Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

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

Recent advances in net-zero energy greenhouses and adapted thermal

energy storage systems
Shiva Gorjian a, *, Hossein Ebadi b, Gholamhassan Najafi a, Shyam Singh Chandel c,
Hasan Yildizhan d
a
Biosystems Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Energy “Galileo Ferraris” (DENERG), Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Turin, Italy
c
Solar Photovoltaic Research Group, Centre of Excellence in Energy Science and Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Shoolini University, Solan 173212,
Himachal Pradesh, India
d
Adana Alparslan Türkes Science and Technology University, Faculty of Engineering, Energy Systems Engineering, Turkey

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

Keywords: In agricultural greenhouses, employment of energy-saving strategies along with alternative energy sources has
Greenhouse technology been identified as a potential solution to address the intensive energy consumption of these cultivation facilities.
Heat storage This study investigates the integration of renewable energy technologies, including solar thermal, solar photo­
Net-zero energy
voltaic (PV) and photovoltaic-thermal (PVT), geothermal, and biomass with greenhouse cultivation systems as
Phase change materials
Thermal efficiency
net-Zero Energy Greenhouses (nZEGs). Solar energy is the most abundant renewable energy source that has been
successfully used to provide thermal and electrical power requirements of greenhouses. The use of geothermal
heat in greenhouses will save primary energy sources (more than 20%) and reduce operating costs. Utilizing solid
biomass not only provides heating and cooling demands of greenhouses but also can supply their CO2 re­
quirements. In terms of energy storage, the use of Sensible Thermal Energy Storage (STES) can cause a 3–5 ◦ C
increase in the inside air temperature while resulting in almost 28 kWh/m2 energy saving per area of the
greenhouse. Phase Change Materials (PCMs) are extensively used in TES systems and provide high thermal ef­
ficiencies and reduce energy consumption (around 30–40%) with the main drawbacks of low thermal conduc­
tivity, associated environmental concerns, and high costs.

Introduction
Since the early 1960 s, the global population has been doubled and it
is expected to reach more than 9.8 billion people by 2050, leading “Food
Security” to become one of the most critical dimensions of sustainability
in the world [1]. The population suffers from malnutrition has been
globally raised so that it achieved approximately 784 million people in
2015, followed by a rising trend to reach 821 million people in 2017.
Therefore, providing food security by investing in agriculture is crucial
to overcome global hunger and poverty [2,3].

Abbreviations: ATES, Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage; BTES, Borehole Thermal Energy Storage; CBGHE, Conic Basket Geothermal Heat Exchanger; CED, Cu­
mulative Energy Demand; CF, Carbon Footprint; CGIAR, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research; CHGHE, Conic Helicoidal Geothermal Heat
Exchanger; CHP, Combined Heat and Power; COP, Coefficient of Performance; CPVT, Concentrating Photovoltaic-thermal; CSG, Chinese Solar Greenhouse; DPP,
Discounted Payback Period; EAHE, Earth Air Heat Exchanger; ECOP, Electric COP; EP, Energy Productivity; ER, Energy Ratio; ESP, Electrostatic Precipitator; ETFE,
Ethene-co-tetrafluoroethene; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; FPC, Flat-plate Collector; GAC, Ground Air Collectors; GHG, Greenhouse Gas; GSHP, Ground-
Source Heat Pumps; IEA, International Energy Agency; IPM, Innovative Semi-transparent PV Module; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; LCC, Life Cycle Cost; LCOE,
Levelized Cost of Energy; LCS, Life Cycle Saving; LTES, Latent Thermal Energy Storage; NE, Net Energy; NPV, Net Present Value; nZEG, Net-zero Energy Greenhouse;
PBTES, Packed-bed Thermal Energy Storage; PCM, Polycarbonate Module; PCM, Phase Change Material; PCM-NW, PCM North Wall; PV, Photovoltaic; PVC,
Polyvinyl Chloride; PVT, Photovoltaic-thermal; Ri, Richardson Number; SSSHS, Seasonal Solar Soil Heat Storage; STES, Sensible Thermal Energy Storage; SWHS,
Solar Water Heating System; TCES, Thermochemical Energy Storage; TCM, Thermochemical Material; TES, Thermal Energy Storage; TPM, Traditional PV Modules;
UTES, Underground Thermal Energy Storage.
* Corresponding author. Office: +98 21 4829 2303; P.O. Box: 14115-111; Fax: +98 21 48292200.
E-mail addresses: Gorjian@modares.ac.ir (S. Gorjian), hossein.ebadi@polito.it (H. Ebadi), g.najafi@modares.ac.ir (G. Najafi), chandel_shyam@yahoo.com,
sschandel2013@gmail.com (S. Singh Chandel), hyildizhan@atu.edu.tr (H. Yildizhan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2020.100940
Received 2 September 2020; Received in revised form 11 November 2020; Accepted 17 November 2020
Available online 14 December 2020
2213-1388/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Gorjian et al.
Referring to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the energy
consumption in developing countries has overtaken the developed
countries and if this trend continues, the fossil fuel resources will be
exhausted soon [4,5]. The global issues of energy security, climate
change, and water scarcity are the main driving forces to seek less
expensive and eco-friendly alternative energy sources. The combination
of energy security concerns and environmental impacts, along with the
rising water scarcity, is expected to cause massive stress on conventional
cultivation methods [6,7]. Under such conditions, greenhouse-based
agriculture can be considered as one of the best solutions. Energy is a
crucial constituent which is consumed to drive all food chain stages
comprising the production of farm and forestry crops, dairy products,
post-harvest operations, food processing, storage, and distribution [8,9].
Based on the recent report released by the “Consultative Group on Inter­
national Agricultural Research” (CGIAR), the energy consumption in the
food chain is nearly 30% of the global energy demand, which mostly
relies on fossil fuels, contributing to almost 19–29% of the total green­
house gas (GHG) emissions on an annual basis [10,11].
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), “Sus­
tainable Development” is defined as a concept with three distinct di­
mensions including (i) sustainable increase in the agricultural
productivity and income; (ii) adaption and flexibility creation in climate
change; and (iii) mitigation or elimination of GHG emission [12,13].
Therefore, the development of a “Sustainable Food System” comprising
a secure energy supply is required to dominate fluctuating fuel prices
and to provide food security as two major challenges in the agriculture
sector [14,15].
In greenhouses, the desired microclimate is provided by heating,
cooling, sufficient CO2, and in some cases, artificial lighting, which
consumes considerable amounts of energy with nearly 65–85% alloca­
tion to heating and cooling applications. It has been specified that the
annual energy demand of the greenhouse production is 220–320 MJ/m2
of the cultivated area in Southern Europe (including Italy, Southern
France, and Greece), while this value is up to 3,600 MJ/m2 in North
European countries (Poland, Germany, and Netherland) [16,17].
Reducing the energy consumption of greenhouses can make this pro­
duction technique more economical and sustainable. The energy tran­
sition towards renewables in the greenhouse industry decreases the use
of fossil fuels, resulting in considerable mitigation of CO2 emissions. The
exploitation of renewable energy sources such as solar, biomass, and
geothermal heat can improve the sustainability of greenhouse cultiva­
tion and decrease its reliance on fossil fuels. To provide climate stability
inside a greenhouse (especially in terms of indoor temperature and
humidity), Thermal Energy Storage (TES) systems are required. They
both reduce the heat demand of the greenhouse and stabilize a desired
indoor micro-climate for plants cultivated inside. This condition be­
comes more crucial when the required power of the greenhouse is pro­
vided by renewable energies due to their intermittent characteristics.
The use of TES systems can also considerably decrease the energy con­
sumption in these cultivation systems [18,19].
According to the literature, the main TES technologies that are
employed in agricultural greenhouses are Sensible TES (STES),
including rock-bed, water tanks, and buried ground pipes, and Latent
TES (LTES), which mainly use Phase Change Materials (PCMs). The
renewable-powered greenhouses, also known as “net-Zero Energy
Greenhouses” (nZEGs), can be integrated with TES systems to provide
secure and long-term operation. The integration of these sustainable
cultivation systems with TES units can help to achieve more manageable
indoor temperatures, enhanced yields, extended harvests, improved
working conditions inside, and energy savings [20,21]. Until now, some
researchers have studied the use of TES systems in agricultural green­
houses; Kürklü [22] presented a review to investigate the role of PCMs in
saving energy and management for agricultural greenhouses; Paksoy
and Beyhan [20] studied the use of TES in greenhouse cultivation
technology by presenting a comprehensive review of different types of
TES systems and discussing case studies around the world; Cuce et al.
2
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
[18] presented a review studies key energy-saving strategies in agri­
cultural greenhouses with the most focus on the main renewable energy
sources and employed TES systems; Shukla et al. [23] conducted a re­
view of solar greenhouses integrated with latent and sensible TES sys­
tems by considering various designs and materials of heat storage
systems; Sethi and Sharma [24] presented a review on all the available
heating technologies which are globally used in agricultural green­
houses by discussing the representative applications of each technology;
Llorach-Massana et al. [25] reported various design solutions for heating
of greenhouses based on TES with PCMs through experimental tests.
They also studied the environmental and economic feasibility of the
systems through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC)
approaches.
Up to this time, several studies have investigated the integration of
agricultural greenhouses with individual renewable energy sources,
including solar [1,26], geothermal [27], and biomass [7,28], but no
review has been compiled to study the feasibility of the integration of
different renewable energy sources with greenhouses as a distinct study.
From the literature, it can also be found that although many review
works have studied the employment of TES systems in conventional
greenhouses or greenhouses integrated with a specific type of renewable
energy, no review has studied the use of these energy storage units in
greenhouses powered by different renewable energy sources. Therefore,
in the present study, the integration of renewable energy sources with
agricultural greenhouses including solar thermal and Photovoltaic (PV),
Photovoltaic-Thermal (PVT), geothermal energy, and biomass are
investigated and the employment of various TES systems in these
greenhouses are discussed with a more focus applied on the recent
progress in this field of study. In this case, various TES technologies,
including STES and LTES and their applications in nZEGs to supply
heating and cooling requirements, are reviewed and discussed. Addi­
tionally, the economics of nZEGs integrated with TES systems and their
associated environmental impacts are studied and current challenges
and prospects are presented to pave the way for further developments in
the future.
Greenhouse cultivation technology
Indoor agriculture has received remarkable attention over the past
decade because of its ability to supplement food systems sustainably.
This technology can produce more products using the same resources in
comparison with open-field farming [29]. Indoor farming is an efficient
method for the cultivation of crops and plants because of being almost
independent of the outdoor environment and the availability of arable
land [30]. Indoor farming includes various cultivation systems ranges
from small-scale urban farms to fully-controlled high-tech rural green­
houses [31].
Conventional greenhouses
The early greenhouses structures were appeared by the end of the
Roman Empire as the alternatives to old protected cultivation tech­
niques. These again appeared in the late 15th to 18th centuries in En­
gland, France, and the Netherlands [32,33]. A greenhouse is an enclosed
structure covered with a transparent or translucent material, allowing
solar radiation to be transmitted through the cover, which is then
absorbed by materials inside (floor, walls, crops, etc.) [34]. Some part of
the absorbed heat is re-radiated by the materials inside and trapped by
the cover, increasing the indoor air temperature [35]. The structure of a
greenhouse must have enough resistance against natural loads include
wind, snow, and rain, as well as imposed and permanent loads [32].
Greenhouses can be classified according to their shapes and construction
characteristics or according to their covering and structure materials.
Moreover, greenhouses can be used as practical options for the culti­
vation of plants or the drying of agricultural products [36]. As
mentioned in previous sections, greenhouses require heat, light, and
S. Gorjian et al.
CO2 for crop production. The heat requirement can provide the desired
indoor air temperature, while light and CO2 are crucial for photosyn­
thesis [7]. It has been estimated that about 5–6 kg/yr.m2 of fossil fuels
are required to keep the greenhouse internal air temperature around
15–20 ◦ C. Moreover, burning about 4 Mtoe of fossil fuels can release
11.3 Mt of CO2 [28]. Although greenhouse cultivation significantly in­
creases the agriculture land-use efficiency, it is one of the most intensive
sectors in agriculture in terms of yield (production), energy consump­
tion, investments, and costs [37]. The energy costs in greenhouses have
been reported as about 78% of production costs, with 65–85% of the
primary energy demand allocated to heating and cooling applications
[38].
In conventional greenhouses, the energy output is calculated as the
energy value of the product while the energy input is accounted for both
direct and indirect energy inputs. The energy ratio (ER) is a measure of
energy consumption efficiency in greenhouses which is calculated as
[39,40]:
Energyoutput(MJ )
EnergyRatio(ER) = m2
(1)
Totalgreenhouseenergyinputs(MJ
m2
) Solar energy, as the most widely-used renewable energy source, can
Another criterion which is used to compare the productivity of
conventional greenhouses is energy productivity (EP) which is calcu­
lated as follows [41,42]:
Greenhouseproductivityyield(mkg2 )
EnergyProductivity(EP) = (2)
Totalgreenhouseenergyinputs(mkg2 )
The Net Energy (NE) is known as the net energy output in conven­
tional greenhouses as [41]:
( )
MJ
Net Energy (NE) = Total greenhouse energy output − Total greenhouse energy input
m2
Renewable energy sources can be directly used on-site or integrated
with existing conventional power generation devices, achieving sus­
tainable cultivation systems. It has been estimated that the use of
renewable energies in greenhouses can mitigate the use of fossil fuels up
to 40%, leading to a notable reduction in CO2 emissions.
Net-zero energy greenhouses
Apart from the energy consumed by greenhouses, a large portion of
the energy (about 20–40%) is lost due to defective insulation, mainly in
the envelope. It causes a notable heat demand in winter and remarkable
solar heat gains in summer mainly because of high shading coefficients
of facades’ materials (mainly glass, polyethylene, semi-rigid plastic, and
plastic film) [18,43]. Currently, most of the greenhouses deployed
around the world rely on fossil fuels to supply their energy requirements,
causing a significant release of GHG emissions. The current trend is no
longer sustainable because of the depletion risks and environmental
impacts of fossil fuels along with their fluctuating prices which cause
uncertainty [44,45]. “Net-zero energy” is a criterion to assess the energy
performance of constructions (buildings, greenhouses, cottages, etc.)
whereby it produces as much renewable energy as it uses in one year of
operation (include all seasonal variations). Here, net means plausible
usages of non-renewable energy sources (fossil fuel and nuclear) with
sufficient generation of renewable energies over a year to offset the
project from the use of non-renewable energies [46]. In net-zero energy
greenhouses (nZEGs), the energy requirements (both heat and elec­
tricity) are provided by renewable energies as well as storage units along
3
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
with backup energy systems [18,47]. According to the literature, the
energy demand of nZEGs is mainly provided by solar power systems,
including PV, PVT, and solar thermal collectors, as well as geothermal
energy and biomass. Wind energy can also be used in greenhouses
located in areas with high annual wind potentials where wind turbines
can generate electricity in a cost-effective way, such as “Seawater
Greenhouses”1, which are implemented in coastal regions that enjoy
high-velocity seasonal winds. Besides, solid biomass, as well as liquid
and gas biofuels, can be utilized to supply the heating demands of
greenhouses. The conceptual representation of a typical nZEG is depic­
ted in Fig. 1.
In recent years, a strong motivation has been created for the use of
renewable energy technologies in agricultural greenhouses to supply
their heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting demands. In this regard,
several researchers have studied energy-efficient and eco-friendly nZEGs
integrated with solar energy, geothermal energy, and biomass, which
are discussed here.
Solar-powered greenhouses
be utilized in greenhouses to supply both heat and electricity [48-50]. In
thermal technologies, solar collectors and concentrators are used to
convert solar energy into heat, which can then be consumed in green­
houses [51-53]. Solar greenhouses are primarily classified into passive
and active systems. In passive structures, the maximum solar energy is
collected due to their special designs, while active greenhouses are in­
tegrated with solar collecting units such as PV, PVT, or solar thermal
collectors [54-56]. Although passive solar greenhouses have simpler
structures than active ones with lower capital and operating costs, the
( )
MJ
(3)
m2
active greenhouses provide higher thermal performance, which can
partially compensate for the imposed costs and therefore increase the
profitability.
Solar gaining rates of five greenhouses with different shapes were
studied and compared by Çakır and Şahin [57]. In their study, seven
floor-areas ranging from 50 to 400 m2 (with 50 m2 intervals) were
assigned to each greenhouse. From the results, it was found that the
uneven-span, even-span, semi-circular, and vinery type are the most
optimum designs after the elliptic type for all floor areas. The effect of
the Trombe wall as TES in three passive greenhouses was investigated by
Hassanain et al. [58]. In this study, different shapes of roofs, including
the flat, gable, and semi-circle, were studied. From the results, the
greenhouse located in a north–south direction with a flat-shape roof
supplied higher indoor air temperatures while, for the greenhouse in the
east–west direction, the span-shape roof could provide higher temper­
atures. The feasibility of power production from the sun and production
yield of wild rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia L.) in three commercial
greenhouses was examined by Buttaro et al. [59]. The greenhouses were
covered with polycarbonate modules (PCMs), traditional PV modules
(TPM), and innovative semi-transparent PV modules (IPM) (Fig. 2). The
obtained results indicated a higher growth yield of the rocket in
greenhouses with IPM and PCM rather than TPM. In another study by
Attar et al. [60], the heating performance of a small greenhouse (4 m2)
was theoretically evaluated under the climate conditions of Tunisia. The
greenhouse was composed of a Flat-Plate Collector (FPC) with a surface
1
Seawater greenhouse is a structure that enables crop growth in arid regions
using both seawater and solar energy.
S. Gorjian et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940

