Li W, Lee J. Integrated approach to evaluating the impact of feed-in tariffs on the life cycle economic performance of photovoltaic systems in China: A case study of educational facilities. Energy 2022; 254: 124302.
20. [20] Taghavifar H, Zomorodian ZS. Techno-economic viability of on grid micro-hybrid PV/wind/Gen system for an educational building in Iran. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021; 143: 110877.
21. [21] Suarez-Ramon I, Alvarez-Rodriguez M, Ruiz-Manso C, Perez-Dominguez F, Gonzalez-Vega P. A general sizing methodology of grid-connected PV systems to meet the zero-energy goal in buildings. Energy 2024: 132580.
22. [22] Omar A, Khattab N, Abdel Aleem S. Optimal strategy for transition into net-zero energy in educational buildings: A case study in El-Shorouk City, Egypt. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 2021; 49: 101701.
23. [23] Khairi NHM, Akimoto Y, Okajima K. Suitability of rooftop solar photovoltaic at educational building towards energy sustainability in Malaysia. Sustainable Horizons 2022; 4: 100032.
24. [24] Park HS, Jeong K, Hong T, Ban C, Koo C, Kim J. The optimal photovoltaic system implementation strategy to achieve the national carbon emissions reduction target in 2030: Focused on educational facilities. Energy and Buildings 2016; 119: 101-110.
25. [25] Gbadamosi SL, Ogunje FS, Wara ST, Nwulu NI. Techno-economic evaluation of a hybrid energy system for an educational institution: a case study. Energies 2022; 15(15): 5606.
26. [26] Munguba C, Leite G, Ochoa A, Michima P, Silva H, Vilela O, Kraj A. Enhancing cost-efficiency in achieving near-zero energy performance through integrated photovoltaic retrofit solutions. Applied 1 Energy 2024; 367: 123307.
27. [27] Kabir MA, Hasan MM, Hossain T, Ahnaf A, Monir H. Sustainable energy transition in Bangladeshi academic buildings: A techno-economic analysis of photovoltaic-based net zero energy systems. Energy and Buildings 2024; 312: 114205.
28. [28] Michelle L, Chiara P. Assessing life cycle sustainability of building renovation and reconstruction: A comprehensive review of case studies and methods. Building and Environment 2024: 111817.
29. [29] Hemmati M, Bayati N, Ebel T. Integrated life cycle sustainability assessment with future energy mix: A review of methodologies for evaluating the sustainability of multiple power generation technologies development. Renewable Energy Focus 2024: 100581.
30. [30] Moazzen N, Karagüler ME, Ashrafian T. Comprehensive parameters for the definition of nearly zero energy and cost optimal levels considering the life cycle energy and thermal comfort of school buildings. Energy and Buildings 2021; 253: 111487.
31. [31] Aktas IS, Ozenc S. A case study of techno-economic and environmental analysis of college rooftop for grid-connected PV power generation: Net zero 2050 pathway. 1 Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 2024; 56: 104272.
32. [32] Özcan Ö, Duman AC, Gönül Ö, Güler Ö. Techno-economic analysis of grid-connected PV and second-life battery systems for net-zero energy houses. Journal of Building Engineering 2024; 89: 109324.
33. [33] Şevik S. Techno-economic evaluation of a grid-connected PV-trigeneration-hydrogen production hybrid system on a university campus. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2 2022; 47(57): 23935-23956. 3
34. [34] Alıç O. A holistic techno-economic feasibility analysis of residential renewable energy systems: An insight into Turkish case. Journal of Energy Storage 2024; 94: 112433.
35. [35] Bilir L,Yildirim N. Photovoltaic system assessment for a school building. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2017; 42(28): 17856-17868.
36. [36] Dal AÖ, Ashrafian T. Evaluation of Building Retrofitting Alternatives Towards Zero Energy School Building in Turkey. CLIMA 2022: the 14th REHVA HVAC World Congress, 1 Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2022.
37. [37] Atmaca A, Atmaca N. Life cycle energy (LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions (LCCO2A) assessment of two residential buildings in Gaziantep, Turkey. Energy and Buildings 2 2015; 102: 417-431.
38. [38] Atmaca A, Atmaca N. Carbon footprint assessment of residential buildings, a review and a case study in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production 3 2022; 340: 130691.
39. [39] Kayaçetin, NC, Hozatlı B. Whole life carbon assessment of representative building typologies for nearly zero energy building definitions. Journal of Building Engineering 2024; 95: 110214.
40. [40] Kınay U, Laukkarinen A, Vinha J. Renovation wave of the residential building stock targets for the carbon-neutral: Evaluation by Finland and Türkiye case studies for energy demand. 4 Energy for Sustainable Development 2023; 75: 1-24.
41. [41] Kayaçetin NC, Tanyer AM. Embodied carbon assessment of residential housing at urban scale. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2020; 117: 109470.
