Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Techno-economic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a novel

solar-based building energy system; An effort to reach the true meaning of
zero-energy buildings
Ahmad Arabkoohsar a, Amirmohammad Behzadi a, *, Ali Sulaiman Alsagri b
a
Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Denmark
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Qassim University, Unaizah, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the present work, a novel hybrid solar-based smart building energy system is introduced and studied. The
Hybrid solar-based system system comprises innovative photovoltaic-thermal-cooling (PVTC) panels integrated with hot and cold storages
Smart energy building with two-way interaction with electricity, heat, and cooling networks (if any). The proposed system is compared
Photovoltaic thermal cooling panels
with PV-based systems integrated with battery and heat pump for a case study complex building in Aarhus,
District heating and cooling networks
Multi-objective optimization
Denmark. The comparison is conducted by evaluating the performance and economic indicators and investi­
gating the effect of significant parameters on each scenario via a parametric study. Furthermore, the optimal
operating conditions and sizing of the proposed system are determined using the genetic algorithm method
considering initial cost and traded energy with local energy networks as the objective functions. The comparison
results show that the proposed solution is the most cost-effective scenario with the lowest initial cost of about
457,000 $ and a payback period of 6.6 years. This is mainly due to the simultaneous interaction with electricity/
heat/cooling networks as well as the elimination of the battery and the heat pump, which are offered by the
proposed scenario. It is shown that, in comparison to PV panels, the PVTC can produce 328.7 MWh and 125.6
MWh extra heat and cooling annually. The scatter distribution of significant parameters shows that the panel
area and heat storage capacity are not sensitive parameters, and keeping the cold storage capacity at the lower
bound is a techno-economically better option.

1. Introduction
Greenhouse gas emissions and global energy consumption are
becoming more serious, with 49% and 43% jumping until 2035
compared to 2007 [1]. Although effective actions have been taken for
the green transition in Europe, 70.4% of the energy need is still supplied
by fossil fuels [2]. Buildings account for a considerable amount of energy
consumption and pollution. From the entire buildings’ energy demand
in Europe, 63.6% is related to space heating, 14.8% for domestic hot
water, and 0.4% for space cooling [3]. Hence, reducing the required
energy of buildings can effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
contribute to an efficient European energy matrix [4]. A promising so­
lution for this may be a renewable-based smart building energy system
with two-way interaction with district energy systems (electricity, heat,
and cold). By this approach, the building can genuinely attain a net-zero
energy level and contribute to the energy distribution grids effectively.
These distributed resources could be used for further peak shaving of the
grids, which is a vital need for energy systems [5].
In the literature, various research papers investigate the two-way
interaction of the electricity grid with solar electrical building systems
comprising PV panels (with and without battery) and heat pumps.
Considering the case of Muscat, Oman, a techno-economic comparison
of a grid-dependent and -independent PV/battery power system for a
residential building was investigated by Al-Saqlawi et al. [6], finding out
the superiority of grid-connected system. They showed that a significant
portion of the initial and annual operating costs is associated with the
battery. Baneshi and Hadinfard [7] compared a PV-based power gen­
eration system with and without battery. They showed that the grid-
connected system is better than the off-grid one from an economic
aspect, and using a battery leads to a 33% higher levelized cost of
electricity. Liu et al. [7] studied the feasibility of a PV-based system
integrated with a battery and heat pump. They concluded that the
electricity price increases dramatically as the size of the panel and the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ambe@et.aau.dk (A. Behzadi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113858
Received 4 November 2020; Received in revised form 4 November 2020; Accepted 13 January 2021
Available online 6 February 2021
0196-8904/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Arabkoohsar et al. Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858

Nomenclature BE Bought electricity

BH Bought heat
A Area, m2 CHP Combined heating and power
CP Specific heat capacity, kJ/(kg.K) Conv Convection
G Total incident solar radiation, kW/m2 CSt Cold storage
h Enthalpy (kJ/kg) DC District cooling
hc,forced Forced convection heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2K) DH District heating
hc,mix Mixed convection heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2K) HSt Heat storage
hc,nat Natural convection heat transfer coefficient, W/(m2K) i Inlet
P Pressure IC Initial cost
Q̇h The energy input to the tank from a hot fluid stream, kW k kth segment
Q̇L Energy removed from the tank to supply the load nat natural
Qloss,top,conv The energy lost through convection at the top surface, o Outlet
kW PP Payback period
Qloss,top,rad The energy lost through radiation at the top surface, kW PV Photovoltaic
Qloss,back The energy lost at the back of the collector, kW PVT Photovoltaic/Thermal
Qu Energy added to the flow stream, kW PVTC Photovoltaic/Thermal/Cooling
RB The heat transfer resistance through the back of the PVT rad Radiation
T Temperature SE Sold electricity
U loss coefficient between the tank and its environment, kJ/ SH Sold heat
(kg.K.m2) SES Smart energy system
V Volume, m3 Total .

