Aquaculture and Geothermal Heat Pump Systems

by Andrew Chiasson, P.E.

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is to examine the feasibility of aquaculture tank heating with
geothermal heat pump (GHP) systems. Both closed- and open-loop GHP systems are examined
for heating uncovered and greenhouse-covered tanks at three locations across the U.S. A net
present value analysis is conducted for a 20-year life-cycle for various GHP base-load fractions
with natural gas-fired boiler peaking. The fraction of GHP capacity to the peak load yielding the
lowest life-cycle cost is plotted at various GHP installation costs and natural gas rates.

Heating load calculations show that covering aquaculture tanks with a greenhouse-type
structure reduces the heating requirements by over 50%. Economic analyses for closed-loop
GHP systems show that the lowest life-cycle cost at natural gas rates of $1.00/therm ($0.35/m3),
is observed when the GHP system is sized for 10%-20% of the peak load. At that fraction, 30-
55% of the total annual heating load could be handled. At low loop installation costs of $4/ft-
$6/ft ($13/m-$20/m), approximately 55-70% of the annual heating load could be handled.

Open-loop GHP systems show considerably more favorable economics than closed-loop systems.
In all situations examined, at natural gas prices of $1.00/therm ($0.35/m3), the lowest life-cycle
cost is observed when the open-loop system is sized for about 40% of the peak load. At that size,
the GHP system can handle over 80% of the annual heating requirements. At low to moderate
installation costs of $200-$700/ton ($57/kW-$200/kW), over 90% of the annual heating load
could be handled. Of course, open-loop systems would need to be sited at locations with
sufficient ground water supply.

1
INTRODUCTION

The success and economic benefits of aquaculture operations with low-temperature geothermal
resources (i.e. groundwater temperatures >140oF (60oC) ) has lead to the question of whether or
not lower temperature resources could be exploited with the aid of geothermal heat pumps
(GHPs). This study seeks to answer that question, and therefore the objective is to determine the
feasibility of heating fish tanks with GHP systems. Both closed- and open-loop systems are
examined at three locations across the United States: Boston, MA; Dallas, TX, and Denver, CO.
A number of GHP base-load combinations are examined for the three locations to find the lowest
20-year life-cycle cost at various natural gas rates and GHP installation costs.

AQUACULTURE TANK HEATING SYSTEMS

In a comparison study of this type, assumptions need to be made about the fish tank heating
system that is being displaced by the GHP system. It was assumed that a conventional system
would consist of a number of above-ground tanks where water is heated by a natural gas-fired
boiler system. The alternative is a water-to-water GHP system.

AQUACULTURE TANK HEATING LOADS

Hourly heating loads were calculated for above-ground aquaculture tanks with a total surface
area of 10,000 ft 2 (930 m2) and a depth of 5 ft (1.5 m). Typical meteorological year (TMY) data
for Boston, MA, Dallas, TX, and Denver, CO were used to compute loads for two scenarios: (1)
tanks uncovered and (2) tanks covered by a greenhouse structure. Heat transfer processes
included in the calculations are shown in Figure 1. The tank set point temperature was 80oF
(27oC).

Hourly heating loads for the year are shown in Figures 2 and 3. As might be expected, Boston
and Denver show more extreme heating loads than Dallas. In all cases, covering the tanks with a
greenhouse structure results in approximately a 50% reduction in heating load. An interesting
and important result is shown in Figure 4, which is a plot of the fraction of total annual heating
demands versus the fraction of the peak load that a base-load system would be designed to
handle. This is significant since a base-load system (the GHP system in this case) sized at 50% of
the peak load could meet about 92% of the total annual heating requirements.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Closed-Loop GHP System

The hourly loads shown in Figures 2 and 3 were converted to monthly total and peak loads, and
using a software program, ground loops were sized for each location for several GHP part load
cases (100%, 75%, 50%, 33%, 25%, 10%, and 0%). The remainder of the load is handled by a

2
natural gas-fired-boiler system. The loop-sizing software also computes heat pump power
consumption.

A net present value (NPV) analysis of a 20-year life cycle was used to compare alternatives for
the various part load cases. Equipment costs for natural gas-fired boiler systems were taken from
R.S. Means Mechanical Cost Data and water-to-water heat pump material and installation costs
were assumed at $1000/ton ($284/kW) of heat pump capacity. Ground loop installation costs are
commonly reported per foot of vertical bore, and for this study, a range of $4/ft to $12/ft ($13/m
to $39/m) was examined, which is representative of the widely varying values observed across
the U.S.