42. [42] Casini M. Chapter 5—Building performance simulation tools. Construction 2022; 4: 221-262.
43. [43] TS 825, Thermal insulation requirements for buildings. 2008, Turkish Standards Institution Ankara, Turkey.
44. [44] Almarzouq A, Sakhrieh A. Effects of glazing design and infiltration rate on energy consumption and thermal comfort in residential buildings. Thermal Science 2019; 23 (5 Part B): 2951-2960.
45. [45] Yu S, Cui Y, Xu X, Feng G. Impact of civil envelope on energy consumption based on EnergyPlus. Procedia Engineering 2015; 121: 1528-1534.
46. [46] Feng X, Yan D, Peng C, Jiang Y. Influence of residential building air tightness on energy consumption. HVAC 2014; 44: 5-14.
47. [47] Yao J, Huang Y, Cheng K. Coupling effect of building design variables on building energy performance. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 2021; 27: 101323.
48. [48] Acar U, Kaska O, Tokgoz N.. Multi-objective optimization of building envelope components at the preliminary design stage for residential buildings 5 in Turkey. Journal of Building Engineering 2021; 42: 102499.
49. [49] Crawley D, Lawrie L. Development of Global Typical Meteorological Years (TMYx). Accessed on the date of: 01.04.2022; Available from: http://climate.onebuilding.org.
50. [50] Acar U, Kaşka Ö, Tokgöz N. The effects of different typical meteorological year data on the heating and cooling demand of buildings: case study of Turkey. 6 Journal of Thermal Engineering 2022; 8: 677-90.
51. [51] Öztürk MZ, Çetinkaya G, Aydın S. Köppen-Geiger iklim sınıflandırmasına göre Türkiye’nin iklim tipleri. Coğrafya Dergisi 2017(35): 17-27.
52. [52] TS825, Binalarda Isı Yalıtım Kuralları. 2008, Türk Standartları Enstitüsü.
53. [53] McClellan TM, Pedersen CO. Investigation of outside heat balance models for use in a heat balance cooling load calculation procedure. 7 Conference: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) annual meeting, Boston, MA, United States, 1997.
54. [54] Rees SJ, Spitler JD, Davies MG, Haves P. Qualitative comparison of North American and UK cooling load calculation methods. HVAC&R Research 2000; 6(1): 75-99.
55. [55] ANSI, ASHRAE Standard 55 (2013) Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. 2013.
56. [56] Younes C, Shdid CA, Bitsuamlak G. Air infiltration through building envelopes: A review. Journal of Building Physics 2012; 35(3): 267-302.
57. [57] Speert J, Legge C. Informed Mechanical Design Through Tested Air Leakage Rates. in Building Enclosure Science & Technology (BEST3) Conference, 2012.
58. [58] Delzendeh E, Wu S, Lee A, Zhou Y. The impact of occupants’ behaviours on building energy analysis: A research review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 8 2017; 80: 1061-1071.
59. [59] Yazit RNSRM, Husini EM, Khamis MK, Zolkefli MF, Dodo YA. Illuminance level measurement at lower working plane height in Islamic religious school. Asian Journal of University Education 2020; 16(3): 125-137.
60. [60] Rea M. The IESNA Lighting handbook 9th ed. ed J. Block. New York: Publications Department IESNA, 2000.
61. [61] McKenney K, Guernsey M, Ponoum R, Rosenfeld J. Commercial miscellaneous electric loads: Energy consumption characterization and savings potential in 2008 by building 9 type. TIAX LLC, Lexington, MA, 10 Tech. Rep. D 2010; 498: 224.
62. [62] Wang L, Mathew P, Pang X. Uncertainties in energy consumption introduced by building operations and weather for a medium-size office building. Energy 11 and Buildings 2012; 53: 152-158.
63. [63] Energy, U., Buildings energy data book, in, 2012. 2011.
64. [64] Ghatikar G. Miscellaneous and electronic loads energy efficiency opportunities for commercial buildings: a collaborative study by the United States and 12 India. Report number: LBNL-6287E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Infosys Technologies Limited, 2013.
65. [65] Frank S, Polese LG, Rader E, Sheppy M, Smith J. Extracting operating modes from building electrical load data. IEEE Green Technologies Conference (IEEE-Green). 2011.
66. [66] Bader S, Ma X, Oelmann B. One-diode photovoltaic model parameters at indoor illumination levels–A comparison. Solar Energy 2019; 180: 707-716.
67. [67] Acar U, Kaska O. Energy and economical optimal of Nzeb design under different climate conditions of Türkiye. Journal of Building Engineering 2022; 60: 105103.
68. [68] Feldman D, Ramasamy V, Fu R, Ramdas A, Desai J, Margolis R. US solar photovoltaic system and energy storage cost benchmark. National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO, United States, 2021.