Fig. 1. Concept of a typical nZEG integrated with various renewable energy technologies.

Fig. 2. a) TPMs mounted on the roof, b) PCMs mounted on the roof, c) Combination of TPMs, and PCMs mounted on the roof [59].

area of 2 m2 and a 200 L storage tank. The obtained data indicated the
average internal temperatures of 22 ◦ C and 17 ◦ C for the greenhouse
with and without heating units.
The integration of a Concentrating PVT (CPVT) with a greenhouse
was evaluated by Hussain et al. [61] from technical and economic points
of view. In their study, two CPVT modules, one with and other without a
glass-reinforced plastic envelope, were used to supply the energy de­
mand of the considered greenhouse. Results indicated better efficiency
for the glass-reinforced CPVT with reduced heat loss than the reference
one. It was also found that the integration of a CPVT module with a
greenhouse to meet the heat demand of the greenhouse causes a
remarkable Discounted Payback Period (DPP) and Life Cycle Saving
(LCS). In another study, the suitability of two spot and linear Fresnel
collectors to supply heat demands of two identical greenhouses was
experimentally examined under the climate conditions of Chuncheon,
South Korea [62]. From the experimental results, it was found that
integration of the spot Fresnel collector with the greenhouse provides
7–12% higher performance in comparison with the greenhouse inte­
grated with the linear Fresnel collector (Fig. 3) with thermal efficiencies
ranging from 45 to 70%.
A solar-powered air heater (SAH) for use in a novel greenhouse was
experimentally investigated under the climate condition of Baghdad,
Iraq [63]. In this study, six SAHs with ‘V’ corrugated absorber plates and
parallel arrangements were installed on the roof of a traditional green­
house. They used an energy balance method considering the soil heat
storage with a contribution share of 13–19% for heating load re­
quirements. From the results, it was found that the air mass flux of
0.012 kg/s.m2 can culminate in nearly 84% of the diurnal energy

Fig. 3. Experimental setup of a research greenhouse integrated with Fresnel concentrators; a) Spot Fresnel lens concentrator, b) Linear Fresnel lens concentra­
tors [62].

4
S. Gorjian et al.
requirement of the greenhouse to maintain the indoor air temperature at
18 ◦ C. A non-planting Chinese solar greenhouse integrated with a CPVT
system composed of a cylindrical Fresnel lens was studied by Wu et al.
[64]. They confirmed that the cylindrical Fresnel lens could achieve
higher concentrating performance compared to the elliptical and para­
bolic Fresnel lenses. The experimental results indicated the highest
power generation efficiency as 18% at noon, the best thermal efficiency
of cooling water as 45%, and the total thermal and electric power effi­
ciency of 55%.
Geothermal-powered greenhouses
Geothermal is a clean source of energy that is extracted from the
ground. Geothermal energy can be used to heat agricultural greenhouses
using different facilities, including buried pipe systems with arrange­
ments which are called Earth Air Heat Exchanger (EAHE), Ground Air
Collectors (GACs), and geothermal heat pumps which are usually known
as Ground-Source Heat Pumps (GSHPs). Both GACs and EAHEs use
buried pipes to collect heat from the ground and supply it to the
greenhouse. GSHPs can supply both heating and cooling demands in a
reliable and eco-friendly way due to the relatively constant temperature
of the ground [65,66]. A GSHP comprises of the main components as (i)
a ground connection, (ii) a heat pump, and (iii) a heat distribution
system. The GSHPs are used to extract heat from heat sources of ground,
ground-water, and surface water to generate both heating and cooling
powers. GSHPs have shown the potential of reducing cooling and
heating energy by 30–50% and 20–40%, respectively [19]. The thermal
behavior of a low-enthalpy geothermal system composed of basket heat
exchangers and a GSHP to heat a greenhouse was performed by Bar­
baresi et al. [27]. Additionally, a pressurized gas boiler and two air
source heat pumps were used as auxiliary units to meet the high heat
demand in winter. During the coldest period of the year (Jan, Feb, Mar,
and Dec), the contributed share of the geothermal energy source was
between 23 and 40% for different crops. The results indicated the annual
primary energy saving is always greater than 22% of the actual energy
demand, with an average operating costs reduction ranges from 10% to
30% for heating.
The feasibility of using a groundwater-based indirect-direct evapo­
rative cooling system in a greenhouse was evaluated by Aljubury and
Ridha [67]. They developed a two-stage evaporative cooling system
composed of an indirect evaporative cooling heat exchanger and a direct
evaporative cooling includes three pads (Fig. 4). Several experiments
were conducted in summer under the climate conditions of Baghdad.
The results indicated that using the groundwater enhanced IDEC unit
can improve the efficiency by 108% in comparison with a direct evap­
orative cooling with the efficiency of 77.5%. A geothermal energy unit
Fig. 4. Schematic of a geothermal heating system integrated with a green­
house [67].
5
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
for heating a greenhouse was designed and evaluated under the climate
conditions of Córdoba, Argentina [68]. In this design, tubes made of
200 mm thick black low-density polyethylene with a diameter of 10 cm
were installed between furrows on the greenhouse floor. The results
from thermal analysis indicated that the combination of geothermal
water-filled tubes along with internal thermal curtains could supply
suitable conditions to prevent freezing and out-of-season crop
production.
In another study, a thermal model was developed for a greenhouse
integrated with thermal curtain and polyethylene tubes, including
geothermal water placed on the floor of the greenhouse [69]. The results
indicated the temperature of the air around the plant mass between 14
and 23 ◦ C at night-time and early morning in winter, preventing the
adverse impacts of freezing. Additionally, there was a fair agreement
between the estimated and experimental results of internal air temper­
atures. Boughanmi et al. [70] experimentally evaluated the applicability
of a novel Conic Helicoidal Geothermal Heat Exchanger (CHGHE) for
integration with a greenhouse to supply its heat demand. They claimed
that the new design significantly reduces operating costs and the
required area in comparison with common vertical and horizontal de­
signs, respectively. Experimental results indicated the heat load of
4.7 kW from the ground by the CHGHE with the Coefficient of Perfor­
mance (COP) about 3.93 for the heat pump and 2.64 for the entire unit.
The obtained results confirmed that the geothermal system could supply
a heat amount of 692.208 kW at a temperature of 3 ◦ C (under green­
house) with an optimal water flow rate of 0.6 kg/s. The application of a
low-enthalpy geothermal source for heating a greenhouse designed for
floriculture of roses was analyzed by Bakos et al. [71] under the climate
conditions of Greece. Also, the use of an extended heating unit using
low-temperature water or direct geothermal fluid to heat a second
greenhouse for the cultivation of strawberry with the required indoor air
temperature of 15 ◦ C was investigated in this study. The results proved
that the geothermal heating system can supply 2.26 MWt at the fluid
mass flow rate of 42 ton/h at the temperature of 95 ◦ C. The results also
indicated that the heating system could keep the indoor air temperature
at 20 ◦ C while the ambient temperature is 7 ◦ C. The second greenhouse
could also provide a heat demand of 38.86 ton/h for an extra 10,000 m2
at geothermal fluid or water at 50 ◦ C.
In another study, the potential of using geothermal energy to heat a
greenhouse located in Delhi, India using the GAC and EAHE with the
same length of buried pipes was investigated [72]. They proposed a
numerical model to estimate the thermal performance of two systems to
choose the one with the most suitable method. The experimental tests
were conducted during winter and results indicated a 2–3 ◦ C higher
indoor air temperature for the GAC in comparison with the EAHE with
fewer temperature fluctuations. Also, a fair agreement was observed
between the predicted and calculated values. The design feasibility of
using GSHPs to heat greenhouses under mild climate conditions was
investigated by Benli [73]. In this study, the thermal performances of
two designs of the GSHP with vertical and horizontal heat exchangers
were evaluated. The results indicated the heating coefficient of perfor­
mances for two GSHPs (COPHP,H-V) ranging from 3.1 to 3.6 for HGSHP
and 3.2–3.8 for VGSHP, and the whole system (COPsys,H-V) ranging from
2.7 to 3.3 for HGSHP and 2.9–3.5 for VGSHP. From the results, it was
concluded that using GSHPs can significantly decrease the fossil fuel
energy requirements but requires a remarkable investment. Boughanmi
et al. [74] developed a novel Conic Basket Geothermal Heat Exchanger
(CBGHE) to cool greenhouses and experimentally investigated its per­
formance under the climate condition of Tunisia (Fig. 5). The results
indicated a maximum heat transfer of 8 kW from the ground with the
highest average temperature difference of 30 ◦ C between the inlet and
outlet of the CBGHE with the mass flow rate of 0.08 kg/s. The COP of the
GHP (COPHP) and the overall system (COPsys) were obtained as 3.9 and
2.82, respectively.
S. Gorjian et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940

Fig. 5. Schematic of the developed CBGHE for greenhouse cooling [74].