Annual operating costs included fuel and maintenance costs. A range of natural gas costs from
$0.50 to $2.00 per therm ($0.18/m3 to $0.70/m3) was examined. Electricity cost was fixed at
$0.10/kW-hr. Annual boiler maintenance costs were assumed at 2% of capital cost. A discount
rate of 6% was assumed.

Results of the closed-loop economic analysis are presented in the form of contour plots in Figure
5 for uncovered tanks and in Figure 6 for greenhouse-covered tanks. Results were similar for all
three cities examined. The plot shows contours of the GHP fraction of the total heating system
that yields the lowest NPV at various natural gas rates and ground loop installation costs.

A review of Figures 5 and 6 reveals that at natural gas prices above about $0.50-$0.60/therm
($0.18/m3-$0.21/m3), it would be economically justifiable to heat a portion of aquaculture tanks
with a closed-loop GHP system, depending on the installation costs. For uncovered tanks at
natural gas costs of $1.00/therm ($0.35/m3), for example, the lowest life cycle cost is seen to
range from a GHP sized at about 7% of the peak load at installation costs of $12/ft ($39/m) to
about 22% of the peak load at installation costs of $4/ft ($13/m). At these sizes, the GHP system
could handle from about 25% to about 65% of the total annual load, respectively. For covered
tanks under the same conditions, the lowest life cycle cost is seen to range from a GHP sized at
about 12% of the peak load at installation costs of $12/ft ($39/m) to about 25% of the peak load
at installation costs of $4/ft ($13/m).

Open-Loop GHP System

The same overall approach was taken in the economic analysis of the open-loop systems as for
the closed-loop systems with the following differences. The capital cost range of the open loop
systems were taken from Outside the Loop Newsletter (Vol. 1, No.1, 1998). These costs, shown
in Figure 7, are expressed per ton (and kW) of delivered capacity for various well configurations
and include costs of production and injection wells, well tests, pumps, piping to the building,
heat exchangers, controls, and 15% contingency. For the operating costs, additional electrical
loads were included to account for a submersible pump operating under an assumed vertical head
of 100 ft (30.48 m).

Results of the open-loop economic analysis are presented in Figure 8 for uncovered tanks and in
Figure 9 for greenhouse-covered tanks. The plots show contours of the GHP fraction of the total
heating system that yields the lowest NPV at various natural gas rates and open loop installation

3
costs. A review of Figures 8 and 9 shows greater feasibility of aquaculture tank heating with
open-loop GHP systems over closed-loop systems. The lowest life-cycle cost at natural gas rates
of $1.00/therm ($0.35/m3), is seen for the GHP system sized at about 40% of the peak load,
being capable of handling over 90% of the annual heating load, at installation costs up to
$700/ton ($200/kW) for uncovered tanks and up to about $875/ton ($250/kW) for covered tanks.
Above these costs per ton (kW), an open-loop system could still be installed to handle 80-90% of
the annual load for either covered or uncovered tanks. Note also the relative “flatness” of the 0.1
to 0.4 curves in Figures 8 and 9. This reflects the economies of scale with open loop systems;
only two to four wells are needed if enough ground water is present. Thus, a greenhouse would
need to be sited at a location where there is sufficient ground water supply.

CONCLUDING SUMMARY

This study has examined the feasibility of aquaculture tank heating with closed- and open-loop
GHP systems. Heating loads were computed for three climates across the U.S. The net present
value of a 20-year life-cycle was determined for various GHP base-load fractions.

The results of this study show that the practice of covering aquaculture tanks with greenhouse-
type structures can reduce heating demands by 55%. The economic analysis has shown that the
feasibility of heating aquaculture tanks with closed-loop GHP systems is strongly dependent on
the natural gas cost and the ground loop installation cost. The lowest life-cycle cost was observed
when the closed-loop GHP system handles only a portion of the total annual heating
requirement. At natural gas rates of $1.00/therm ($0.35/m3), depending on loop installation costs
and whether or not the aquaculture tanks are covered, a closed-loop GHP system sized at 7%-
25% of the peak load could be installed to handle from about 25%-70% of the annual load.

The economics of open-loop systems for the cases examined, as may be expected, are more
attractive than closed-loop systems. In all situations examined, at natural gas prices of
$1.00/therm ($0.35/m3), the lowest life-cycle cost was observed at the GHP system sized at
about 40% of the peak load. At that size, an open-loop system could handle over 80% of the
annual heating load. At low to moderate installation costs of $200-$700/ton ($57/kW-$200/kW),
over 90% of the annual heating load could be handled.