Subscripts and abbreviations Greek letters

amb tot τα transmittance-absorptance product for the PVT panel

battery price increase. Performance assessment of a PV-based power
system integrated with battery for a building apartment located in
Australia interacting with the local electricity grid was studied by Syed
et al. [8]. They concluded that a renewable-based system supplies the
electricity demand of 75% of the total electricity, and two-way inter­
action with the grid results in a better performance compared to a
standalone off-grid system. In another study, for three different climates
in Ethiopia, the interaction of a PV/battery system with the electricity
grid was investigated and compared by Azerefegan et al. [9]. The aim
here was to decrease the pressure on the grid in peak demand hours.
Sharma et al. [10] proposed a grid-connected building integrated with
PV panels and a battery for Norway, finding out that there is a robust
relationship between the PV electricity generation and grid supply to
minimize the building’s energy costs. Pinamonti and Baggio [11] used
TRNSYS software to compare different configurations of solar-based
building energy systems against the conventional air to air heat pump
connected to the electricity grid. Their results revealed that the PV-
assisted heat pump system is the most profitable solution because of
the highest energy reduction and lowest annual costs. In another study,
Saleh et al. [12] concluded that the most economical option is inte­
grating PV panels with battery interacted with the electricity grid among
various configurations of solar-based building power systems.
In comparison to PVs, the use of PVT panels is more beneficial due to
not only a higher useful energy gain (electricity plus heat) from a certain
panel area but also a lower energy cost as a result of increasing the share
of building in the energy supply of the network, if applicable. Moreover,
recovering the waste heat of panels, which leads to a lower average
temperature (and thus, a higher electrical efficiency), is another supe­
riority of PVT panels against PVs [13]. The integration of PVT panels
with battery and heat storage for providing the heat and electricity of
smart buildings has also been studied in the literature. In a recent study,
Zarei et al. [14] compared thermodynamic and economic aspects of a
novel PVT-based multi-generation system and a PV-based power system
for a residential building. They observed 11% higher efficiency as a
result of cogeneration of heat and electricity from the PVTs. Techno-
economic comparison of PVT panels and a hybrid PV system inte­
grated with a solar thermal collector to provide the electricity and
domestic hot water need of an office building in Hong Kong was per­
formed by Tse et al. [15]. They demonstrated the excellence of PVT
panels by a lower payback period and higher performance efficiency
because of exploiting the waste heat of panels. Kamel et al. [16]
concluded that a lower net present value and higher combined cooling,
heating, and electricity efficiency are achieved using PVT panels instead
of side-by-side PVs and solar collectors for domestic applications. A
hybrid building system integrated with PVT panels, thermal, and elec­
tricity storage units interacting with the electricity grid was modeled
and simulated by Buonomano et al. [17] using TRNSYS software. They
concluded that the primary energy saving and CO2 emission reduction of
68.8% and 90.2% is obtained. A PVT-based smart building system was
investigated by Behzadi and Arabkoohsar [18], concluding that a
considerable reduction in building energy costs is obtained due to the
simultaneous production of heat and electricity.
On the other hand, researchers’ critical finding is climate change that
results in an emerging summer cooling and winter heating demand
across the world. It comprises a 30% higher cold demand and 20% lower
heat demand by 2050. In this regard, it is also anticipated that in Europe,
until 2050, the cooling demand will increase by three times larger than
the cooling demand of 2006 and six times larger than in 1990 [19].
Considering these rapidly growing needs, especially in cooling demand,
there should be increasing attention to the natural source of cooling. In
addition to electricity and heat production of PVT panels in days, their
cooling potential via the radiation toward the cold sky at night is left
untapped and has been only investigated in a limited number of research
works. Analytical and experimental investigation of PVT panels’ radia­
tive cooling potential for the Scandinavian climate was studied by Pean
et al. [20]. Considering the city of Madrid, Spain, as the case study,
Eicker and Dalibard [21] studied the night radiative cooling of a
building system integrated with PVT panels, resulting in an average
cooling production of 60–65 W/m2. Hosseinzadeh and Taherian [23]
studied the radiative cooling potential of flat plate collectors for a res­
idential building. They concluded that the average cooling production of
52 W/m2 is obtained for water temperature decreases of 8 ◦ C.
To sum it up, the literature on the smart energy building topic is still
suffering from a couple of important gaps. First, there is a lack of two-

2
A. Arabkoohsar et al.
way interaction of smart energy buildings with district heating and
cooling networks. Second, a significant portion of the investment costs
of solar-based building energy systems is associated with batteries and
heat pumps, which discourage building owners from having their own
unit and contribute to the energy matrix. Third, after so many wide-
ranging studies focusing on the electricity and heat production of PVT
panels, there is insufficient research on the capability of cold production
of PVT panels via cold sky radiative cooling. This work aims to introduce
a secure and feasible pathway for developing smart energy buildings by
addressing all the gaps mentioned above. For this, it proposes a new
configuration of a multi-generation building energy system integrated
with PVTC panels and heat/cold storage units having two-way interac­
tion with district heating, cooling, and electricity networks. The pro­
posed system is also not equipped with battery and heat pumps as two
primary sources of initial costs. In this way, the buildings’ owners can
provide part of their own heating, electricity, and cooling demands and
compensate the buildings’ energy costs by selling their excess produc­
tion to the grids. Furthermore, for getting a better insight into the
excellence of the proposed novel configuration, it is compared with two
other widespread PV-based building energy systems equipped with
battery and heat pump interacting with electricity and heat networks
from performance and economic points of view. The comparison is
carried out via investigating the effects of main decision parameters and
extracting time-dependent diagrams. Finally, multi-objective optimiza­
tion using the genetic algorithm approach is applied to the proposed
novel configuration to obtain the optimal operating conditions of the
system.
2. System description and assumptions
The schematic diagram of each analyzed smart building system is
presented in Fig. 1. Fig. 1(a) illustrates the first scenario, the most
extensively used system in solar-based buildings. It comprises PV panels
and battery and has a two-way interaction with the electricity grid. As
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of each smart building system.
3
Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858
shown, based on monitoring the PV production and building’s electricity
demand, the surplus electricity can be either stored in the battery or sold
to the electricity grid. When the battery is full, and there is no demand,
the produced electricity is sold to the grid.
In contrast, if the PV system cannot supply the domestic need, and
the battery is vacant simultaneously, the electricity grid provides the
building’s real-time electricity need. Moreover, the heat and cold de­
mand of the building is supplied by district heating and cooling net­
works. The second scenario, including PV panels, battery, and heat
pump, is depicted in Fig. 1(b). In scenario 2, it is assumed that there are
no district heating and cooling grids available, and heating and cooling
demands are supplied onsite by the heat pump, as depicted in the figure.
According to the building’s energy demands, the value of generated
electricity, and the capacity of the battery, smart controllers decide
whether the electricity should supply the building’s real-time electricity
demand or run the heat pump. Fig. 1(c) illustrates the proposed novel
smart building configuration, scenario 3, which comprises PVTC panels,
heat, and cold storage units. The proposed scenario has two-way inter­
action with heat, cold, and electricity networks. In this scenario, the
battery and heat pump is eliminated, and PVTC covers the energy de­
mand of the building. Accordingly, in days, the solar system produces
electricity and heat, which might either supply the building’s real-time
demand, store in a heat storage tank, or sell to electricity and heat
networks based on the smart monitoring. Conversely, at night, the solar
system works as a cooling power run by natural heat transfer process
from the panels through long-wave radiation toward the sky. The
generated cold either provides the building’s real-time cooling demand
or stores in a cold storage tank for days’ cooling demand.
The sizing of the solar panels has been so selected that the total
annual electricity generated by the panel is almost the same as that used
by the building. The rest of the components have been sized according to
the building demands and solar panel dimensions. Table 1 gives the
dimensions/size and cost of the system components. An average elec­
trical and heat efficiency of 17.8% and 45% have been considered for the
A. Arabkoohsar et al. Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858