Biomass-powered greenhouses an improvement of energetic efficiency in both nocturnal temperature

Biomass can be used in its raw form or processed as chips, pellets,
briquettes, etc. to provide both heat and CO2 in greenhouses by burning
directly or converting to biofuels through thermo-chemical processes.
The greenhouses can be enriched with the CO2 extracted from exhaust
gases of biomass boilers [28]. Sánchez-Molina et al. [75] presented a
novel technique for heating, CO2 storage, and enrichment unit using
biomass. In this case, a dual-mode biomass-based system was provided
to decrease the petrol-based fuel demand and costs by using inexpensive
pellets (derived from tomato and pepper). The system was composed of
a boiler with CO2 recovery from flue gases to enrich the greenhouse and
supply heat by using chipper fuel as pellets (Fig. 6). The results indicated
and diurnal CO2 concentration because of reusing both biomass from
agricultural wastes and CO2 released by the heating unit.
A biomass-based boiler working with typical wood pellet and wood
residue for heating an average-sized greenhouse was analyzed from
technical and economic points of view under the climate conditions of
British Columbia [7]. The results of the experiments indicated that
providing 40% of annual heat demand by implementing a wood pellet or
a wood residue boiler is more affordable than utilizing a natural gas
boiler to supply the whole heat demand when the discount rate is 10%. It
was claimed that using the wood biomass boiler can abate over 3000
tonnes of CO2 equivalents of GHGs on an annual basis. A novel biomass

Fig. 6. Schematic diagram of the CO2 enrichment and heating system integrated with a greenhouse [75].

6
S. Gorjian et al.
Fig. 7. The main outline of the biomass unit developed for greenhouse heat­
ing [76].
heating system for use in greenhouses located in rural areas of China was
proposed by Huang et al. [76]. In their system, the flue gas of biomass
was used to heat the greenhouse through the buried pipes inside the soil
(Fig. 7). The result of the experimental test for a plastic greenhouse
indicated the internal air and soil temperature enhancement of about
5.1 ◦ C and 8.2 ◦ C, respectively. They concluded that the biomass heating
system could bring an annual 105% excess return rate for farmers.
W. McKenney et al. [77] explored the econom­
ic feasibility of using biomass, which was derived from short-rotation
willow plantations to supply the heating demand of greenhouses in
southern Ontario, Canada. In this case, the net displacement value of
fossil fuel-biomass combustion systems with an additional biomass
production endeavor was assessed. From the results, internal rates of
return were obtained as 11–14% in the case of heating oil replacement
and 0–4% for natural gas replacement with woody biomass. Besides, it
was found that the payback periods of biomass heating projects could be
from 10 to more than 22 years for heating oil replacement and 18 to
more than 22 years for a natural gas replacement.
Hybrid renewable-powered greenhouses
Esesn and Yuksel [6] experimentally evaluated a plastic-covered
greenhouse (24 m2) heated using solar energy, biogas, and geothermal
under the climate conditions of Elazig, Turkey. For this purpose, the
greenhouse was integrated with a biogas plant and solar heating system
composed of a FPC along with a GSHP composed of a horizontal slinky
heat exchanger (Fig. 8). The experiments were conducted in winter from
Nov 2009 to Mar 2010. During the experiments, the biogas plant could
supply 2,231.83 L of gas, which was quite suitable for the growth of the
plants that require the inside air temperature of 23 ◦ C. They concluded
that different energy sources could successfully be used to heat the
greenhouse.
Fig. 8. Different units of a renewable-based hybrid heating system incorporated with a greenhouse [6]; a) Solar FPCs, b) Heat exchanger of the GSHP buried in the
ground, c) Biogas plant.
7
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
A stand-alone renewable-based unit for heating a greenhouse on a
winter day was developed by Anifantis et al. [78]. The system was
composed of PV panels connected to an electrolyzer to produce
hydrogen under daylight, which was then stored in a pressure tank.
However, the hydrogen was converted to electricity by using a fuel cell
during the night-times to run a GSHP to supply the heat demand of a
tunnel-type greenhouse. The overall efficiency of the system by
considering the PV panel efficiency as 12%, the electrolyzer efficiency as
48%, and COP of the geothermal heat pump as 4.7 was calculated as
11%. In another study, the energy efficiency of a PV panel (8.2 kW), a
hydrogen generation plant (2.5 kW), and a GSHP (2.2 kW) assisted with
a stand-alone heating unit to supply the heat demand of a tunnel-type
greenhouse (48 m2) was analyzed by using a developed mathematical
model [79]. For this purpose, three different cover materials for the
greenhouse, including a single-layer polyethylene film, an air inflated-
double layer polyethylene film, and a double acrylic or polycarbonate,
were used. The result of the year-round evaluation of the unit indicated
an overall energy efficiency of 14.6% for the integrated system. From the
results, it was concluded that the total efficiency of the hydrogen and
geothermal heat pump is about 112% for the GHP’s COP of 5. It was also
found that the application of the hybrid heating system to the green­
house can provide an increased indoor air temperature of 3–9 ◦ C.
Techno-economic analysis of a PVT-assisted combined heat and power
(CHP) system collectors implemented for a tomato greenhouse was
conducted by Wang et al. [80] under the climate conditions of Bari, Italy
(Fig. 9). To estimate the transient behavior of the water-based PVT S-
CHP system and to determine its energy performance, yearly simulations
were conducted. The results of the simulation indicated that a 30,000 m2
PV arrays could meet about 73% of the total annual heat demand of the
greenhouse and supply a net electricity demand as 2.6 of the annual
demand. It was also asserted that using the PVT system can mitigate
about 3,010 tCO2/year in comparison with the current value with the
payback time of 10.4 years. They reported that the PVT S-CHP system
has significant techno-economic feasibility in the proposed greenhouse
as a replacement for the existing systems.
Fig. 9. The PVT-CHP system integrated with the proposed greenhouse
in Ref. [80].
S. Gorjian et al.
Mehrpooya et al. [81] surveyed the optimum design for a combined
solar collector and GSGHP system in terms of both technical and eco­
nomic aspects to heat a typical greenhouse. From a technical view, the
operation of components of the system was adjusted to augment the heat
recovery of the ground and promote the maximum outlet temperature of
the ground heat exchanger and the COP of the heat pump. While from
the economic view, the most suitable condition was calculated. The
results indicated the mean seasonal COP of 4.14 for the model, the three
boreholes with a length of 50 m, and the collector area of 9.42 m2.
Performance characteristics of a solar-assisted GSGHP system with a U-
bend heat exchanger to heat a greenhouse were investigated by Ozgener
and Hepbasli [82] under the climate condition of Izmir, Turkey. From
the experimental results, the heat extraction rate of the soil was calcu­
lated as 57.78 W/m of bore depth with the needed borehole’s length of
11.92/kW of capacity. Also, the indoor day and night temperatures of
31.05 ◦ C and 31.05 ◦ C, respectively, with the relative humidity of
40.35% were reported. The COP of the heat pump (COPHP) was obtained
in the range of 2–3.13, while the COP of the whole system (COPsys) was
calculated 5–20% lower than the COPHP. Table 1 presents the main
finding of studies conducted on agricultural greenhouses integrated with
different types of renewable energy technologies.
An overview of thermal energy storage technologies
High dependency on environmental factors has made most of the
renewable energy sources unstable at power production, and the rele­
vant systems must be coupled with a back-up resource to minimize the
unforeseen fluctuations in performance [83,84]. Using TES technology
assists in capturing and storing excess heating or cooling loads through a
storage medium and apply it when it is necessary [85,86]. In general,
TES technologies are classified into STES, LTES, and Thermo-Chemical
Energy Storage (TCES) [87], as shown in Fig. 10.
Sensible thermal energy storage (STES)
In STES, heat storage is achieved based on the heat capacity and
changes in the working medium’s temperature in the forms of charging
and discharging processes. In the case of temperature rise, energy is
absorbed, and when the temperature drops, power is given [89]. The
STES systems can be used in both forms of liquid and solid. The low-cost
and non-toxic nature of STES mediums such as water, rock, sand, and
molten salts have made this technique viable to many residential and
industrial applications [84,103]. The temperature range of applications
can be considered as a criterion to choose a suitable medium. In the case
of liquid storage, water is used for low-temperature applications (up to
100 ◦ C), the oil may be used for medium-temperature applications
(100–250 ◦ C), and some molten inorganic salts are recommended for
high-temperature applications (greater than300 ◦ C) [87]. Water storage
tanks have four main configurations, as shown in Fig. 11. If the heat
transfer fluid also works as the medium storage, the system becomes a
single medium, and there is no need to employ an internal heat
exchanger. As a result, temperature drops occurred between the storage
medium, and heat transfer fluid is avoided. In the dual-medium concept,
heat is exchanged through the contact between the transfer medium
(typically fluid) and the storage medium (usually solid) in direct or in­
direct forms. Thus, some temperature drops can be expected during
charging and discharging processes [104].
Sensible heat can also be stored in an underground media (soil, sand,
rock, and clay). In this type, heat transfer fluid is pumped to the buried
heat exchangers (usually U-type) in a vertical or horizontal pipes
arrangement [85]. The Underground TES (UTES) is a seasonal storage
method and can store cold and heat depending on the natural condi­
tions. Two main types of UTES are Aquifer TES (ATES) and soil/rock
UTES or Borehole TES (BTES) [106]. In ATES systems, underground
waters (aquifers) are employed to provide heat in winter and cold in
summer through heat exchangers and using hydraulic coupling between
8
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
warm water and cold-water wells. In summer, water is withdrawn from
the cold well to extract heat from a heat exchanger and be injected into
the warm well. In winter, the cycle is reversed and water delivers the
stored heat from the warm well, then it becomes re-injected into the cold
well, as shown in Fig. 12 [107]. In the case of BTES, heat carrier fluids
circulate inside the holes made of plastic tubes (heat exchanger) and
drilled in the depth of 50–200 m [106]. BTES systems consist of a series
of U-tube pipes connected in closed-loop and usually water or anti-freeze
as the carrier fluid. Using heat collectors and fluid circulation inside
holes, heat can be accumulated and stored in the storage medium during
summer months, while in winter, a reverse energy flow makes the stored
heat be extracted from the surrounding soil and used in different ap­
plications [108].
Packed-Bed TES (PBTES) units are also other types of STES systems
include a bed or insulated tank loosely packed with a storage medium
made of particles or solids supported by a screen at the lower end. As the
heat transfer fluid passes through the porous medium, heat can be
extracted (discharging) or accumulated (charging) from/by the packing
elements (Fig. 13). Providing a large contact area between the heat
transfer fluid and the storage medium as well as an improved stratifi­
cation, PBTES has resulted in a better efficiency than peer technologies
[109,110]. When a liquid is used as a heat transfer medium, the ther­
mocline tank emerges in which the liquid stores a part of the thermal
energy, and the rest is stored by the packed bed [111]. During the years
of research and developments, it was found out that several factors,
including void fraction, mass flow rate, sphericity, aspect ratio, and
coordination number are playing a critical role in the performance of a
PBTES. Additionally, exergy efficiency lies in a reasonable value due to a
good thermal stratification, which also improves the efficiency of inte­
grated systems [112].
Latent thermal energy storage (LTES)
LTES is based on the energy absorption and release by the change in
physical states using latent heat. Although solid–liquid and solid–solid
transformations are among the most common types, solid–gas and liq­
uid–gas phase changes reflect a greater latent heat of fusion. However,
these types of transitions require a greater volume during phase trans­
formations, which is a significant hurdle in their applications [113].
Fig. 14 provides a brief classification of PCMs based on their melting
point and adaptability for different applications. PCMs are major ele­
ments in LTES systems, and their thermo-physical characteristics, ki­
netics, chemical properties, and economic benefits show the
applicability of each material for use [114]. Some of the disadvantages
associated with PCMs are the low thermal conductivity, variations in
thermo-physical properties under extended cycles, phase segregation,
subcooling, incongruent melting, volume change, and high costs
[113,115].
Thermochemical thermal energy storage (TCTES)
TCTES concept is devoted to the store and release of heat through the
endothermic/exothermic reaction process using Thermo-Chemical Ma­
terials (TCMs) [85]. Compared to STES and LTES systems, TCTES units
offer larger storage capacity per mass or volume and their use has been
rarely reported in greenhouses. The important parameters required for
effective performance are cycle efficiency, cycling stability, and power
density [117].
Net-zero energy greenhouses with thermal energy storage
Employing energy-saving strategies along with substituting con­
ventional fossil fuels with renewable energy sources is known as the
most practical potential solution in greenhouses and has globally
attracted considerable attention. At this time, several agricultural
greenhouses implemented around the world are using TES systems. The
S. Gorjian et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940

Table 1
Integration of agricultural greenhouses with different types of renewable energy technologies (To be continued).
Location/Country Type of nZEG Type of Used Facility Main Findings Refs.