4
 (a) uncovered tank

SOLAR
RADIATION

THERMAL
RADIATION
CONVECTION
EVAPORATION
wind

CONDUCTION
TANK
+
CONVECTION

CONDUCTION
TO GROUND

(b) covered tank

SOLAR
RADIATION

GREENHOUSE
STRUCTURE

HEAT AND HUMIDITY

BUILDUP DUE TO
GREENHOUSE EFFECT

THERMAL
RADIATION
CONVECTION EVAPORATION
+
wind RE-CONDENSATION

HEAT LOSSES
CONDUCTION
AND GAINS TANK
+
by
CONVECTION
INFILT RATION,
CONDUCTION,
CONVECTION

CONDUCTION
TO GROUND

Figure 1. Heat transfer processes in covered and uncovered aquaculture tanks.

5
 (a) Boston, MA (uncovered)

8.0 2344

7.0 2051

Heating Load (million Btu/hr)

6.0 1758

Heating Load (kW)

5.0 1465

4.0 1172

3.0 879

2.0 586

1.0 293

0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (months)

(b) Dallas, TX (uncovered)

8.0 2344

7.0 2051
Heating Load (million Btu/hr)

6.0 1758

Heating Load (kW)

5.0 1465

4.0 1172

3.0 879

2.0 586

1.0 293

0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (months)

(c) Denver, CO (uncovered)

8.0 2344

7.0 2051
Heating Load (million Btu/hr)

6.0 1758
Heating Load (kW)

5.0 1465

4.0 1172

3.0 879

2.0 586

1.0 293

0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (months)

Figure 2. Hourly heating loads on an annual basis for uncovered aquaculture tanks.

6
 (a) Boston, MA (covered)

8.0 2345

7.0 2052

Heating Load (million Btu/hr)

6.0 1758

Heating Load (kW)

5.0 1465

4.0 1172

3.0 879

2.0 586

1.0 293

0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (months)

(b) Dallas, TX (covered)

8.0 2344

7.0 2051
Heating Load (million Btu/hr)

6.0 1758

Heating Load (kW)

5.0 1465

4.0 1172

3.0 879

2.0 586

1.0 293

0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (months)

(c) Denver, CO (covered)

8.0 2344

7.0 2051
Heating Load (million Btu/hr)

6.0 1758
Heating Load (kW)

5.0 1465

4.0 1172

3.0 879

2.0 586

1.0 293

0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (months)

Figure 3. Hourly heating loads on an annual basis for covered aquaculture tanks.

7
 (a) uncovered tanks

1.0

% of Total Annual Load Handled

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
% of Peak Load that the System is Designed to Handle

Boston Dallas Denver

(b) covered tanks

1.0
% of Total Annual Load Handled

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
% of Peak Load that the System is Designed to Handle

Boston Dallas Denver

Figure 4. Fraction of total annual heating load actually handled versus design fraction of peak
load for a base-load system.

8
 Uncovered Aquaculture Tank
Contours represent fraction of geothermal peak design load to total peak design load

Closed Loop Installation Cost ($/m of vertical bore)

4 $15 5 $20
6 7 $25 8 $30
9 10 $35 11 $40
12
$2.00 2
$0.70

$1.75 Region where geothermal could handle 1.75

>80% of total annual load
$0.60
ad
nua l lo
an
otal
of t
0%
55-8
$1.50 dle 1.5
han
uld
Natural Gas Cost ($/therm)

l co

Natural Gas Cost ($/m^3)

rm a
the $0.50
re geo
whe
ion
Reg
$1.25 1.25

ad
nual lo $0.40
of total an
30-55%
ould handle
al c
otherm
$1.00 n where ge 1
Regio

al load $0.30
f total annu
o
15-30%
ou ld handle
al c
therm
$0.75 where geo 0.75
n
Regio load
nual
% of total an
m al coul d handle <15
re geother
Region whe $0.20
INFEASIBLE REGION
$0.50 0.5
$4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12
Closed Loop Installation Cost ($/ft of vertical bore)

Figure 5. Closed-loop GHP system fraction providing lowest net present value of a 20-year life
cycle at various natural gas costs and closed-loop installation costs used to heat
uncovered aquaculture tanks. (Results derived from Boston, Dallas, and Denver
climate data.)