69. [69] Doubleday K, Choi B, Maksimovic D, Deline C, Olalla C. Recovery of inter-row shading losses using differential power-processing submodule DC–DC converters. Solar Energy 2016; 135: 512-517.
70. [70] Huang Z, Lu Y, Wei M, Liu J. Performance analysis of optimal designed hybrid energy systems for grid-connected nearly/net zero energy buildings. 13 Energy 2017; 141: 1795-1809.
71. [71] Delgarm N, Sajadi B, Kowsary F, Delgarm S. Multi-objective optimization of the building energy performance: A simulation-based approach by means of particle swarm 14 optimization (PSO). Applied Energy 2016; 170: 293-3
72. [72] Andrews CJ, Krogmann U. Technology diffusion and energy intensity in US commercial buildings. Energy Policy 2009; 37(2): 541-553.
73. [73] Zhao J, Li S. Life cycle cost assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis of environment-friendly building insulation materials-A review. Energy and Buildings 1 2022; 254: 111582.
74. [74] Kneifel J, Lavappa P. Energy Price Indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis–. Annual Supplement to NIST Handbook 2024; 135.
75. [75] CEN, EN 15459:2008 Standard- Energy performance of buildings - Economic evaluation procedure for energy systems in buildings. European Committee for Standardization, 2 2008.
76. [76] Or B, Bilgin G, Akcay EC, Dikmen I, Birgonul MT. Real options valuation of photovoltaic investments: A case from Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2024; 192: 114200.
77. [77] Stevanović S, Pucar M. Investment appraisal of a small, grid-connected photovoltaic plant under the Serbian feed-in tariff framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 3 2012; 16(3): 1673-1682.
78. [78] Fenner AE, Kibert CJ ,Li J, Razkenari MA, Hakim H, Lu X, Kouhirostami M, Sam M. Embodied, operation, and commuting emissions: A case study comparing the carbon hotspots of an educational building. Journal of Cleaner Production 4 2020; 268: 122081.
79. [79] Fenner AE, Kibert CJ, Woo J, Morque S, Razkenari M, Hakim H, Lu X. The carbon footprint of buildings: A review of methodologies and applications. Renewable 5 and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2018; 6 94: 1142-1152.
80. [80] Raugei M, Bargigli S, Ulgiati S. Life cycle assessment and energy pay-back time of advanced photovoltaic modules: CdTe and CIS compared to poly-Si. Energy 7 2007; 32(8): 1310-1318.
81. [81] Wikoff HM, Reese SB, Reese MO. Embodied energy and carbon from the manufacture of cadmium telluride and silicon photovoltaics. Joule 2022; 6(7): 1710-1725.
82. [82] Accessed on the date of: 01.04.2024; Available from: https://meslekihizmetler.csb.gov.tr/elektrik-enerjisinin-birincil-enerji-ve-sera-gazi-salimi-katsayilari-i-100347.
83. [83] Ragon PL, Rodríguez F. CO2 emissions from trucks in the EU: An analysis of the heavy-duty CO2 standards baseline data, July 2019–June 2020. International Council on Clean Transportation, 2021.
84. [84] NREL, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar photovoltaics, National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO,United States, 2012.
85. [85] Wu F, Zhou Z, Temizel-Sekeryan S, Ghamkhar R, Hicks AL. Assessing the environmental impact and payback of carbon nanotube supported CO2 capture technologies using LCA methodology. 8 Journal of Cleaner Production 2020; 270: 122465.
86. [86] NREL, Energy and Carbon Payback Times for Modern US Utility Photovoltaic Systems, National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO,United States, 2024.
87. [87] D'Agostino D, Mazzarella L. What is a Nearly zero energy building? Overview, implementation and comparison of definitions. Journal of Building Engineering 9 2019; 21: 200-212.
88. [88] D'Agostino D, Tzeiranaki ST, Zangheri P, Bertoldi P. Assessing nearly zero energy buildings (NZEBs) development in Europe. Energy Strategy Reviews 2021; 36: 100680.
89. [89] Lagarde Q, Beillard B, Mazen S, Denis MS, Leylavergne J. Performance ratio of photovoltaic installations in France: Comparison between inverters and micro-inverters. Journal of King Saud University-Engineering Sciences 2023; 35(8): 531-538.
90. [90] Cubukcu M, Gumus H. Performance analysis of a grid-connected photovoltaic plant in eastern Turkey. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 10 2020; 39: 100724.
91. [91] Eke R, Demircan H. Performance analysis of a multi crystalline Si photovoltaic module under Mugla climatic conditions in Turkey. Energy conversion and Management 11 2013; 65: 580-586.
92. [92] Duman AC, Güler Ö. Economic analysis of grid-connected residential rooftop PV systems in Turkey. Renewable Energy 2020; 148: 697-711.
93. [93] Accessed on the date of: 01.05.2024; Available from: https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/main/solar-panels/solar-panels-carbon-analysis.