Table 1
Dimension and performance characteristics of the components of each scenario Q̇Total = GA(τα)(1 − ηPV ) (4)
[22–24].
Where η is the PV efficiency, and τα is the transmittance-absorptance
Component Size (unit) Initial product for the panel. Furthermore, Q̇Total is the total heat absorbed by
Cost
the panels dividing into the radiation and convection loss at the top and
PV Panels set (including inverter, etc.) 18 m2 × 50 320 $/m2 back surfaces, which can be calculated as below [27]:
Battery lithium-ion 300 kWh 8800 $
Air-Water Heat Pump 40 kWh 22,400 $ Q̇loss,top,conv = houter A(T PVT − Tamb ) (5)
PVTC Hybrid Energy Panels set (including inverter, 14 m2 × 50 448 $/m2
etc.)
Cold Storage 400 kWh 42,240 $ Q̇loss,top,rad = hrad A(T PVT − Tsky ) (6)
Heat Storage 400 kWh 42,240 $
Energy Management and Installation, etc. = 15% of Sum Cost T abs − T inside
Q̇loss,back = A (7)
RB
solar modules, which are very conservative numbers for our panels [22]. Also, Q̇PVTC which is the useful heat gain of panel transferring to the
The average night radiative cold production rate of 50 W/m2 is also working water is evaluated as follows [28]:
considered for the panels, which is again a fair number.
A 50-flat complex building in Aarhus, Denmark, is contemplated as Q̇PVTC = ṁwater CP,water (To − Ti ) (8)
the case study in the present work. For this, MATLAB software is applied Finally, the generated power is calculated as below [28]:
to evaluate the building’s heating and cooling demands based on room
temperature of 20℃ over the year. The detailed characterization of the Ẇ PVTC = GA(τα)ηPV (9)
building comprising the geometric, thermodynamic, and heat transfer
At night, when the temperature of panels falls below the sky tem­
parameters are listed in Table 2.
perature, the heat transfer occurs in the opposite direction of the day.
Therefore, the temperature of working water decreases and the desired
3. Methodology cooling energy will be produced. The cooling power comprising the
radiation and convective terms are written as following [20]:
Using MATLAB software with a time resolution of 1 h, thermody­
namic modeling of every component of each scenario is performed Q̇PVTC = Q̇rad + Q̇conv (10)
transiently under the weather data information of Aarhus, Denmark.
Furthermore, considering conflictive economic and performance in­ Q̇rad = AP εr σ (TP4 − Tsky
4
) (11)
dicators as objectives, multi-objective optimization using genetic algo­
rithm approach is applied to the best scenario. Q̇conv = AP hc,mix (TP − Ta ) (12)

Ap, εr, and σ are the panel area, real emissivity, and Stefan-
3.1. Thermodynamic modeling Boltzmann constant. Also, Tsky, Ta, and TP are the sky, air, and panel
temperatures, respectively. Also. hc,mix which is a function of natural and
For every component as a control volume, the mass and energy forced convection heat transfer coefficients is calculated as [20]:
balance equations can be written as below [25]: √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∑ ∑ hc,mix = 3 h3c,forced + h3c,nat (13)
ṁin = ṁout (1)
∑ ∑ hc,forced = 2.8 + 3Uw (14)
Q̇ − Ẇ = ṁout hout − ṁin hin (2)
hc,nat = 1.78(TP − Ta )1/3 (15)
Here Q̇ is the heat transfer to/from the control volume and Ẇ is the
work done by/on the control volume.
3.1.2. Storage tank
3.1.1. Photovoltaic thermal cooling (PVTC) panels District heating and cooling networks are complicated systems in
The energy balance equation for hybrid photovoltaic thermal cooling which heat and cooling supply and demand must be equal at any given
panels in a day is written as follows [26]: time. Constant regulations are required to provide the expected and
unpredictable changes in demand. To achieve these, a smart building
Q̇Total = Q̇loss,top,conv + Q̇loss,top,rad + Q̇loss,back + Q̇PVTC (3) energy system should be equipped with heat and cold storage tanks to
obtain a balance between supply and demand to make a reliable two-
way interaction. For instance, on hot days when there is more supply
than demand, the extra heat production can be saved in a heat storage
Table 2 tank to be either used at night or sold to the district heating network.
The characteristic of the buildings.
Similarly, the extra cooling generation by PVTC panels at night can be
Parameter Value Unit stored in the cold storage tank. In the proposed smart system, a multi-
The area of the building 150 m2/building node stratified storage tank is applied to balance the heat and cooling
Total heat loss coefficient 0.93 W/(m2.K) supplies and demands and obtain a better interaction between networks
Heat loss coefficient of windows 2.32 W/(m2.K) and smart building energy systems. In general, the N set of energy bal­
The windows area per shell 20 %
ance equations for each node is calculated to determine the temperature
Heat loss coefficient of walls 0.625 W/(m2.K)
The walls area per shell 30 % gradient inside the tank. By applying the first law of thermodynamic in a
Heat loss coefficient of roofs 0.5 W/(m2.K) transient manner, the energy balance equation for the kth node of a
The roofs area per shell 25 % storage tank is written as below [29]:
Heat loss coefficient of floor 0.625 W/(m2.K)
The floor area per shell 25 %
Air exchange rate 0.65 m3/(h.m3)
The internal gain of people’s metabolism effect 2.3 ℃/day