Rabat, Morocco Solar-powered FPCs + Water storage tank • A 1.2 C increase in nocturnal greenhouse temperature;
◦
[90]
• The average performance was achieved as 805 g per plant;
• Considerable economic profits were expected using the developed
system.
Arizona (AZ)- North Solar-powered Rooftop semitransparent organic • The system could provide the entire thermal load for a year-around [37]
Carolina (NC)- solar cells operation;
Wisconsin (WI), US • Surplus energy was produced in AZ and NC which could be added to the
grid network;
• Utilizing thick indium tin oxide with low emission coating led to a
reduced infrared transmission and improved nocturnal heat-trapping.
Baghdad, Iraq Solar-powered Solar-assisted desiccant system • Solar collectors and solar-assisted desiccant cooling system provided [91]
heating loads and cooling loads respectively;
• A regeneration temperature of 60–70 ◦ C was found to be sufficient for
supplying a cooling load with 19.5 ◦ C;
• The maximum COP was attained as 16.
Bari, Italy Solar-powered Solar photovoltaic hydrogen • Preliminarily study was carried out; [92]
• Hydrogen production was unsteady and dependent on solar radiation;
• Further studies are required for the applicability of geothermal heat
pumps;
Shanghai, China Solar-powered Solar collectors + Soil heat storage • The heat storage made the entire system independent of any auxiliary [93]
unit on cloudy days;
• From TRANSYS simulation, it was found that the system can save
thermal energy as 46.2 kWh/m2 of the greenhouse area per year while
maintaining the indoor temperature at 12 ◦ C.
Souss-Massa, Morocco Solar-powered Passive solar + Rock bed heat storage • An improved indoor temperature of 3–5 ◦ C on sunny days and 2–3 ◦ C on [94]
cloudy/rainy days was observed during winter;
• The substrate temperature enhancement of 4 ◦ C and 3 ◦ C were obtained
in clear and cloudy nights, respectively;
• The provided heating system caused a 49% increase in tomato yield;
• Economic assessment approved the system’s profitability.
Kunming, China Solar-powered ETC + Electric heat pump • A 2–3 ◦ C increase was observed in internal greenhouse temperature; [95]
• Solar collector’s efficiency and payback period were obtained as 0.49
and 4.1 years, respectively,
• The proposed system was able to meet 35% of the total energy required
for greenhouse heating.
Sanbei area, China Wind-powered Wind-powered stirring-heating • A seasonal heating load of 130.27 GJ/quarter was estimated to be [96]
device + underground heat storage achieved using this technology;
• The amount of the reductions in coal consumption and CO2 emission
was measured as 8.10 ton/quarter, and 21222 kg/quarter, respectively.
British Columbia, Canada Biomass-powered Wood biomass boilers • 40% of the total thermal energy was met by the wood pellet or wood [97]
residue,
• Increasing the biomass contribution to 60% was also economical,
• The proposed system was economically feasible for average and large
greenhouses with respectively 7.5 to 15 ha area.
Beijing, China Geothermal GSHP • The daily heating cost for a Chinese solar greenhouse and a glass- [98]
covered multi-span greenhouse using such heating unit resulted in
0.016 and 0.058 US$/m2d, while CO2 emission was decreased by 41.9
and 44.6% than Coal-fired heating system.
Izmir, Turkey Hybrid (Solar + FPCs + GSHP • COP of the heat pump was obtained as 2.00 and 3.13 for cloudy and [82]
Geothermal) sunny days respectively, while the COP of the entire system was
achieved 5–20% lower than the heat pump;
• The proposed system needed an auxiliary unit (bivalent operation) to
meet the desired thermal condition during the days with very low
ambient temperature.
Mansoura, Egypt Hybrid (Solar + FPCs + Biomass burner system + • Hybrid configuration provided 88.87% of the total nocturnal heating [99]
Biomass) Water tank storage demands, in which solar and biomass fractions were 30.32 and 58.55%,
respectively;
• In addition to the higher quality products, the water use efficiency, and
annual irrigation water productivity were also improved.
Izmir, Turkey Hybrid (Solar + FPCs + Wind turbine + GSHP • The proposed system was found to be economically feasible only if the [100]
Wind + Geothermal) region profited from a good wind potential;
• The generated electricity by the wind turbine showed the ability to meet
3.13% of the total yearly energy demand;
• Greenhouse temperature was maintained between 11 and 16.6◦ C for a
heating season.
Chalkidiki, Greece Biomass-powered Biomass combustion system • Applying a 900 kW and 2 MW biomass combustion units respectively to [101]
5 and 11-acre greenhouses revealed that both projects would be highly
profitable if a subsidy of 40% of the initial cost is provided;
• The payback period of 2 MW biomass combustion unit was obtained as 4
years;
• Zero subsidies could still result in a profitable integration; however, the
payback period may extend to 1/3 of the total projects’ life.
Bari, Italy Geothermal GSHP [102]
(continued on next page)

9
S. Gorjian et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940

Table 1 (continued )
Location/Country Type of nZEG Type of Used Facility Main Findings Refs.

• With a COP of 4.7 and the consumption of 1.5 kW electric power, the
heat pump produced 7 kW average thermal power to heat the
greenhouse;
• The average geothermal heat extraction rate was attained as 46 W/ m of
the probe pipe;
• A constant difference was observed between the greenhouse internal
and ambient temperatures using the suggested system.

Fig. 10. Different strategies to store thermal energy, adapted from Ref. [88].

Fig. 11. Different designs of the hot water storage tank [105]; a) TES tank with dual heat sink and heat source mass flow rate loops, b) TES tank with a mantle heat
exchanger around the tank wall, c) TES tank with internal coil heat exchanger, d) TES tank with internal heat exchanger.

integration of TES units with greenhouses powered by renewable en­

ergies assists in the achievement of sustainable benefits and results in
enhanced food production capacities with more profitable growth. In
this section, the integration of STES and LTES systems with nZEGs are
reviewed and discussed.

Integration with STES

In a study conducted by Bazgaoua et al. [21], the thermal perfor­

Fig. 12. Schematic view of the working principle of a typical ATES [107].
mance of two identical heat storage systems, including rock-bed and
water-filled passive solar to heat a Canarian greenhouse, was analyzed
(Fig. 15a&b). The excess thermal energy inside the greenhouse was
stored in the rock-bed and water within the diurnal operation to be used
later in cold periods. The experimental results indicated that the com­
bined heating system improves the indoor nocturnal air temperature in
winter by about 3–5 ◦ C on sunny days and 2–3 ◦ C on cloudy and rainy
days. Also, the tomato yield increase of 49% was observed inside the
heated greenhouse. Attar et al. [60] presented a model developed by

10
S. Gorjian et al.
Fig. 13. Schematic of a typical PBTES [112].
Fig. 14. PCM classification based on the melting temperature [116].
TRNSYS to assess the thermal performance of a solar water heating
system (SWHS) to heat greenhouses under the climate conditions of
Tunisian. The SWHS comprised of two solar collectors (with an area of
4 m2), a 200 L storage tank with a capillary polypropylene heat
exchanger connected to the greenhouse. In the simulation, both series
and parallel combinations of solar collectors were considered. The re­
sults indicated that an increase in the volume of the tank decreases the
outlet temperature of the collector. However, it was found that
increasing the flow rate can minimize the stratification phenomenon,
promoting the efficiency of the whole unit. Also, it was found that the
indoor air temperature of the greenhouse reaches 22 ◦ C in comparison
with 17 ◦ C for the control greenhouse.
A low-cost Seasonal Solar Soil Heat Storage (SSSHS) unit to heat
greenhouses was developed by Zhang et al. [118]. In their design, the
solar energy was stored in the soil to supply the heat demand of the
greenhouse under the severe cold weather conditions in winter (Fig. 16).
The process and the effect of collecting solar energy and heat inside the
11
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
soil were simulated by TRNSYS and the results were validated using
experimental data recorded throughout a season. The results indicated
that maintaining the indoor air temperature above 12 ◦ C causes an en­
ergy saving of 27.8 kWh/m2 area of the greenhouse.
In another study, Stoknes et al. [119] developed a novel technical
method to process organic waste into biogas and digester residue. The
digester residue was utilized as a fertilizer and the main substrate sub­
stance for vegetables and mushrooms in a closed low-energy greenhouse
assisted with dynamic soap bubble insulation. The bubble insulation
accumulated the heat in tanks throughout the day and supplied it to the
greenhouse at night. Ten water tanks, each with 1 m3 capacity (equal to
233 L/m2 of the greenhouse area), were installed to accumulate the heat
from the greenhouse where the cultivation tables were positioned on top
of the tanks. The produced biogas was also used to supply power for the
process as well as the CO2 for the greenhouse. The results confirmed that
the low-energy dynamic bubble insulated greenhouse could cause 80%
energy saving in comparison with conventional greenhouses. Canakci
et al. [33] developed Active Heat Storage (AHS) that accumulates solar
energy in a water tank for heating Chinese Solar Greenhouses (CSGs) on
cold nights. They developed a model to characterize heat transfer phe­
nomena and to promote the behavior of the AHS system (Fig. 17). The
model was calibrated to estimate water temperature in the storage tank
with an average accuracy of 0.4 ◦ C. In this study, two greenhouses with a
ground area of 272 m2 and nearly 62 m2 of solar collectors were used to
keep the indoor air temperature above 12 ◦ C under the climatic condi­
tions of Beijing, China. It was concluded that providing a 1 ◦ C growth in
the air temperature requires about 2 m2 and 0.1 m3 of additional solar
collectors and storage tanks, respectively.
A solar heating system composed of a Fresnel lens to heat green­
houses was developed by Li et al. [120]. A soil heat storage system was
also used to provide the safety of the growth of the crop (Fig. 18). The
results indicated that when the heating pipes are buried in the depth of
1.65 m, the heat transfer to the ground takes about 5 days, causing an
overall temperature rise of about 4 ◦ C. Also, it was found that in the
coldest season with harsh weather conditions, the use of TES can guar­
antee an indoor air temperature above 8 ◦ C, ensuring the minimum
temperature required for crop growth. Xu et al. [121] investigated the
thermal behavior of a solar-heated greenhouse with an area of 2,304 m2
equipped with a seasonal BTES system under the climate conditions of
Shanghai, east China. The proposed TES system utilized 4,970 m3 of the
underground soil to store the thermal energy collected by a 500 m2 solar
collector through U-tube heat exchangers (Fig. 19). The stored thermal
energy was delivered to the greenhouse during heating seasons through
the heat exchange pipes located on the plant’s shelves and the bare soil.
It was demonstrated that the developed system could keep the interior
air temperature 13 ◦ C above the ambient when the latter is 2 ◦ C at night.
The electric COP (ECOP) of the first-year trial was nearly 8.7, repre­
senting a higher performance than a conventional GSHP unit.
Integration with LTES
Since PCMs are presenting a high storage capacity per mass unit and
operating nearly isothermal, their implementation with agricultural
facilities has gained more interest by researchers, among other heat
storage scenarios [122]. The role of LTES in agro-food systems is not
only limited to greenhouses, and other applications can be summarized,
such as heating livestock buildings [123,124], or cooling and storing
agricultural products [125,126]. However, the most studied integration
in the literature is devoted to the thermal systems in greenhouses based
on two distinctive modes of active and passive.
Passive LHES (integration with walls and soil)
Depending on the storing purpose, PCMs can be employed in the
greenhouse’s envelope or the bed area (soil) in a passive form to provide
control over indoor temperature and avoid frost in winter times. During
this process, since there are no heating or cooling devices, thermal
S. Gorjian et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940

Fig. 15. a) Description of the active heating system, b) Inside view of the greenhouse with passive water-sleeve [21].

Fig. 16. Schematic view of the SSSHS for heating the greenhouse [118].

Fig. 17. Schematic of the AHS system at two modes of heat collection and release [33].

12
S. Gorjian et al.
Fig. 18. Schematic of a solar greenhouse with Fresnel lens and soil-based TES system [120].
Fig. 19. a) Photo of the solar greenhouse; b) Solar collector array; c) Underground U-tube heat exchanger of the BTES [121].
regulation is achieved through the absorption, storage, and dissipation
of excessive solar energy by circulating the internal air with a fan or
natural convection. Various installations of PCMs have been proposed
by researchers where Korin et al. [127] encased the PCM in a hollow
double-layer panel to form a semi-transparent thermal storage panel
placed as the greenhouse ceiling. In this concept, during the day, the
LTES unit absorbs a fraction of solar energy and store it via melting
while the rest of the energy is transmitted to the plants cultivated inside.
in the case of nocturnal operation, the heat released from the solidifi­
cation of PCM keeps the ceiling at a higher temperature and reduces
radiation and convection losses from the greenhouse. Thermal perfor­
mance evaluation revealed that the winter operation under forced
ventilation with a backup system reduces the energy requirement by
30%, but the proposed PCM reduces optical transmissivity by 15% when
it becomes completely solidified.
In another attempt, Liu et al. [128] integrated the Ethene-co- Tet­
raFluoroEthylene (ETFE) membrane with PCM to propose a novel
building skin suitable for greenhouses. Lab optical experiments revealed
that the panel’s transmissivity was degraded as PCM’s temperature rises
in solid-state, and the thermal characteristics could be a function of solar
intensity and climatic conditions. Llorach-Massana et al. [25] used the
PCM with conventional perlite substrates to reach root heating and in­
crease the thermal condition inside a soilless greenhouse. In this study,
various positions were investigated for PCM concerning the cropping
bag, as depicted in Fig. 20. Results indicated that the best melting/
freezing temperature of PCM employed in the Mediterranean region is
13
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
15 ◦ C, and the best PCM installation is to warp the perlite bag for heat
transfer blockage.
In a similar study, Beyhan et al. [129] placed PCM containers on both
sides of the crop bed in a soilless greenhouse to control the temperature
of the root zone passively in the absence of heating systems. Observa­
tions demonstrated that the substrate associated with PCM exhibits
1.9–1.2 ◦ C higher temperature than the control substrate with the
maximum LTES efficiency of 64.3%. One of the techniques employed in
solar greenhouses to hinder the excessive temperature rise in the day­
time and increase the indoor temperature at nighttime is to cover the
inner façade of the north wall with wallboard PCMs [130].
For efficacy evaluation, Kumari et al. [131] deliberately studied the
effects of the PCM thickness on plant and indoor air temperature based
on numerical simulations. During this process, the PCM applied to the
north wall captures a fraction of solar energy and stores it until the
ambient temperature drops, where thermal energy is released as latent
heat. Numerical data showed that PCM north wall improves the plant
temperature during nighttime, and as the PCM thickness increases, the
fluctuations in the heat transfer rate decreases. Berroug et al. [132]
investigated the thermal behavior of a greenhouse equipped with a PCM
North Wall (PCM-NW). Evaluations proved that PCM-NW could cause a
1–2 ◦ C increase in greenhouse temperature during daytime ranging from
9 to 13 h, which roots in an extra radiation reflection from the north wall
and absorption by plants. As the day proceeds from 14 to 20 h, plant and
the air temperature rises by 5–12 ◦ C, reasoning from PCM overheating
and leading to convective and radiative heat transfer. During the PCM
S. Gorjian et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940

Fig. 20. Various PCM locations in a soilless greenhouse regarding the perlite bag [25]; a) PCM inside Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) tubes under the perlite bag, b) PCM in
0.33 L polyethylene bottles under the perlite bag, c) PCM macro encapsulated in LDPE bags wrapping the bottom of the perlite bag, d) PCM macro encapsulated in
LDPE bags wrapping the whole perlite bag.