9
 Covered Aquaculture Tank
Contours represent fraction of geothermal peak design load to total peak design load

Closed Loop Installation Cost ($/m of vertical bore)

4 $15 5 $20
6 7 $25 8 $30
9 10 $35 11 $40
12
$2.00 2
$0.70

$1.75 1.75
$0.60
Region where geothermal could handle

>80% of total annual load

$1.50 1.5
Natural Gas Cost ($/therm)

Natural Gas Cost ($/m^3)

oad $0.50
n ual l
an
tal
of to
80 %
55-
$1.25 d le 1.25
d han
oul
m al c $0.40
her
geot
e
w her
io n
Reg
$1.00 l load 1
tot a l annua
f
-55% o
dle 30
l c ould han $0.30
rma
geothe
n where
Regio load
f total annual
o
$0.75 15-30% 0.75
co uld handle
al
otherm
ion w here ge al load
Reg of total annu $0.20
co ul d handle <15%
he re ge othermal
Region w
INFEASIBLE REGION
$0.50 0.5
$4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12
Closed Loop Installation Cost ($/ft of vertical bore)

Figure 6. Closed-loop GHP system fraction providing lowest net present value of a 20-year life
cycle at various natural gas costs and closed-loop installation costs used to heat
covered aquaculture tanks. (Results derived from Boston, Dallas, and Denver climate
data.)

10
 System Load (kW)
0 352 703 1055 1406 1758
1200 341

1000 284
Open-Loop Cost ($/ton)

Open-Loop Cost ($/kW)

800 227

600 170

400 114

200 57

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
System Load (tons)

4 wells @ 600 ft (183 m) 2 wells @ 800 ft (244 m)

2 wells @ 200 ft (61 m) 4 wells @ 200 ft (61 m)

Figure 7. Open-loop system costs for 60oF groundwater (Source: Outside the Loop Newsletter,
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998).

11
 Uncovered Aquaculture Tank
Contours represent fraction of geothermal peak design load to total peak design load

Open Loop Installation Cost ($100/kW)

2 3 $1.0 4 5 $1.5 6 $2.0
7 8 $2.5 9 10
$2.00 2
$0.70

$1.75 1.75
$0.60

c o u l d h a n d l e
r m a l
w h e r e g e o t h e
R e g i o n
$1.50 1.5
l o a d
Natural Gas Cost ($/therm)

a n n u a l

Natural Gas Cost ($/m^3)

o f t o t a l $0.50
> 9 0 %

$1.25 1.25

$0.40

$1.00 1

90% of the total annual load

ermal could handle 80-
Region where geoth $0.30

total annual load

rmal could handle 55-80% of the
$0.75 Region where geothe 0.75

Region where geothermal could handle 30-55% of the total annual load
$0.20
Region where geothermal could handle up to 30% of the total annual load
$0.50 0.5
$2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10
Open Loop Installation Cost ($100/ton)

Figure 8. Open-loop GHP system fraction providing lowest net present value of a 20-year life
cycle at various natural gas costs and closed-loop installation costs used to heat
uncovered aquaculture tanks. (Results derived from Boston, Dallas, and Denver
climate data.)

12
 Covered Aquaculture Tank
Contours represent fraction of geothermal peak design load to total peak design load

Open Loop Installation Cost ($100/kW)

2 3 $1.0 4 5 $1.5 6 $2.0
7 8 $2.5 9 10
$2.00 2
$0.70

$1.75 1.75
e
n d l $0.60
h a
d
o u l
c
$1.50 a l 1.5
m
e r
Natural Gas Cost ($/therm)

Natural Gas Cost ($/m^3)

o t
g e $0.50
e
h e r
w a d
n l o
g i o l
$1.25 1.25
R e n u a
a n
l
o t a $0.40
t
o f
0 %
$1.00 > 9 1

-90% of the tota l annual load

rmal could handle 80 $0.30
Region where geothe

80% of the total annual load

ermal could handle 55-
$0.75 Region where geoth 0.75

Region where geothermal could handle 30-55% of the total annual load
$0.20
Region where geothermal could handle up to 30% of the total annual load
$0.50 0.5
$2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10
Open Loop Installation Cost ($100/ton)

Figure 9. Open-loop GHP system fraction providing lowest net present value of a 20-year life
cycle at various natural gas costs and closed-loop installation costs used to heat
covered aquaculture tanks. (Results derived from Boston, Dallas, and Denver climate
data.)

13