4
A. Arabkoohsar et al.
dTk ( ) ( )
mk CP =αk ṁh,in CP Th,in − Tk + βk ṁc,out CP Tc,out − Tk
dt
+ UAk (Tenv − Tk ) + γk CP (Tk− 1 − Tk ) + γ k CP (Tk − Tk+1 )
Here, ṁh, in, and Th, in are the mass flow rate and temperature of hot
water coming from either panel (in heating mode) or load (in cooling
mode), as depicted in Fig. 2. Moreover, ṁc, out, and Tc, out are the mass
flow rate and temperature of the water moving toward the panel (in
heating mode) or load (in cooling mode). Moreover, αi, βi, and γi are
signals which can be either 0 or 1 based on the smart controllers. Also, U
and CP are the loss coefficient and thermal capacity of tank and water,
respectively.
The amount of heat transferred to the load and received by solar
energy is, respectively, calculated as:
Q̇heatingload = ṁc,out CP (T1 − Tc.out )
Q̇heatingsun = ṁh,in CP (Th,in − TN )
Also, for the cooling mode, the amount of cooling transferred to the
load and received by PVTC can be evaluated as following, respectively:
Q̇coolingload = ṁh,out CP (T1 − Th.out )
Q̇coolingPTVC = ṁh,in CP (Tc,in − TN )
3.2. Performance evaluation
The performance assessment of each scenario is surveyed based on
the comparison of thermodynamic and economic indicators. To evaluate
the effectiveness of each scenario from an economic facet, the net pre­
sent value over a particular number of years (here 30 years) is defined as
below:
∑
30
CReduced,i − COM,i
NPV = − CInitial
i=1 (1 + r)i
In which r denotes the discount rate, CInitial is the sum of the com­
ponents’ initial cost, and COM,i is the operating and maintenance costs at
the ith year. Furthermore, CReduced denotes the reduced cost, which is the
difference of annual energy cost produced by the conventional way and
the solar-based system and is written as:
CReduced = CConventional − CSystem
CConventional = ElDemand × ElPrice + HDemand × HPrice
( ) ( )
CSystem = ElBought − ElSold × ElPrice + HBought − HSold × HPrice
Here ElDemand and HDemand are the sums of electricity and heat de­
mand for the whole year. Moreover, ElPrice and HPrice are the electricity
and heat prices equal to 400 $/MWh and 69.6 $/MWh for Denmark,
respectively. The payback period as the number of years required to
compensate the initial costs is another critical economic indicator
calculated as below:
Fig. 2. Schematic of a) heat b) cold stratified storage tank.
Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858
CInitial
(16) Payback Period = (25)
CReduced
3.3. Multi-objective optimization
In single-objective optimization, it is evident that a better perfor­
mance is achieved if more expensive equipment is applied. Also, to
obtain a lower product cost, the performance indicators must be sacri­
ficed. However, in thermal engineering problems, decision-makers are
always dealing with more than one objective to be optimized simulta­
neously. To achieve these goals, a multi-objective optimization
approach as a robust tool in mathematical optimization problems is
implemented to reach the best point considering two conflictive objec­
(17) tives. Maximizing the performance indicators while minimizing the cost
and minimizing the environmental aspect while minimizing the cost are
typical examples of multi-objective optimization problems in the ther­
(18)
mal energy system. The genetic algorithm method has the best perfor­
mance among different optimization techniques due to the highest
number of best minimum fitness and fastest computational speed for the
same parameters and optimization problems [30]. The genetic algo­
(19) rithm is also clarified as a very efficient procedure suitable for solving
problems that are usually infeasible with other optimization methods
(20) [31].
In the present work, multi-objective optimization based on the ge­
netic algorithm method is implemented using MATLAB software.
Accordingly, the best scenario is optimized, considering the initial cost
and bought energy from heat/electricity/cooling networks to be mini­
mized simultaneously as objectives. The initial cost and is the bought
energy from the networks for scenario 3 are written as below, respec­
tively:
∑
k
CInitial = CInitial,j (26)
(21) j=1
EBought = ElBought + HBought + ClBought (27)
Using a genetic algorithm method, abundant optimal points are
generated via the Pareto frontier diagram, among which one point is the
best option from the aspect of performance/economic conditions and
component sizing. The flow diagram of optimization based on the ge­
netic algorithm approach in the MATLAB toolbox is illustrated in Fig. 3.
(22) According to the figure, the main decision variables for optimization are
the area of panel and heat and cold storage capacities with a domain of 9
(23)
m2 < APVTC < 19 m2, 300 MWh < CHSt < 500 MWh, 300 MWh < CCSt <
500 MWh, respectively.
(24)
4. Results and discussion
MATLAB software is implemented to model and compare the per­
formance and economic aspects of the proposed novel configuration
(scenario 3) against other standard PV-based building systems (scenario
1&2). To distinguish the best scenario, first, time-dependent diagrams,
5
A. Arabkoohsar et al.
Fig. 3. Flowchart of the multi-objective optimization method.
daily and monthly, are extracted. Afterward, a comparative parametric
study is performed to evaluate the influence of main decision parameters
on the economic/performance indicators of each scenario. Finally,
considering initial cost and bought energy to the networks as objectives,
multi-objective optimization based on the genetic algorithm approach is
applied to the best scenario from all aspects.
To begin with, Fig. 4 illustrates the hourly variation of ambient
temperature, heat, electricity, and cooling demands, which are the
prerequisite information to model each scenario, considering a 50-flat
complex building in Aarhus, Denmark. According to the figure, while
in the hottest hour of the year, the maximum ambient temperature
reaches up to 29.08 ◦ C, it reduces to − 7.45 ◦ C in the coldest hour. Also,
the figure indicates that the electricity demand varies from 27.414 kWh
to 69 kWh. What stands out from the figure is that the maximum heat
demand and minimum baseload values are, respectively, 163.73 kWh
and 8.36 kWh. Finally, while the cooling load demand increases up to a
maximum value of 84.66 kWh in the 4546th hour of the year, it is equal
to zero in more than 6500 h of the year, as depicted in Fig. 4(d).
Table 3 compares the economic and performance facets of each
scenario for a whole year. The economic comparison is carried out by
evaluating the values of initial cost, maintenance cost, annual energy
cost, and reduced energy cost for each scenario. Also, the values of
produced, bought, and sold electricity, heat, and cooling are tabulated to
compare each scenario from a performance point of view. According to
the table, the proposed novel model, scenario 3, has a lower initial cost
6
Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858
of 177,008 $ and 283087.31 $ compared to scenario 1 and scenario 2,
respectively, which indicates the excellence of removing battery and
heat pump to increase the motivation of the building owners to have
their solar-based plant. Furthermore, the table shows that the reduced
energy costs of scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are, respectively, 63859.78 $,
91091.96 $, and 69094.79 $. As indicated, the highest value of bought
electricity from the network corresponds to scenario 2, which is inte­
grated with heat pump running based on the input electricity to supply
the heating demand. According to the table, in scenario 3, the simulta­
neous produced heating and cooling values of 328.72 MWh and 125.56
MWh, respectively, compared to corresponding zero values in scenarios
1 and 2, reveals the superiority of the use of PVTC against PV panels
from the performance standpoint. According to the table, the difference
between the heat demand and sold heat with the produced and bought
heats is not zero. It equals the electrical coil heat charged by the panel’s
produced electricity. Eventually, the table indicates that scenario 3 is the
best model from the economic aspect due to the lowest payback period
of 6.6 years. This is reasonable because the elimination of battery and
heat pump and a two-way interaction of the proposed novel scenario
with district heating and cooling and electricity networks simulta­
neously results in a lower number of years required to refund the capital
investment and operating and maintenance costs.
Naturally, the proposed solution is most appropriate for locations
with a district heating (or/and possibly district cooling) network. If such
energy distribution networks are not nearby, then the system would not
be able to make a two-way interaction for heat and/or cold trade. This
means that the system must come in connection with heat/cold auxiliary
systems to provide the building’s demand when there is no real-time
production by the system. To consider this case (i.e., no access to dis­
trict heating and cooling networks for two-way interaction), the system
proposed in the schematic of scenario 3 is considered to be integrated
with an air–water heat pump, and the simulation is run for an entire year
for the same case study. The results associated with this scenario are
reported in Table 4. According to the table, the heat pump leads to a
96,918 $ and 4845.9 $ increase in the initial and the operating and
maintenance cost compared to scenario 3. The comparison of Table 3
and Table 4 shows that scenario 3 would definitely be a techno-
economically superior option because of a lower annual energy cost
and a shorter payback period of 7263.29 $ and 2.37 years compared to
this new scenario.
The comparison of bought/sold electricity and heat from/to elec­
tricity and district heating networks is presented in Fig. 5. The more
solar radiation, the more useful energy is absorbed by the panels; hence,
while the value of sold heat and electricity to networks increases, the
bought values are reduced from Winter to Summer as depicted in the
figure. Accordingly, the maximum sold electricity to the grid for sce­
nario 1, and scenario 2 is 18.87 MWh and 19.95 MWh in June, and
scenario 3 is 15.48 MWh in July. According to the figure, scenario 3,
which is equipped with PVTC panels, has the lowest sold electricity to
the grid in all of the months. This is rational because, under the same
operating conditions, PVTC panels have a lower area resulting in lower
produced electricity than PV panels. Also, Fig. 5(a) indicates that the
minimum bought electricity from the grid is 0, 0.35 MWh, and 4.44
MWh for scenarios 1, 2, and 3, respectively. According to Fig. 5(b), the
maximum and minimum sold and bought heating values for scenario 3 is
46.77 MWh and 0.702 MWh, respectively.
Fig. 6 presents the time percentage duration curve of produced
electricity by PV (scenario 1&2) and produced heat and electricity by
PVTC panels (scenario 3). Referring to the figure, PV and PVTC panels
can produce electricity in 55.8% of the year with maximum values of
132.8 kWh and 121.52 kWh, respectively. The figure further shows that
in 27% of the year, the PVTC panels produce heat above 40 kWh. This
high value of operation hours indicates the excellence of PVTC panels
exploiting the unused waste heat from the PV module to either provide
the building’s real-time heat demand or transfer the extra heat to the
local network.
A. Arabkoohsar et al. Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858