Fig. 21. Schematic view of active–passive ventilation incorporated with PCM-NW of a solar greenhouse; a) vertical section, b) horizontal section [134].

discharging period (from 21 to 9 h), inside air temperature showed a
3–8 ◦ C temperature difference with outside temperature, which repre­
sents a favorable environment for plants during cold months. Although
the PCM integrated north wall has shown considerable positive effects
on thermal storage, the low-conductivity of materials can be problem­
atic in increasing the wall storage capacity in the middle layers forming
a thermal-stable layer [133]. To overcome this problem, Chen et al.
[134] proposed a novel active–passive ventilation wall equipped with
PCM in a solar greenhouse, as shown in Fig. 21. In this design, heating of
the middle layer was achieved using heated air flowing actively from
solar air collectors to hollow air channels placed in the middle layer of
the north wall. Results demonstrated that the proposed system could
eliminate the thermal-stable layer and increase the rate of heat storage
capacity and heat storage capacity by 35.27–47.89% and
49.92–60.21%, respectively. The obtained crop’s quality showed a
25–30% higher growth rate, 15 days shorter growth cycle, and 28%
improved fruit yields.
Boulard et al. [135] investigated a PCM storage unit placed inside the

14
S. Gorjian et al.
greenhouse and alongside the north wall, in which two fans induced the
air from the top section to the PCM and flows it horizontally towards east
and west directions. During this pattern, in the daytime, warm air was
collected from the upper sections of the greenhouse and cooled down by
flowing through the storage unit. However, during nighttime, the heated
air from PCM was introduced to the plants located below volumes, not to
the upper sections. The obtained conclusions were a constant 10 ◦ C
temperature difference with the outside temperature in clod seasons,
decreasing the need for auxiliary heating by 40%. In another study, a
storage device was used in the forms of cylindrical stainless steel bottles
filled with PCM and installed inside a solar greenhouse to reach a
regulated temperature condition inside the greenhouse [136]. This
integration gave smaller air temperature fluctuations up to 2 ◦ C and
showed the provision of comfort degree of plant growth.
Active LHES (integration with heating/cooling systems-solar collectors)
In this mode of operation, there is an external heat collection unit
powered by renewable energy in addition to the TES. PCM may be in­
tegrated with the heat collection unit (mostly solar collectors), water
storage tanks, or latent heat exchangers. One of the earliest studies was
conducted by Başçetinçelik et al. [137], where a series of solar air col­
lectors with 27 m2 surface area was used for heating purposes in a
180 m2 greenhouse. A centrifugal fan introduced the heated air to a TES
heat exchanger consisting of two coils of corrugated Polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) tube, which were installed inside a PCM tank. Results showed that
the system’s net energy and exergy efficiencies are 41.9 and 3.3%,
respectively. In a similar study, Zhou et al. [138] used buried heat ex­
changers to apply heat to a greenhouse through the hot water heated by
solar collectors. As Fig. 22 displays, during the day, the heat storage
cycle works (keep valve 1, 2, and 3 open) to charge the PCM, and in the
nighttime heating cycle works (keep valves 4, 5, and 6 open) to
discharge the PCM.
Sometimes PCMs are installed inside the water storage tank to
enhance the storage performance. This type of incorporation is a
favorable candidate when liquid-based solar collectors are considered to
be linked to the heating system. Naghibi et al. [139] tried to provide an
insight review on this concept on a large scale using the TRANSYS
program. The proposed system consisted of a series of FPCs, a hot water
storage tank, a heat exchanger, and three circulating pumps. With the
assumption of a 600 m2 collector area with a mixture of propylene glycol
and water as the working fluid, in addition to a 25 m3 cylindrical water
tank, the developed model was able to satisfy 45% of the total energy
Fig. 22. Schematic view of a solar heating system assisted with LHTES [138];
Pink arrows indicate flow direction in the heat storage cycle; Blue arrows
indicate flow direction in the heating cycle.
15
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
required by one acre-greenhouse located in Ontario, Canada. Simulation
results revealed that the addition of PCM not only improves solar
heating load but also increases solar collector efficiency and raises solar
thermal ratio with an increased energy performance up to 14%.
The other way to incorporate LTES is to combine the heat collection
and storage units for reaching a stable energy supply of a greenhouse. In
this regard, Bouadila et al. [140] proposed a solar air heater equipped
with packed-bed PCM in the form of spherical capsules. With the use of
the proposed collector for heating a chapel-shaped greenhouse planted
with tomato crops, researchers [141] were able to extend the provision
of solar thermal power hours after the sunset. The obtained results
showed that such integration could store 56% of daytime total excess
heat inside the collector and meet 30% of the total heat required during
nighttime. Furthermore, this process led to a decrease in relative hu­
midity from 10 to 17%, which was lower than the insulated greenhouse.
In an effort by Benli and Durmuş [142], a GSHP was developed to exploit
geothermal energy with a refrigerant cycle for heating a greenhouse. In
this system, the working fluid extracts heat from the heat exchanger
buried at 2 m depth and exchanges it with a refrigerant fluid. After the
vaporization stage, R-22 enters a hermetic compressor becoming com­
pressed and fed into the condenser. Utilizing a fan, warm air is produced
through the condenser and introduced to the LTES unit and greenhouse.
Results revealed that although the GSHP could enhance the greenhouse
temperature by 5–10 ◦ C, the implementation of PCM raised this value by
1–3 ◦ C where the maximum heat pump COP was 4.3. The selection of the
used substances as the PCM is an important step in design and must be
accomplished by the desired chemical and thermal stability, latent heat,
range of the melting temperature, percentage of volume change, avail­
ability, and price. To have a better insight into the employed PCMs,
Table 2 summarizes the thermal characteristics and specific features of
the materials have used for improving greenhouse air conditioning.
Economics and environmental impacts
To have a better understanding of the effects that TES systems are
bringing to renewable greenhouses, some researchers have conducted
economic and environmental analyses. Mostefaoui and Amara [143]
monitored a pilot greenhouse coupled with an LTES unit and powered
by PV panels. Comparing the economic outcomes with a diesel system
revealed that the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of the PV system is
0.068 $/kWh. However, the LCOE value of the diesel system was ach­
ieved as 0.230 $/kWh. In another study, Semple et al. [144] considered
a greenhouse powered by solar collectors and assisted with a BTES. They
showed that with a cost of $500/m2 for collector installation and $125/
m2 for drilling and installation of the storage unit, the LCOE would be
34.0 and 31.3 $/GJ, respectively, for high and low-temperature systems.
Moreover, compared to the use of natural gas boilers, CO2 emission can
be mitigated by 220 tons/0.4 ha per year, using the proposed system
with a payback period of 7 years if 70% subsidy and carbon tax of 200
$/ton CO2 are applied. In work performed by Llorach-Massana et al.
[25] for the root area heating, PCM integration was found not
economically feasible, especially for the condition when biomass heat­
ing was considered. Despite the 20–30 kg CO2 emission saved per
hectare and night, PCM costs covered 47% of the total annual invest­
ment, and it still required more reduction in price. Lazaar et al. [145]
analyzed the economics of a greenhouse and compared the conventional
heating method using electric heating systems to a solar heating unit
assisted with a water storage tank. The proposed hybrid system showed
that the implementation of three evacuated solar collectors was quite
rentable, while the payback period was obtained as 3 years. Demirel
[146] conducted an economic evaluation on a 180 m2 greenhouse
equipped with solar air collectors with an equivalent 27 m2 surface area
and paraffin wax as PCM. Achieving a net present value of $102,462.21
after 15 years of operation, the researcher reported that the payback
period could be near 8 years. In another effort by Lazaar et al. [147], the
cost of the polypropylene heat exchanger was found cheaper when it
S. Gorjian et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940

Table 2
Thermal properties of PCMs utilized in nZEG operations presented in the literature.
Sr. PCMs Melting Latent Heat Remarks Refs.
no. Point (oC) (kJ/kg)

1 Salt hydrates mixtures 10–45 115–190 • Cheap and available; [127,130,132,147,150-

(MgCl2⋅6H2O, CaBr2⋅6H2O, • Good transparency for roof-integration; 153]
CaCl2⋅6H20) • Supercooling and high sensitivity with moisture;
• Adding KNO3 to Calcium Chloride Hexahydrate could hinder upper
cooling phenomena and cause PCM crystallization;
• Calcium Chloride Hexahydrate reflects low volume change during
phase transition;
• A life span of 10,000 cycles (27 years) for CaCl2⋅6H2O nodules;
• Calcium Chloride Hexahydrate is a byproduct of soda factories and is
safe for human health.
2 Rubitherm products: • Organic material and eco-friend; [25]
RT12 12 150 • High availably;
RT15 15 140 • Not economically viable for improving the greenhouse thermal
RT18HC 18 250 environment.
3 Fatty acids: • Abundance in nature; [129]
oleic acid (OA) 5.8–12.0 70.1 • Organics; OA (found in olive oil), and CA (found in coconut oil or
oleic acid–capric acid (CA) mixture 12.0–16.0 36.4 palm oils);
• Although OA can store heat as 247.6 kJ, greenhouse temperature
cannot recover the full storage capacity;
• Low thermal conductivity lets high thermal loss to the surrounding.
4 Calcium Chloride Hexahydrate: • TH29 was not compatible with an air temperature range of [154]
TH29 29 190 greenhouse;
PCM 21 21 150 • Increasing the convection heat transfer coefficient from PCM
PCM 17 17 143 promotes storage efficiency further.
5 n-paraffin (RT 28) 26–28 160 • Liquid phase exhibits higher optical performance than a solid phase; [128]
• During the temperature rise in the solid-state, the distortion of
crystal lattice increases reflection and reduces optical transmissivity
before reaching the melting point.
6 Mixture of paraffin wax, high- 22.5 92.0 • Shape-stabilized material; [134]
density polyethylene, and expanded • Ability to be mixed with cement mortar.
graphite
7 Serrolithe (semi-congruent 22 130–180 • Inorganic and eutectic mixture; [135]
CaCl2⋅6H2O with selective chlorides • Reduced fusion temperature, while latent heat remained of the
and nitrates) parent salt;
• A melting point of 22 ◦ C is relatively high to make the storage
efficient during the peak of winters.
8 Butyl stearate 18 140 • Non-toxic, non-corrosive, and has no effects on plant growth, [136]
• Suitable temperature range for greenhouse application.
9 Paraffin 48–60 190 • Available in a large temperature range; [137,155]
• Freeze without subcooling;
• Fast transition, non-corrosive to construction material, easily pack­
aged, and Inexpensive.
10 Hydrate salt Na2SO4⋅10H2O 32 251 • Inorganic material; [156]
• The melting temperature is adequate to let water be high enough for
greenhouse; heating and allow the heat transfer fluid to be low
enough to represent acceptable efficiency in solar collectors.
11 Methyl Eicosanate 45 230 • Organic material with long-term stability; [139]
• Suitable to be incorporated with water tanks connected to solar
water collectors.
12 Capsule (AC27) 27 192.6 • Having the ability to store a significant amount of energy by direct [140]
exposure to the sun;
• During a temperature range of 35–42 ◦ C, PCM is completely charged.
13 Eutectic Glauber (Na2SO4⋅10H2O) 25, 15, 10 179.6, 129, • Adding borax makes subcooling reduced; [157]
116.2 • A combination of carbon powder increases thermal conductivity.

