TY - JOUR
T1 - Economic viability of phase-changing materials in residential buildings – A case study in Alice Springs, Australia
AU - Acuña-Díaz, Oscar
AU - Al-Halawani, Nour
AU - Alonso-Barneto, Marta
AU - Ashirbekov, Assetbek
AU - Ruiz-Flores, Carlos
AU - Rojas-Solórzano, Luis
N1 - Funding Information:
As for decreasing the cost of PCM technology, existing low-cost PCM could make the project financially attractive. In the future, advancements in technology can lower costs even further. The ongoing Project of Gluesenkamp [19] , funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, aims to develop PCM technology to reduce manufacturing costs to nearly half of existing technologies before the end of 2021; thus, making PCM, which is already a viable insulation technology, even more attractive.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2022/1/1
Y1 - 2022/1/1
N2 - The use of phase-changing materials (PCM) in residential envelopes is an emerging technology that promises significant cooling and heating energy savings. Such energy savings are expected due to PCM's inherent energy storage capability, realized as physical transformation processes, during hot–cold weather transitions. However, this technology has limited market penetration due to a lack of demonstrated economic advantages for constructing and retrofitting buildings. This paper addresses the techno-economic viability of implementing PCM in an average residential dwelling in Alice Springs, Australia. The life-cycle cost analysis is performed by modeling the transient characteristics of the PCM envelope component through a proxy heat-pump with tuned Coefficient of Performance (COP) and seasonal efficiency to match the experimental annual heating–cooling characteristics. Three instances were considered, namely: (a) basic PCM implementation; (b) PCM implementation with capital expenditure (CAPEX) subsidies from a government program (Grant); and (c) use of a novel and less expensive (low-cost) encapsulated PCM technology to address the hurdle of the typically significant CAPEX associated with conventional PCM in the Australian market. Results demonstrated that PCM is a promising technology with potential energy savings in hot-arid climates. However, it requires subsidies of nearly 50% of the CAPEX or the implementation of the novel low-cost technology to become financially attractive. The present case study shows both alternatives' profitability, with the former resulting in a 1.2 benefit-cost (BC) ratio and equity payback (EP) of 9.3 years. The latter shows a BC ratio of 1.7 and an EP period of 8.3 years.
AB - The use of phase-changing materials (PCM) in residential envelopes is an emerging technology that promises significant cooling and heating energy savings. Such energy savings are expected due to PCM's inherent energy storage capability, realized as physical transformation processes, during hot–cold weather transitions. However, this technology has limited market penetration due to a lack of demonstrated economic advantages for constructing and retrofitting buildings. This paper addresses the techno-economic viability of implementing PCM in an average residential dwelling in Alice Springs, Australia. The life-cycle cost analysis is performed by modeling the transient characteristics of the PCM envelope component through a proxy heat-pump with tuned Coefficient of Performance (COP) and seasonal efficiency to match the experimental annual heating–cooling characteristics. Three instances were considered, namely: (a) basic PCM implementation; (b) PCM implementation with capital expenditure (CAPEX) subsidies from a government program (Grant); and (c) use of a novel and less expensive (low-cost) encapsulated PCM technology to address the hurdle of the typically significant CAPEX associated with conventional PCM in the Australian market. Results demonstrated that PCM is a promising technology with potential energy savings in hot-arid climates. However, it requires subsidies of nearly 50% of the CAPEX or the implementation of the novel low-cost technology to become financially attractive. The present case study shows both alternatives' profitability, with the former resulting in a 1.2 benefit-cost (BC) ratio and equity payback (EP) of 9.3 years. The latter shows a BC ratio of 1.7 and an EP period of 8.3 years.
KW - Building envelope
KW - Energy efficiency
KW - Life cycle cost
KW - PCM
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118495368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85118495368&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111612
DO - 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111612
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85118495368
VL - 254
JO - Energy and Buildings
JF - Energy and Buildings
SN - 0378-7788
M1 - 111612
ER -