a) 30 b) 30
25
25
Ambient temperature (°C)

Electricity demand (kWh)

20

15
20
10

5 15

-5 10

-10
5
0 1460 2920 4380 5840 7300 8760 0 1460 2920 4380 5840 7300 8760
Time (h) Time (h)
c) 180 d) 100
160
80
140

Cooling demand (kWh)

Heat demand (kWh)

120
60
100

80 40

60

40 20

20
0
0

0 1460 2920 4380 5840 7300 8760 0 1460 2920 4380 5840 7300 8760
Time (h) Time (h)

Fig. 4. Hourly variation of a) ambient temperature b) electricity demand c) heat demand d) cooling demand of a 50-flat complex building over the entire year [32].

Table 3
Comparison of annual performance and economic indicators of each scenario.
Economic indicators
Scenario Initial cost ($) Operating and maintenance Annual energy cost ($) Reduced energy cost ($) Payback period (Years)
cost ($)

1 634,800 31,740 32631.72 63859.78 9.9

2 740879.31 37043.96 5399.53 91091.96 8.1
3 457,792 22889.6 27396.71 69094.79 6.6

Performance indicators
Scenario Bought electricity Sold electricity (MWh) Produced electricity by panels Demand electricity (MWh) Produced heat by panels
(MWh) (MWh) (MWh)
1 53.91 69.04 159.66 144.51 0
2 97.05 83.54 159.66 144.51 0
3 92.58 58.82 146.09 144.51 328.72

Scenario Demand heat (MWh) Bought heat (MWh) Sold heat (MWh) Produced cooling by panels Demand cooling (MWh)
(MWh)
1 555.8 555.8 0 0 34.26
2 555.8 0 0 0 34.26
3 555.8 389.59 190.1 125.26 34.26

The hourly variation of produced and demand as well as bought/sold

Table 4
from/to local networks heat, electricity, and cooling in the hottest day of
Economic indicators of PVTC-based system integrated with a heat pump inter­
the year are illustrated in Fig. 7 to have a better insight of two-way
acting with only the electricity grid.
interaction of the proposed novel model, scenario 3, with the elec­
Initial Operating and Annual Reduced Payback tricity grid and district heating and cooling networks. According to the
cost ($) maintenance cost energy cost energy cost period
($) ($) ($) (Years)
figure, on the hottest day of the year, which is long, especially in
Denmark, when the sun is available, the PVTC panels can produce
554,710 27735.5 34,660 61,831 8.97
electricity and heat considerably so that not only the entire heat and

7
A. Arabkoohsar et al. Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858

a) 35 Bought (1) Bought (2) Bought (3)

Sold (1) Sold (2) Sold (3) b) Bought Sold
20 80 50
Bought electricity (MWh) 30

25 40

Sold electricity (MWh)

15 60

Bought heat (MWh)

Sold heat (MWh)

20
30
10 40
15
20
10
5 20
10
5

0 0
0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month Month

Fig. 5. Monthly variation of a) bought/sold electricity from/to electricity network for each scenario b) bought/sold heat from/to district heating network for
scenario 3.

respectively. The figure also shows that the maximum amount of bought
300
electricity in an hour of the year for scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are 29.93 kWh,
61.31 kWh, and 26.47 kWh. The figure further indicates that about
250 17.5% and 55.6% of the year with a maximum value of 283.11 kWh and
163.74 kWh, the smart building equipped with PVTC panels integrated
Produced energy (kWh)