was used with LTES than STES for heating a tunnel greenhouse. Ntinas
et al. [148] studied the sustainability of a greenhouse assisted with solar
collectors and a water TES tank under four different scenarios; i) without
solar heating, ii) solar heating without reused energy from TES tank, iii)
solar heating with reused energy from TES tank, iv) solar heating with
reused energy from TES tank and using excess energy for additional
facilities. From the evaluation of Carbon Footprint (CF), and Cumulative
Energy Demand (CED), it was concluded that the solar collector inte­
gration can result in 44% less CED than the conventional greenhouse,
while CF can also be improved by 24%. Results also revealed that when
the excess heat is exported (scenario 4), a negative carbon footprint of
− 0.7 CO2-eq kg− 1 can be attained. Thus, although climate change is
imposing negative impacts on crop cultivation with increased green­
house temperature (scenario 2), if the absorbed solar energy is reused
(scenario 4) interesting results would be achieved as the positive
impacts of such phenomena (climate change).
In the case of environmental assessments, when a TES system is
accompanied by a heat collection unit such as solar collectors, the rapid
or sudden disintegration of the energy between the source and the
environment (sink) is avoided. As a result, the exergy destruction and,
consequently, environmental degradation are reduced [103]. Materials,
design, and operational practices associated with TES systems must be
selected cautiously with the least risk on public health or the natural
ecology and environment [104]. Thus, with a comparison among
available TES techniques, STES may represent the lowest carbon foot­
print due to the least chemical material use. However, the utilization of
PCMs can be problematic due to the possible toxicity, health hazard, and
fire risks. As asserted by Chandel and Agarwal [149], although organic
PCMs have high latent heat, they are flammable, and such materials like
paraffin wax include volatile compounds like formaldehyde and vinyl