200
150
100
50
0
0 20
Fig. 6. Time percentage duration curve of produced electricity for each sce­
nario and produced heat for scenario 3.
electricity need of smart building is supplied by the solar system
standalone but also the surplus energy is sold to the local networks.
However, at night, the smart building’s electricity demand is provided
by the grid, as depicted in Fig. 7(a). Fig. 7(a) further indicates that
although the produced electricity in the 9th and 10th hours of the day is
higher than the demand, the sold electricity to the network is zero. This
is reasonable because when there is not any demand or the entire de­
mand is supplied, the extra produced electricity firstly charges the
electrical coil of the heat storage tank and secondly is sold to the elec­
tricity network. Fig. 7(b) indicates that the bought heat from the district
heating network is still zero at night because the heat storage tank saves
the surplus produced heat of the day for night use. Furthermore, the
figure reveals that the generated cold at night is sold to the district
cooling network and simultaneously charges the cold storage tank.
Therefore, as depicted, the smart system is independent of the district
cooling network, i.e., the bought cooling is zero for the whole day and
night.
To investigate the two-way interaction of each scenario with energy
networks, Fig. 8 compares the time duration curve of bought/sold heat
and electricity to/from the grids for the whole year. According to the
figure, in scenario 1, 2, and 3, 14.4%, 22.1%, and 15.3% of the whole
year, the solar system can sell the extra produced electricity to the grid,
with hot and cold storage tanks (scenario 3) can sell and buy heat from
and to district heating network.
The variation of each scenario’s net present value versus the varia­
Electricity (1&2) tion of the years is illustrated in Fig. 9. According to the figure, scenario
Heat (3) 3 is the most cost-effective solution for providing the building’s energy
Electricity (3) demand. This is justified since, in the shortest time (around ten years),
the amount of NPV of scenario 3 goes from negative to zero compared to
other scenarios. The figure further indicates that although scenario 1 has
a lower NPV than scenario 2 initially, by passing the year, the NPV of
scenario 2 increases with a higher rate revealing the superiority of
adding a heat pump from an economic facet.
The effect of significant decision variables, including the area of
panel and battery and heat storage capacities of each scenario, is
40 60 80 100
investigated and compared by evaluating their influence on initial cost,
Time (%)
payback period, bought and sold total energy from, and networks as
economic and performance indicators.
Because the panel area has a crucial effect on the useful energy
gained from the sun, the influence of the area of the panel on the ther­
modynamic and economic standpoints of each scenario is evaluated and
compared in Fig. 10. According to the figure, as the panel area increases
from 12 m2 to 24 m2, the initial cost of each scenario increases because
the purchased cost of PV and PVTC panels increases linearly with an
increase in area. The figure further indicates that while picking up the
panel area leads to a higher sold energy to networks, the value of bought
energy for each scenario is decreased as presented in the figure. It is
reasonable because by increasing the panel area, higher solar energy is
absorbed; hence, the net produced energy and the sold energy to the
network will increase, and lower energy from the network is needed to
supply the building’s demand. Furthermore, the figure indicates that
when the panel area increases from 12 m2 to 24 m2, the payback period
of scenarios 1, 2, and 3 decreases from 12.32, 9.35, and 6.85 to 8.75,
7.49, and 5.81, respectively. Finally, from the figure, it can be concluded
that in the whole domain of the panel area, scenario 3 is the best option
from the economic facet due to the lowest payback period as well as
initial cost revealing the excellence of two-way interaction with elec­
tricity, heat, and cooling networks.
Fig. 11 shows the variation of initial cost, payback period, bought
and sold electricity from, and the grid for scenario 1 and scenario 2 with
battery capacity. Referring to the figure, the increase in battery capacity
has a negative effect on the scenarios’ economic aspect. In this regard,

8
A. Arabkoohsar et al. Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858

a) 120 b)
250
100
Produced
Bought 200 Produced
80 Sold Bought
Electricity (KWh)

Demand Sold

Heat (kWh)
150 Demand
60

100
40

50
20

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h) Time (h)
c) 40 Produced Bought Sold Demand
35

30

25
Cooling (kWh)

20

15

10

-5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h)

Fig. 7. Variation of the produced, bought, sold, and demand electricity, heat, and cooling for scenario 3 in the hottest day of the year.

180 70
300 Bought heat (3) 120
160
Sold heat (3) 60
250 140 Bought electricity (1) 100
Bought electricity (2)
Bought electricity (kWh)

50
Sold electricity (kWh)

120
Bought electricity (3)
Bought heat (kWh)
Sold heat (kWh)

200 80
100
Sold electricity (1) 40
Sold electricity (2)
150 80 Sold electricity (3) 60
30
60
100 40
20
40

50 20 10 20

0
0 0 0
-20
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (%)

Fig. 8. Time percentage duration curve of bought and sold electricity and heat for each scenario.

by increasing the capacity from 200 MWh to 400 MWh, the initial cost maintenance costs are compensated. The figure shows that while the
and payback period are increased, as shown in the figure. From the variation of battery capacity does not affect the sold electricity of sce­
figure, it can be further concluded that in the whole range of battery nario 2, its increase results in a decrease in sold electricity of scenario 1.
capacity, although scenario 1 has a lower initial cost, it is economically According to the figure, when the battery capacity increases, lower
superior compared to scenario 2 due to a lower payback period meaning electricity should be bought from the grid because the battery can store
that in lower years, the capital investment and operating and more electricity at other times.

9
A. Arabkoohsar et al. Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858

4 The more heat storage capacity leads to a higher purchased cost, so

NPV (1) NPV (2) NPV (3) the initial cost and payback period will increase, as illustrated in Fig. 12.
3 In contrast, the figure indicates that the increase in heat storage capacity
positively affects the networks’ bought total energy. As depicted, when
2 the storage capacity increase from 300 MWh to 500 MWh, the total
Net present value (M$)

bought energy (electricity + heat + cooling) decreases by about 27.64

1 MWh. The figure also shows that the increase of the storage capacity
results in a 27.34 MWh lower sold energy to the networks. This trend of
0 conflictive variation between the objectives reveals the significance of
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 multi-objective optimization.
-1 To sum it up, the annual performance assessment results and a
Year comparative parametric study for each scenario considering economic/
-2
performance facets reveal that the proposed novel model, scenario 3, is
the best option because of the lowest initial cost and lowest bought
-3
energy from the networks, simultaneously. Using a multi-objective
optimization approach based on a genetic algorithm, the proposed sce­
-4
nario is optimized, contemplating the initial cost and bought total en­
ergy as objectives. Accordingly, the Pareto frontier diagram consisting of
-5
all genetic algorithms and Pareto points is depicted in Fig. 13. The
Fig. 9. Variation of net present value over 30 years for each scenario. desired point is selected among the proposed Pareto points shown in the
figure based on the research aim.
The optimization results, including the optimum value of main de­
cision parameters and the optimal value of objectives obtained from
Fig. 13, are listed in Table 5. According to the table, if minimizing the

a) 700 600
b) 0.9 Initial (1) Initial (2) Initial (3) 13
Payback (1) Payback (2) Payback (3)

12
600 500
0.8

11
Bought energy (MWh)

Payback period (year)

Sold energy (MWh)

500 400
Initial cost (M$)

0.7
10

400 300
0.6 9

300 Bought (1) Bought (2) Bought (3) 200 8

Sold (1) Sold (2) Sold (3) 0.5
7
200 100
0.4
6
100 0
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Area (m2) Area (m2)

Fig. 10. The influence of panel area on a) bought and sold total energy from and to networks b) initial cost and payback period for each scenario.

12
0.85 84
100
Initial (1) 82
0.80 11
Initial (2)
90 Bought (1) 80
Sold electricity (MWh)
Payback period (year)

0.75 Bought (2)

Bought electricity

Initial cost (M$)

Payback (1) 10
78
Payback (2)
80 0.70 Sold (1)
76
Sold (2)
9
0.65 74
70

0.60 8 72

60 70
0.55
7
68
50 0.50
200 250 300 350 400
Battery capacity (MWh)

Fig. 11. Influence of battery capacity on initial cost, payback period, bought and sold electricity from, and to the grid for scenario 1 and scenario 2.

10
A. Arabkoohsar et al. Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858

535

0.470 6.9 265

Initial cost
530 Bought energy
Payback period 6.8
0.465 Sold energy 260
525

Bought energy (MWh)

Payback period (year)

Sold energy (MWh)

6.7

Initial cost (M$)

255
520 0.460
6.6
250
515 0.455 6.5

245
510 6.4
0.450

505 240
6.3
0.445

500 6.2 235

300 350 400 450 500
Heat storage capacity (MWh)

Fig. 12. Influence of heat storage capacity on initial cost, payback period, bought and sold total energy from and to networks for scenario 3.

Fig. 13. Pareto frontier diagram of total bought energy from the network and Fig. 14. Dimensionless Pareto frontier diagram of total bought energy from the
initial cost for the proposed novel model (scenario 3). network and initial cost for the proposed novel model (scenario 3).

point to the ideal point, as depicted in Fig. 14. As seen, at the best so­
Table 5 lution point, bought energy and initial cost are, respectively, 514.17
Results of optimization obtained from the Pareto frontier diagram.
MWh and 415,968 $. The table also shows that the optimum values of
Objectives Panel Heat Cold Bought Initial PVTC area, heat, and cold storage tanks capacity are 12.36 m2, 490.17
area storage storage energy cost ($) MWh, 311.69 MWh, respectively.
(m2) capacity capacity (MWh)
(MWh) (MWh)
Scatter distribution is illustrated in Fig. 15 to have a better image of
the optimum range of significant variables of the proposed novel model.
Initial Cost 9 300 300 559.79 305,912
Referring to Fig. 15(a), since all of the optimal points of the panel area
Bought 18.98 481.43 388.44 482.45 587,578
energy are distributed in the whole domain from 9 m2 to 19 m2, it is not a
Multi- 12.36 490.17 311.69 514.17 415,968 sensitive parameter. What stands out from Fig. 15(b) is that the optimum
objective points of heat storage tank capacity are distributed in the whole domain
point from 300 MWh to 485 MWh, where more of the optimum points are
adjacent to the higher values. From Fig. 15(c), it can be concluded that
initial cost is the only goal, a Pareto point with an initial cost of 305,912 the cold storage tank capacity is a sensitive parameter, and keeping it
$ is the desired condition. However, a Pareto point with the lowest between 300 MWh to 380 MWh leads to favorable performance and
bought energy of 482.45 MWh is the most suitable option from the economic conditions simultaneously.
performance aspect, as depicted in the table. According to Fig. 13, since
the conjunction of minimum bought energy and minimum initial cost 5. Conclusion
(ideal point) is not among the Pareto points, a normalized Pareto dia­
gram is extracted to find the best solution point, which is the nearest This work introduces a novel design of a solar-based building energy
system comprising PVTC panels integrated with heat and cold storage