16
S. Gorjian et al.
chloride. According to the presence of different toxic materials such as
benzene, toluene, naphthalene, and methyl ethyl ketone, paraffin wax is
among the non-renewable and non-biodegradable PCMs, which propose
environmental concerns for their disposal. However, vegetable oil-based
waxes are considered safe, non-toxic, and more sustainable. Fatty acids
also suffered from flammability, which puts a considerable restriction on
their applications. Considering the available inorganic PCMS, most salt
hydrates are safe and non-toxic but may cause corrosion to the metal
containers. To reduce such problems, PCM encapsulation can be a
promising technique preventing direct contact between the active PCM
substance and the environment, which decreases the risk of leakage
[115].
Conclusion and prospects
In this study, a comprehensive review of the latest advances in
greenhouse technology and their thermal energy storage strategies to
achieve nZEGs is presented. The agricultural greenhouses integrated
with different renewable energy technologies, including solar,
geothermal, and biomass, are reviewed and discussed. In this review, the
integration of STES and LTES systems with agricultural greenhouses
powered by renewable energy sources was also investigated from both
technical and enviro-economic views. The STES systems are among the
oldest and most common heat storage technologies which are incorpo­
rated with nZEGs, while the LTES technologies have exhibited more
adaptability with renewable energy systems, especially solar thermal
and PV systems. Since LTES systems are composed of materials with
higher storage capacity, their implementation in nZEGs requires less
storage material per the greenhouse area, which makes this technology
more economically feasible for use in greenhouses and may put this
method ahead of other heat storage technologies. However, PCMs, as the
most common LTES material, must be selected appropriately by
considering the main critical factors, including the melting point, the
latent heat, the installation position, and the economic and environ­
mental issues. The following conclusions can be summarized from this
study:
• The most common types of STES systems employed in nZEGs are
rock-bed, soil, and water both in storage tanks and in black plastic
sleeves, which are mainly positioned on the soil bed of greenhouses
between the rows of the cultivated crops.
• Employment of STES systems in nZEGs can improve the indoor air
temperature up to 3–5 ◦ C and cause the energy-saving about
28 kWh/m2 per area of the greenhouse in comparison with the
greenhouse without TES. Additionally, a yield increase of 35–49%
has been reported for the plants cultivated inside.
• Although solar passive water-sleeve heating units have been re­
ported as an eco-friendly system in nZEGs and can be considered as
an alternative for fossil fuels, the use of a special type of TES known
as bubble insulation has indicated an energy saving of approximately
80% in greenhouses.
• The integration of PCMs with the roof area of the greenhouse as
double-layered transparent panels has been found plausible as a TES
system. This technique can improve the nocturnal performance of
greenhouses by providing shading through a phase transition and
consequently changes in optical characteristics, where in similar
endeavors, it has been observed that nocturnal shutters improve the
indoor greenhouse climate by 2 ◦ C. However, further studies should
address the applicability of a range of transparent PCMs integrated
with greenhouse skins and investigate their influence on the planted
crops for long-term operation.
• Exergy efficiency is a significant criterion to assess storage facilities
since it could reveal the amount of available heat in storage opera­
tions. In this area, LTES systems suffered from low exergy efficiency,
and future investigations are necessary to improve it via
17
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
optimization on exergy loss and auxiliary heating consumption for
charging and discharging periods in greenhouse applications.
• When LTES systems are used in the passive form, the convection heat
transfer between the PCM and internal air is an important issue. In
this case, utilizing a fan can improve the convective heat transfer
coefficient from 6 W/m2 to 16 W/m2 during both charging and dis­
charging periods. Moreover, warm air distribution at nighttime is the
other critical subject, where scientists have recommended that the
effective heating method for plants must be introduced from lower
sections than upper sections of greenhouses.
• One of the underlying advantages of LTES systems over STES is that
when PCMs are filled inside PVC containers, the weak wettability of
the heat exchanger lets the drainage of condensates, which will keep
the humidity condition at the desired level (<95%) during night
operations. Although, more studies must be given to the economic
and optimization analysis in this area.
• The encapsulation of PCMs offers a higher transfer area leading to a
reduced PCM’s interaction with the surrounding and control the
volume change during phase transition. Thus, the application of such
technology enhances the storage performance up to 14% by enabling
cyclic absorption and release of heat as well as hindering the water
tank from reaching its boiling point or undergoing sudden temper­
ature drops on cold nights.
• It can be concluded that the type of the PCM used in greenhouse
applications depends on the type of the PCM integration, where in
passive modes, the best material has a melting point in a range of 12
to 18 ◦ C, while in active mode, PCMs with a boiling point of 30–60 ◦ C
are more favorable. Furthermore, calcium chloride hexahydrate is
the most studied PCM applied to the greenhouse due to its chemical
and thermal stability in addition to the economic aspects.
Within the scope of thermal energy storage studies in nZEGs,
different applications that are not included in the literature are further
follow up research areas;
• Nanoparticles mixed with water significantly increase the heat
transfer coefficient of water. Conducting studies on nano-fluid ap­
plications in nZEGs through solar collectors will provide a significant
benefit. In this context, thermal energy storage studies can be carried
out for nano-fluid applications in nZEGs.
• Thermocline studies can be carried out as an innovation within the
scope of TES applications in nZEGs.
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.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the Renewable Energy Research
Institute (RERI) for the advisory support and Tarbiat Modares University
(TMU) for the financial support [grant number IG/39705].
References
[1] Gorjian S, Calise F, Kant K, Ahamed MS, Copertaro B, Najafi G, Zhang X,
Aghaei M, Shamshiri RR. A review on opportunities for implementation of solar
energy technologies in agricultural greenhouses. J Cleaner Prod 2020:124807.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124807.
[2] United Nations. The sustainable development goals report 2019. 2019.
[3] FAO. Early Warning Early Action report on food security and agriculture. 2019.
[4] Jakhar S, Soni MS, Gakkhar N. Historical and recent development of
concentrating photovoltaic cooling technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;60:41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.083.
[5] Pandey AK, Tyagi VV, Selvaraj JA/L, Rahim NA, Tyagi SK. Recent advances in
solar photovoltaic systems for emerging trends and advanced applications.
S. Gorjian et al.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:859–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.09.043.
[6] Esen M, Yuksel T. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable energy
sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build 2013;65:340–51. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.06.018.
[7] Chau J, Sowlati T, Sokhansanj S, Preto F, Melin S, Bi X. Techno-economic analysis
of wood biomass boilers for the greenhouse industry. Appl Energy 2009;86(3):
364–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.010.
[8] Energy-Smart Food at FAO. vol. 3. 2012.
[9] Becerril H, de los Rios I. Energy Efficiency Strategies for Ecological Greenhouses:
Experiences from Murcia (Spain). Energies 2016;9:866. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en9110866.
[10] Energy-Smart FAO. Food for People Climate. 2011.
[11] Gilbert N. One-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture.
Nature 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.11708.
[12] Ketabchi F, Gorjian S, Sabzehparvar S, Shadram Z, Ghoreishi MS, Rahimzadeh H.
Experimental performance evaluation of a modified solar still integrated with a
cooling system and external flat-plate reflectors. Sol Energy 2019;187:137–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2019.05.032.
[13] Gorjian S, Ghobadian B, Ebadi H, Ketabchi F, Khanmohammadi S. Applications of
solar PV systems in desalination technologies. In: Gorjian S, Shukla A, editors.
Photovolt. Sol. Energy Convers. 1st ed., London: Elsevier; 2020, p. 237–74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819610-6.00008-9.
[14] Nguyen H. Sustainable food systems Concept and framework. 2018.
[15] Vadiee A, Martin V. Energy analysis and thermoeconomic assessment of the
closed greenhouse – The largest commercial solar building. Appl Energy 2013;
102:1256–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.06.051.
[16] Menardo S, Bauer A, Theuretzbacher F, Piringer G, Nilsen PJ, Balsari P,
Pavliska O, Amon T. Biogas Production from Steam-Exploded Miscanthus and
Utilization of Biogas Energy and CO2 in Greenhouses. Bioenerg. Res. 2013;6(2):
620–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9280-5.
[17] Yildirim N, Bilir L. Evaluation of a hybrid system for a nearly zero energy
greenhouse. Energy Convers Manage 2017;148:1278–90. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2017.06.068.
[18] Cuce E, Harjunowibowo D, Cuce PM. Renewable and sustainable energy saving
strategies for greenhouse systems: A comprehensive review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;64:34–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.077.
[19] Sarbu I, Sebarchievici C. General review of ground-source heat pump systems for
heating and cooling of buildings. Energy Build 2014;70:441–54. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.068.
[20] Paksoy HÖ, Beyhan B. Thermal energy storage (TES) systems for greenhouse
technology. Adv. Therm. Energy Storage Syst., Elsevier 2015:533–48. https://doi.
org/10.1533/9781782420965.4.533.
[21] Bazgaou A, Fatnassi H, Bouhroud R, Gourdo L, Ezzaeri K, Tiskatine R, Demrati H,
Wifaya A, Bekkaoui A, Aharoune A, Bouirden L. An experimental study on the
effect of a rock-bed heating system on the microclimate and the crop development
under canarian greenhouse. Sol Energy 2018;176:42–50. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2018.10.027.
[22] Kürklü A. Energy storage applications in greenhouses by means of phase change
materials (PCMs): a review. Renewable Energy 1998;13(1):89–103. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0960-1481(97)83337-X.
[23] Shukla A, Sharma A, Kant K. Solar Greenhouse With Thermal Energy Storage: a
Review. Curr Sustainable Renewable Energy Rep 2016;3(3-4):58–66. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40518-016-0056-y.
[24] Sethi VP, Sharma SK. Survey and evaluation of heating technologies for
worldwide agricultural greenhouse applications. Sol Energy 2008;82(9):832–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.02.010.
[25] Llorach-Massana P, Peña J, Rieradevall J, Montero JI. Analysis of the technical,
environmental and economic potential of phase change materials (PCM) for root
zone heating in Mediterranean greenhouses. Renewable Energy 2017;103:
570–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.11.040.
[26] Hassanien RHE, Li M, Dong Lin W. Advanced applications of solar energy in
agricultural greenhouses. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:989–1001. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.095.
[27] Barbaresi A, Maioli V, Bovo M, Tinti F, Torreggiani D, Tassinari P. Application of
basket geothermal heat exchangers for sustainable greenhouse cultivation. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2020;129:109928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2020.109928.
[28] Bibbiani C, Fantozzi F, Gargari C, Campiotti CA, Schettini E, Vox G. Wood
Biomass as Sustainable Energy for Greenhouses Heating in Italy. Agric Agric Sci
Procedia 2016;8:637–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.086.
[29] Indoor Crop Production Feeding the Future. 2015.
[30] Gorjian S, Tavakoli Hashjin T, Ghobadian B, Hashjin TT. Solar Powered
Greenhouses. 10th Int. Conf. Sustain. Energy Technol., ISTANBUL, Turkey: 2011,
p. 4–7.
[31] Indoor farming market outlook-Global Trends, Forecast, and Opportunity
Assessment (2017-2026). 2019.
[32] von Elsner B, Briassoulis D, Waaijenberg D, Mistriotis A, von Zabeltitz C,
Gratraud J, Russo G, Suay-Cortes R. Review of Structural and Functional
Characteristics of Greenhouses in European Union Countries: Part I, Design
Requirements. J Agric Eng Res 2000;75(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1006/
jaer.1999.0502.
[33] Canakci M, Yasemin Emekli N, Bilgin S, Caglayan N. Heating requirement and its
costs in greenhouse structures: A case study for Mediterranean region of Turkey.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:483–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.03.026.
18
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
[34] Syed AM, Hachem C. Review of Construction; Geometry; Heating, Ventilation,
and Air-Conditioning; and Indoor Climate Requirements of Agricultural
Greenhouses. J. Biosyst. Eng. 2019;44(1):18–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42853-019-00005-1.
[35] Odesola IF, Ezekwem C. Effect of Shape and Orientation on a Greenhouse : A
Review. An Int J Sci Technol 2012;1:122–30.
[36] Kuschke I, Cassim A. Sustainable Agriculture: Market Intelligence Report. Cape
Town, 8001, South Africa: 2019.
[37] Ravishankar E, Booth RE, Saravitz C, Sederoff H, Ade HW, O’Connor BT.
Achieving Net Zero Energy Greenhouses by Integrating Semitransparent Organic
Solar Cells. Joule 2020;4(2):490–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joule.2019.12.018.
[38] Yano A, Cossu M. Energy sustainable greenhouse crop cultivation using
photovoltaic technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;109:116–37. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.026.
[39] Taki M. Energy Consumption, Input-Output Relationship and Cost Analysis for
Greenhouse Productions in Esfahan Province of Iran. Am J Exp Agric 2012.
https://doi.org/10.9734/ajea/2012/1461.
[40] Djevic M, Dimitrijevic A. Energy consumption for different greenhouse
constructions. Energy 2009;34(9):1325–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2009.03.008.
[41] Vadiee A, Martin V. Energy management strategies for commercial greenhouses.
Appl Energy 2014;114:880–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.089.
[42] Pahlavan R, Omid M, Akram A. The relationship between energy inputs and crop
yield in greenhouse basil production. J Agric Sci Technol 2012.
[43] Mirzamohammadi S, Jabarzadeh A, Shahrabi MS. Long-term planning of
supplying energy for greenhouses using renewable resources under uncertainty.
J Cleaner Prod 2020;264:121611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.121611.
[44] Çokay E, Öztamer M, Kocar G, Eryasar A, Godekmerdan E, Özgul S, et al. A
Prospect on Integration of Solar Technology to Modern Greenhouses. Dokuz Eylül
Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Fen ve Mühendislik Derg 2018;20:245–58.
https://doi.org/10.21205/deufmd. 2018205820.
[45] Acosta-Silva YdJ, Torres-Pacheco I, Matsumoto Y, Toledano-Ayala M, Soto-
Zarazúa GM, Zelaya-Ángel O, Méndez-López A. Applications of solar and wind
renewable energy in agriculture: A review. Sci Prog 2019;102(2):127–40. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0036850419832696.
[46] Schiller L, Plinke M. The Year-Round Solar Greenhouse: How to Design and Build
a Net-Zero Energy Greenhouse. New Society Publishers; 2016.
[47] van ¿t Ooster A, van Henten EJ, Janssen EGON, Bot GPA, Dekker E. Development
of concepts for a zero-fossil-energy greenhouse. Acta Hortic. 2008;(801):725–32.
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.801.84.
[48] Gorjian S, Minaei S, MalehMirchegini L, Trommsdorff M, Shamshiri RR.
Applications of solar PV systems in agricultural automation and robotics. In:
Gorjian S, Shukla A, editors. Photovolt. Sol. Energy Convers. 1st ed., London:
Elsevier; 2020, p. 191–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819610-
6.00007-7.
[49] Loni R, Askari Asli-Areh E, Ghobadian B, Kasaeian AB, Gorjian Sh, Najafi G,
Bellos E. Research and review study of solar dish concentrators with different
nanofluids and different shapes of cavity receiver: Experimental tests. Renewable
Energy 2020;145:783–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.06.056.
[50] Gorjian S, Ghobadian B. Solar desalination: A sustainable solution to water crisis
in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48:571–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.04.009.
[51] Crabtree GW, Lewis NS. Solar energy conversion. 2007. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-3040.2009.02017.x.
[52] Mekhilef S, Saidur R, Safari A. A review on solar energy use in industries. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15(4):1777–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2010.12.018.
[53] Gorjian S, Ghobadian B, Tavakkoli Hashjin T, Banakar A. Experimental
performance evaluation of a stand-alone point-focus parabolic solar still.
Desalination 2014;352:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.08.005.
[54] Shakouri M, Ebadi H, Gorjian S. Solar photovoltaic thermal (PVT) module
technologies. In: Gorjian S, Shukla A, editors. Photovolt. Sol. Energy Convers. 1st
ed., London: Elsevier; 2020, p. 79–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
819610-6.00004-1.
[55] Gorjian S, Singh R, Shukla A, Mazhar AR. On-farm applications of solar PV
systems. In: Gorjian S, Shukla A, editors. Photovolt. Sol. Energy Convers. 1st ed.,
London: Elsevier; 2020, p. 147–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819610-
6.00006-5.
[56] Gorjian S, Zadeh BN, Eltrop L, Shamshiri RR, Amanlou Y. Solar photovoltaic
power generation in Iran: Development, policies, and barriers. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2019;106:110–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.025.
[57] Çakır U, Şahin E. Using solar greenhouses in cold climates and evaluating
optimum type according to sizing, position and location: A case study. Comput
Electron Agric 2015;117:245–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compag.2015.08.005.
[58] Hassanain AA, Hokam EM, Mallick TK. Effect of solar storage wall on the passive
solar heating constructions. Energy Build 2011;43(2-3):737–47. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.11.020.
[59] Buttaro D, Renna M, Gerardi C, Blando F, Serio F, Santamaria P. Soilless
production of wild rocket as affected by greenhouse coverage with photovoltaic
modules. Acta Sci Pol Hortorum Cultus 2016;15:129.
[60] Attar I, Naili N, Khalifa N, Hazami M, Farhat A. Parametric and numerical study
of a solar system for heating a greenhouse equipped with a buried exchanger.
S. Gorjian et al.
Energy Convers Manage 2013;70:163–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2013.02.017.
[61] Imtiaz Hussain M, Ali A, Lee GH. Multi-module concentrated photovoltaic
thermal system feasibility for greenhouse heating: Model validation and techno-
economic analysis. Sol Energy 2016;135:719–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2016.06.053.
[62] Imtiaz Hussain M, Ali A, Lee GH. Performance and economic analyses of linear
and spot Fresnel lens solar collectors used for greenhouse heating in South Korea.
Energy 2015;90:1522–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.115.
[63] Joudi KA, Farhan AA. Greenhouse heating by solar air heaters on the roof.
Renewable Energy 2014;72:406–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2014.07.025.
[64] Wu G, Yang Q, Zhang Yi, Fang H, Feng C, Zheng H. Energy and optical analysis of
photovoltaic thermal integrated with rotary linear curved Fresnel lens inside a
Chinese solar greenhouse. Energy 2020;197:117215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2020.117215.
[65] Andrew Putrayudha S, Kang EC, Evgueniy E, Libing Y, Lee EJ. A study of
photovoltaic/thermal (PVT)-ground source heat pump hybrid system by using
fuzzy logic control. Appl Therm Eng 2015;89:578–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2015.06.019.
[66] Rahnama M, Kazemi N, Godarzi B, Taki M. Geothermal energy for heating and
cooling in agricultural greenhouses. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 2018;20:97–107.
[67] Aljubury IMA, Ridha HD. Enhancement of evaporative cooling system in a
greenhouse using geothermal energy. Renewable Energy 2017;111:321–31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.080.
[68] Adaro JA, Galimberti PD, Lema AI, Fasulo Amı ́lcar, Barral JR. Geothermal
contribution to greenhouse heating. Appl Energy 1999;64(1-4):241–9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00049-5.
[69] Ghosal MK, Tiwari GN. Mathematical modeling for greenhouse heating by using
thermal curtain and geothermal energy. Sol Energy 2004;76(5):603–13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2003.12.004.
[70] Boughanmi H, Lazaar M, Guizani A. A performance of a heat pump system
connected a new conic helicoidal geothermal heat exchanger for a greenhouse
heating in the north of Tunisia. Sol Energy 2018;171:343–53. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2018.06.054.
[71] Bakos GC, Fidanidis D, Tsagas NF. Greenhouse heating using geothermal energy.
Geothermics 1999;28(6):759–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6505(99)
00041-3.
[72] Ghosal MK, Tiwari GN, Das DK, Pandey KP. Modeling and comparative thermal
performance of ground air collector and earth air heat exchanger for heating of
greenhouse. Energy Build 2005;37(6):613–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2004.09.004.
[73] Benli H. A performance comparison between a horizontal source and a vertical
source heat pump systems for a greenhouse heating in the mild climate Elaziğ,
Turkey. Appl Therm Eng 2013;50(1):197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2012.06.005.
[74] Boughanmi H, Lazaar M, Bouadila S, Farhat A. Thermal performance of a conic
basket heat exchanger coupled to a geothermal heat pump for greenhouse cooling
under Tunisian climate. Energy Build 2015;104:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enbuild.2015.07.004.
[75] Sánchez-Molina JA, Reinoso JV, Acién FG, Rodríguez F, López JC. Development
of a biomass-based system for nocturnal temperature and diurnal CO2
concentration control in greenhouses. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;67:60–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.04.015.
[76] Huang T, Li H, Zhang G, Xu F. Experimental Study on Biomass Heating System in
the Greenhouse: A Case Study in Xiangtan, China. Sustainability 2020;12:5673.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145673.
[77] McKenney DW, Yemshanov D, Fraleigh S, Allen D, Preto F. An economic
assessment of the use of short-rotation coppice woody biomass to heat
greenhouses in southern Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35(1):374–84. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.055.
[78] Anifantis AS, Colantoni A, Pascuzzi S. Thermal energy assessment of a small scale
photovoltaic, hydrogen and geothermal stand-alone system for greenhouse
heating. Renewable Energy 2017;103:115–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.11.031.
[79] Anifantis A, Colantoni A, Pascuzzi S, Santoro F. Photovoltaic and Hydrogen Plant
Integrated with a Gas Heat Pump for Greenhouse Heating: A Mathematical Study.
Sustainability 2018;10:378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020378.
[80] Wang K, Pantaleo AM, Mugnozza GS, Markides CN. Technoeconomic assessment
of solar combined heat and power systems based on hybrid PVT collectors in
greenhouse applications. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2019;609. https://doi.org/
10.1088/1757-899X/609/7/072026.
[81] Mehrpooya M, Hemmatabady H, Ahmadi MH. Optimization of performance of
Combined Solar Collector-Geothermal Heat Pump Systems to supply thermal load
needed for heating greenhouses. Energy Convers Manage 2015;97:382–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.03.073.
[82] Ozgener O, Hepbasli A. Performance analysis of a solar-assisted ground-source
heat pump system for greenhouse heating: an experimental study. Build Environ
2005;40(8):1040–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2004.08.030.
[83] Gorjian S, Ebadi H, Calise F, Shukla A, Ingrao C. A review on recent
advancements in performance enhancement techniques for low-temperature solar
collectors. Energy Convers Manage 2020;222:113246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2020.113246.
[84] Shanmugan S, Essa FA, Gorjian S, Kabeel AE, Sathyamurthy R, Muthu Manokar A.
Experimental study on single slope single basin solar still using TiO2 nano layer
19
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
for natural clean water invention. J Storage Mater 2020;30:101522. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.est.2020.101522.
[85] Sarbu I, Sebarchievici C. A comprehensive review of thermal energy storage.
Sustain 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010191.
[86] Loni R, Askari Asli-ardeh E, Ghobadian B, Kasaeian AB, Gorjian Sh.
Thermodynamic analysis of a solar dish receiver using different nanofluids.
Energy 2017;133:749–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.016.
[87] Sarbu I, Sebarchievici C. Chapter 4 - Thermal Energy Storage. In: Sarbu I,
Sebarchievici CBT-SH and CS, editors., Academic Press; 2017, p. 99–138. https://
doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811662-3.00004-9.
[88] Sharma A, Tyagi VV, Chen CR, Buddhi D. Review on thermal energy storage with
phase change materials and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(2):
318–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.10.005.
[89] Garg HP, Mullick SC, Bhargava AK. Sensible Heat Storage BT - Solar Thermal
Energy Storage. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 1985. p. 82–153. 10.1007/
978-94-009-5301-7_2.
[90] Bargach MN, Dahman As, Boukallouch M. A heating system using flat plate
collectors to improve the inside greenhouse microclimate in Morocco. Renewable
Energy 1999;18(3):367–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(98)00803-9.
[91] Al-Judi KA, Hasan MM. Cooling and heating a greenhouse in Baghdad by a solar
assisted desiccant system. J Eng 2013;19:19.
[92] Pascuzzi S, Anifantis A, Blanco I, Scarascia Mugnozza G. Electrolyzer
Performance Analysis of an Integrated Hydrogen Power System for Greenhouse
Heating. A Case Study. Sustainability 2016;8:629. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su8070629.
[93] Zhang L, Xu P, Mao JC, Tang X. Design and Application of a Seasonal Solar Soil
Heat Storage System Applied in Greenhouse Heating. Appl Mech Mater 2014;
672–674:21–5. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.672-674.21.
[94] Bazgaou A, Fatnassi H, Bouharroud R, Elame F, Ezzaeri K, Gourdo L, Wifaya A,
Demrati H, Tiskatine R, Bekkaoui A, Aharoune A, Bouirden L. Performance
assessment of combining rock-bed thermal energy storage and water filled passive
solar sleeves for heating Canarian greenhouse. Sol Energy 2020;198:8–24.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.01.041.
[95] Hassanien RHE, Li M, Tang Y. The evacuated tube solar collector assisted heat
pump for heating greenhouses. Energy Build 2018;169:305–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.072.
[96] Ma J. Direct wind heating greenhouse underground heating system. In: IOP Conf
Ser Earth Environ Sci, 300; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/300/4/
042056.
[97] Chau J, Sowlati T, Sokhansanj S, Preto F, Melin S, Bi X. Economic sensitivity of
wood biomass utilization for greenhouse heating application. Appl Energy 2009;
86(5):616–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.11.005.
[98] Chai L, Ma C, Ni J-Q. Performance evaluation of ground source heat pump system
for greenhouse heating in northern China. Biosyst Eng 2012;111(1):107–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.11.002.
[99] Abdellatif SM, El Ashmawy NM, El-Bakhaswan MK, Tarabye HH, Tamboli P,
Rico GE. Hybird, Solar and Biomass Energy System for Heating Greenhouse Sweet
Coloured Pepper. Adv Res 2016;8:30019.
[100] Ozgener O. Use of solar assisted geothermal heat pump and small wind turbine
systems for heating agricultural and residential buildings. Energy 2010;35(1):
262–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.09.018.
[101] Gousgouriotis IJ, Katsigiannis YA, Georgilakis PS. Economic evaluation of
biomass heating systems: a case of greenhouses in northern Greece. Oper Res Int J
2007;7(1):83–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02941187.
[102] Anifantis AS, Pascuzzi S, Scarascia-Mugnozza G. Geothermal source heat pump
performance for a greenhouse heating system: An experimental study. J Agric Eng
2016;47:164–70. https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2016.544.
[103] Velraj R. 15 - Sensible heat storage for solar heating and cooling systems. In:
Wang RZ, Ge TSBT-A in SH and C, editors., Woodhead Publishing; 2016, p.
399–428. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100301-5.00015-
1.
[104] Dinçer İ, Rosen MA. Thermal Energy Storage (TES) Methods. Therm. Energy
Storage, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010, p. 83–190. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9780470970751.ch3.
[105] Li Y, Huang G, Xu T, Liu X, Wu H. Optimal design of PCM thermal storage tank
and its application for winter available open-air swimming pool. Appl Energy
2018;209:224–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.095.
[106] Gao Q, Li M, Yu M, Spitler JD, Yan YY. Review of development from GSHP to
UTES in China and other countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(6-7):
1383–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.09.012.
[107] Possemiers M, Huysmans M, Batelaan O. Influence of Aquifer Thermal Energy
Storage on groundwater quality: A review illustrated by seven case studies from
Belgium. J Hydrol Reg Stud 2014;2:20–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejrh.2014.08.001.
[108] Catolico N, Ge S, McCartney JS. Numerical Modeling of a Soil-Borehole Thermal
Energy Storage System. Vadose Zo J 2016;15:vzj2015.05.0078. https://doi.org/
10.2136/vzj2015.05.0078.
[109] Balakrishnan AR, Pei DCT. Heat Transfer in Gas-Solid Packed Bed Systems. 3.
Overall Heat Transfer Rates in Adiabatic Beds. Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev.
1979;18(1):47–50. https://doi.org/10.1021/i260069a005.
[110] Almendros-Ibáñez JA, Fernández-Torrijos M, Díaz-Heras M, Belmonte JF,
Sobrino C. A review of solar thermal energy storage in beds of particles: Packed
and fluidized beds. Sol Energy 2019;192:193–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2018.05.047.
S. Gorjian et al.
[111] Bonanos AM, Votyakov EV. Sensitivity analysis for thermocline thermal storage
tank design. Renew Energy 2016;99:764–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.07.052.
[112] Gautam A, Saini RP. A review on technical, applications and economic aspect of
packed bed solar thermal energy storage system. J Storage Mater 2020;27:
101046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.101046.
[113] Rathod MK, Banerjee J. Thermal stability of phase change materials used in latent
heat energy storage systems: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;18:
246–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.022.
[114] Yang K, Zhu N, Chang C, Wang D, Yang S, Ma S. A methodological concept for
phase change material selection based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM):
A case study. Energy 2018;165:1085–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.10.022.
[115] Jouhara H, Żabnieńska-Góra A, Khordehgah N, Ahmad D, Lipinski T. Latent
thermal energy storage technologies and applications: A review. International
Journal of Thermofluids 2020;5-6:100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijft.2020.100039.
[116] Ge H, Li H, Mei S, Liu J. Low melting point liquid metal as a new class of phase
change material: An emerging frontier in energy area. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;21:331–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.008.
[117] Diaz P. Analysis and Comparison of different types of Thermal Energy Storage
Systems: A Review. J Adv Mech Eng Sci 2016;2:33–46.
[118] Zhang L, Xu P, Mao J, Tang Xu, Li Z, Shi J. A low cost seasonal solar soil heat
storage system for greenhouse heating: Design and pilot study. Appl Energy 2015;
156:213–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.036.
[119] Stoknes K, Scholwin F, Krzesiński W, Wojciechowska E, Jasińska A. Efficiency of a
novel “Food to waste to food” system including anaerobic digestion of food waste
and cultivation of vegetables on digestate in a bubble-insulated greenhouse.
Waste Manage 2016;56:466–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2016.06.027.
[120] Li Z, Ma X, Zhao Y, Zheng H. Study on the Performance of a Curved Fresnel Solar
Concentrated System with Seasonal Underground Heat Storage for the
Greenhouse Application. J Sol Energy Eng Trans ASME 2018;141:1–9. https://
doi.org/10.1115/1.4040839.
[121] Xu J, Li Y, Wang RZ, Liu W. Performance investigation of a solar heating system
with underground seasonal energy storage for greenhouse application. Energy
2014;67:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.01.049.
[122] Mirahmad A, Sadrameli SM. A comparative study on the modeling of a latent heat
energy storage system and evaluating its thermal performance in a greenhouse.
Heat Mass Transfer 2018;54(9):2871–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00231-018-
2316-4.
[123] Moon BE, Kim HT. Evaluation of thermal performance through development of a
PCM-based thermal storage control system integrated unglazed transpired
collector in experimental pig barn. Sol Energy 2019;194:856–70. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solener.2019.11.009.
[124] Saravanan MR, Pasupathy A. Incorporation of phase change material (PCM) in
poultry Hatchery for thermal management & energy conversion schemes of
slaughterhouse waste in Broiler farms for energy conservation - A case study.
2016 Int Conf Energy Effic Technol Sustain ICEETS 2016 2016:291–9. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ICEETS.2016.7583768.
[125] Manivel R, Muthukumaran V, Nekilesh S, Kandharooban S. Design of thermal
storage using phase change material (PCM) for agro products preservation. Int J
Recent Technol Eng 2019;8:1669–71. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.
B1127.0882S819.
[126] Barreca F, Praticò P. Environmental indoor thermal control of extra virgin olive
oil storage room with phase change materials. J Agric Eng 2019;50:208–14.
https://doi.org/10.4081/jae.2019.947.
[127] Korin E, Roy A, Wolf D, Pasternak D, Rappeport E. A Novel Passive Solar
Greenhouse Based on Phase-Change Materials. International Journal of Solar
Energy 1987;5(3):201–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425918708914419.
[128] Liu X, Gao H, Sun Y, Wu Y, Martin B, Chilton J, Mirzaei P, Zhang X, Beccarelli P,
Lau B. Thermal and Optical Analysis of a Passive Heat Recovery and Storage
System for Greenhouse Skin. Procedia Eng 2016;155:472–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.050.
[129] Beyhan B, Paksoy H, Daşgan Y. Root zone temperature control with thermal
energy storage in phase change materials for soilless greenhouse applications.
Energy Convers Manage 2013;74:446–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2013.06.047.
[130] Liu Y, Chen C, Guo H, Yue H. An Application of Phase Change Technology in a
Greenhouse. Envel Technol Build Energy Effic 2006;2..
[131] Kumari N, Tiwari GN, Sodha MS. Effect of phase change material on passive
thermal heating of a greenhouse. Int. J. Energy Res. 2006;30(4):221–36. https://
doi.org/10.1002/er.1132.
[132] Berroug F, Lakhal EK, El Omari M, Faraji M, El Qarnia H. Thermal performance of
a greenhouse with a phase change material north wall. Energy Build 2011;43(11):
3027–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.07.020.
[133] Tong G, Christopher DM, Li B. Numerical modelling of temperature variations in a
Chinese solar greenhouse. Comput Electron Agric 2009;68(1):129–39. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.05.004.
20
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 43 (2021) 100940
[134] Chen C, Ling H, Zhai Z(, Li Y, Yang F, Han F, Wei S. Thermal performance of an
active-passive ventilation wall with phase change material in solar greenhouses.
Appl Energy 2018;216:602–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.02.130.
[135] Boulard T, Razafinjohany E, Baille A, Jaffrin A, Fabre B. Performance of a
greenhouse heating system with a phase change material. Agric For Meteorol
1990;52(3-4):303–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(90)90088-N.
[136] Li L, Wang Y, Ren W, Liu S. Thermal Environment Regulating Effects of Phase
Change Material in Chinese Style Solar Greenhouse. Energy Procedia 2014;61:
2071–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.078.
[137] Başçetinçelik A, öztürk HH, Paksoy HÖ, Demirel Y. Energetic and exergetic
efficiency of latent heat storage system for greenhouse heating. Renewable
Energy 1999;16(1-4):691–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(98)00253-5.
[138] Zhou N, Yu Y, Yi J, Liu R. A study on thermal calculation method for a plastic
greenhouse with solar energy storage and heating. Sol Energy 2017;142:39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.12.016.
[139] Naghibi Z, Carriveau R, Ting D-K. Improving clean energy greenhouse heating
with solar thermal energy storage and phase change materials. Energy Storage
2020;2(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/est2.116.
[140] Bouadila S, Kooli S, Lazaar M, Skouri S, Farhat A. Performance of a new solar air
heater with packed-bed latent storage energy for nocturnal use. Appl Energy
2013;110:267–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.062.
[141] Bouadila S, Kooli S, Skouri S, Lazaar M, Farhat A. Improvement of the greenhouse
climate using a solar air heater with latent storage energy. Energy 2014;64:
663–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.10.066.
[142] Benli H, Durmuş A. Evaluation of ground-source heat pump combined latent heat
storage system performance in greenhouse heating. Energy Build 2009;41(2):
220–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.09.004.
[143] Mostefaoui Z, Amara S. Renewable energy analysis in the agriculture–greenhouse
farms: A case study in the mediterranean region (sidi bel abbes, algeria). Environ.
Prog. Sustainable Energy 2019;38(3):e13029. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ep.13029.
[144] Semple L, Carriveau R, Ting D-K. A techno-economic analysis of seasonal thermal
energy storage for greenhouse applications. Energy Build 2017;154:175–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.065.
[145] Lazaar M, Bouadila S, Kooli S, Farhat A. Comparative study of conventional and
solar heating systems under tunnel Tunisian greenhouses: Thermal performance
and economic analysis. Sol Energy 2015;120:620–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2015.08.014.
[146] Demirel Y. Heat Storage By Phase Changing Materials and Thermoeconomics.
Therm Energy Storage Sustain Energy Consum 2007:133–51. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-1-4020-5290-3_7.
[147] Lazaar M, Bouadila S, Kooli S, Farhat A. Conditioning of the tunnel greenhouse in
the north of Tunisia using a calcium chloride hexahydrate integrated in
polypropylene heat exchanger. Appl Therm Eng 2014;68:62–8. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.04.014.
[148] Ntinas GK, Dannehl D, Schuch I, Rocksch T, Schmidt U. Sustainable greenhouse
production with minimised carbon footprint by energy export. Biosyst Eng 2020;
189:164–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.11.012.
[149] Chandel SS, Agarwal T. Review of current state of research on energy storage,
toxicity, health hazards and commercialization of phase changing materials.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:581–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2016.09.070.
[150] Benli H, Durmuş A. Performance analysis of a latent heat storage system with
phase change material for new designed solar collectors in greenhouse heating.
Sol Energy 2009;83(12):2109–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2009.07.005.
[151] Baddadi S, Bouadila S, Ghorbel W, Guizani AmenAllah. Autonomous greenhouse
microclimate through hydroponic design and refurbished thermal energy by
phase change material. J Cleaner Prod 2019;211:360–79. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.192.
[152] Benli H. Energetic performance analysis of a ground-source heat pump system
with latent heat storage for a greenhouse heating. Energy Convers Manage 2011;
52(1):581–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.07.033.
[153] Huang BK, Toksoy M, Cengel YA. Transient response of latent heat storage in
greenhouse solar system. Sol Energy 1986;37(4):279–92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0038-092X(86)90045-9.
[154] Najjar A, Hasan A. Modeling of greenhouse with PCM energy storage. Energy
Convers Manage 2008;49(11):3338–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2008.04.015.
[155] Öztürk HH. Experimental evaluation of energy and exergy efficiency of a seasonal
latent heat storage system for greenhouse heating. Energy Convers Manage 2005;
46(9-10):1523–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.07.001.
[156] Caprara C, Stoppiello G. Potential Use of Phase Change Materials in Greenhouses
Heating: Comparison With a Traditional System. J Agric Eng 2009;40:25. https://
doi.org/10.4081/jae.2009.3.25.
[157] Jiang Z, Tie S. Preparation and thermal properties of Glauber’s salt-based phase-
change materials for Qinghai–Tibet Plateau solar greenhouses. Int. J. Mod. Phys.
B 2017;31(16-19):1744085. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979217440854.