11
A. Arabkoohsar et al.
Fig. 15. Scatter distribution of main decision parameters of the proposed novel model (scenario 3).
tanks with two-way interaction with district heating, cooling (if any),
and electricity networks. The proposed novel system’s technical and
economic aspects are evaluated and compared with other conventional
solar-based building energy systems consisting of PV panels integrated
with battery and heat pump interacting with the electricity grid.
Developing MATLAB code, the dynamic performance and economic
indicators of the systems, including initial cost, payback period, pro­
duced energy, and bought/sold energy from/to networks for each sce­
nario, are evaluated and compared. Moreover, a comparative
parametric study is carried out to assess the influence of significant
parameters such as panel area, battery, and heat storage capacities on
the performance/economic aspects of each scenario. Afterwards, multi-
objective optimization based on genetic algorithm approach is applied
to the proposed novel system to ascertain the optimal operating condi­
tions. For this, the Pareto front diagram and scatter distribution are
illustrated to determine the optimal value of objectives and optimum
domain of the most important decision parameters. The results indicate
that the initial cost of the proposed novel model is 177,000 $ and
283,000 $ lower than scenario 1 and scenario 2, consisting of a battery
and battery + heat pump, respectively. From the economic results, it can
be further concluded that the proposed novel configuration has the
lowest payback period of 6.6 years compared to scenario 1 and scenario
2 with 9.9 and 8.1 years, respectively. This reveals the strong impact of
eliminating battery and heat pumps and two-way interaction with the
electricity, heat, and cold networks. The performance comparison of all
the scenarios reveals the excellence of PVTC panels against PV due to
annual heat and cold production of 328.7 MWh and 125.6 MWh,
respectively. According to the results of multi-objective optimization, at
the optimal conditions, the bought energy from the networks and initial
12
Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858
cost are 514.2 MWh and 416,000 $ for the proposed novel configuration.
Scatter distribution of significant parameters reveals that while the
panel area is not a sensitive parameter, keeping the cold storage capacity
at the lower bound results in suitable performance/economic
conditions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ahmad Arabkoohsar: Software, Investigation, Writing - review &
editing, Supervision. Amirmohammad Behzadi: Visualization, Meth­
odology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Ali
Sulaiman Alsagri: Resources, Writing - review & editing, Data curation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Zahraee SM, Golroudbary SR, Shiwakoti N, Stasinopoulos P, Kraslawski A. Water-
energy nexus and greenhouse gas–sulfur oxides embodied emissions of biomass
supply and production system: A large scale analysis using combined life cycle and
dynamic simulation approach. Energy Convers Manag 2020;220:113113. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113113.
[2] Ahlström JM, Zetterholm J, Pettersson K, Harvey S, Wetterlund E. Economic
potential for substitution of fossil fuels with liquefied biomethane in Swedish iron
and steel industry – Synergy and competition with other sectors. Energy Convers
Manag 2020;209:112641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.112641.
[3] Wang F, Li K, Duić N, Mi Z, Hodge B-M, Shafie-khah M, et al. Association rule
mining based quantitative analysis approach of household characteristics impacts
A. Arabkoohsar et al.
on residential electricity consumption patterns. Energy Convers Manag 2018;171:
839–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.06.017.
[4] Oskouei MZ, Mohammadi-Ivatloo B, Abapour M, Ahmadian A, Piran MJ. A novel
economic structure to improve the energy label in smart residential buildings
under energy efficiency programs. J Clean Prod 2020;260:121059. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121059.
[5] Behzadi A, Arabkoohsar A. Comparative performance assessment of a novel
cogeneration solar-driven building energy system integrating with various district
heating designs. Energy Convers Manag 2020;220:113101. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113101.
[6] Al-Saqlawi J, Madani K, Mac DN. Techno-economic feasibility of grid-independent
residential roof-top solar PV systems in Muscat. Oman. Energy Convers Manag
2018;178:322–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2018.10.021.
[7] Liu X, Zhang P, Pimm A, Feng D, Zheng M. Optimal design and operation of PV-
battery systems considering the interdependency of heat pumps. J Energy Storage
2019;23:526–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.04.026.
[8] Syed MM, Hansen P, Morrison GM. Performance of a shared solar and battery
storage system in an Australian apartment building. Energy Build 2020;225:
110321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110321.
[9] Azerefegn TM, Bhandari R, Ramayya AV. Techno-economic analysis of grid-
integrated PV/wind systems for electricity reliability enhancement in Ethiopian
industrial park. Sustain Cities Soc 2020;53:101915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2019.101915.
[10] Sharma P, Kolhe M, Sharma A. Economic performance assessment of building
integrated photovoltaic system with battery energy storage under grid constraints.
Renew Energy 2020;145:1901–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.099.
[11] Pinamonti M, Baggio P. Energy and economic optimization of solar-assisted heat
pump systems with storage technologies for heating and cooling in residential
buildings. Renew Energy 2020;157:90–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2020.04.121.
[12] Saleh A, Faridun M, Tajuddin N, Ra M, Fayzul M, Ramli MAM. Feasibility analysis
of grid-connected and islanded operation of a solar PV microgrid system : A case
study of Iraq 2020;191. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.116591.
[13] Behzadi A, Gholamian E, Ahmadi P, Habibollahzade A, Ashjaee M. Energy, exergy
and exergoeconomic (3E) analyses and multi-objective optimization of a solar and
geothermal based integrated energy system. Appl Therm Eng 2018;143:1011–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.08.034.
[14] Zarei A, Liravi M, Babaie M, Ghodrat M. A Novel, eco-friendly combined solar
cooling and heating system, powered by hybrid Photovoltaic thermal (PVT)
collector for domestic application. Energy Convers Manag 2020;222:113198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113198.
[15] Tse KK, Chow TT, Su Y. Performance evaluation and economic analysis of a full
scale water-based photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) system in an office building.
Energy Build 2016;122:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.04.014.
[16] Kamel MA, Elbanhawy AY, Abo E-N. A novel methodology to compare between
side-by-side photovoltaics and thermal collectors against hybrid photovoltaic
13
Energy Conversion and Management 232 (2021) 113858
thermal collectors. Energy Convers Manag 2019;202:112196. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112196.
[17] Buonomano A, Calise F, Palombo A, Vicidomini M. Adsorption chiller operation by
recovering low-temperature heat from building integrated photovoltaic thermal
collectors : Modelling and simulation. Energy Convers Manag 2017;149:1019–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.05.005.
[18] Behzadi A, Arabkoohsar A. Feasibility study of a smart building energy system
comprising solar PV/T panels and a heat storage unit. Energy 2020:118528. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118528.
[19] Arabkoohsar A, Sadi M. Technical comparison of different solar-powered
absorption chiller designs for co-supply of heat and cold networks. Energy Convers
Manag 2020;206:112343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112343.
[20] Péan T, Gennari L, Olesen BW, Kazanci OB. Nighttime radiative cooling potential of
unglazed and PV / T solar collectors : parametric and experimental analyses 2015.
[21] Eicker U, Dalibard A. Photovoltaic – thermal collectors for night radiative cooling
of buildings. Sol Energy 2011;85:1322–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2011.03.015.
[22] RACELL – Customised Solar Cells for Architecture n.d. http://racell.dk/ (accessed
November 24, 2020).
[23] COWI - Powering your 360◦ solutions n.d. https://www.cowi.com/ (accessed
November 24, 2020).
[24] Lithium Battery Management Systems (BMS) | LiTHIUM BALANCE n.d. https://
lithiumbalance.com/ (accessed November 24, 2020).
[25] Behzadi A, Arabkoohsar A, Gholamian E. Multi-criteria optimization of a biomass-
fired proton exchange membrane fuel cell integrated with organic rankine cycle/
thermoelectric generator using different gasification agents. Energy 2020;201:
117640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117640.
[26] Dincer I, Rosen MA, Ahmadi P. Optimization of Energy Systems. John Wiley &
Sons 2017.
[27] Jonas D, Lämmle M, Theis D, Schneider S, Frey G. Performance modeling of PVT
collectors : Implementation , validation and parameter identi fi cation approach
using TRNSYS 2019;193:51–64. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2019.09.047.
[28] Behzadi A, Arabkoohsar A, Yang Y. Optimization and dynamic techno-economic
analysis of a novel PVT-based smart building energy system. Appl Therm Eng 2020:
115926. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2020.115926.
[29] Arabkoohsar A, Sadi M. ETC-Cold Room with Hot Storage Tank, a Reliable Solution
for Prevention of Fruit Degradation. 2020 IEEE 8th Int. Conf. Smart Energy Grid
Eng., 2020, p. 39–43. doi:10.1109/SEGE49949.2020.9181942.
[30] Fourie CJ, Perold WJ. Comparison of genetic algorithms to other optimization
techniques for raising circuit yield in superconducting digital circuits. IEEE Trans
Appl Supercond 2003;13:511–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2003.813919.
[31] Momtahen S, Darian AB. Genetic algorithm (GA) method for optimization of
mltireservoir system operation. J Water Wastewater 2006;56:11–20.
[32] Foteinaki K, Li R, Rode C, Andersen RK. Energy & Buildings Modelling household
electricity load profiles based on Danish time-use survey data 2019;202. doi:
10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109355.