دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 145804
ترجمه فارسی عنوان مقاله

تأثیرات انرژی و محیط زیست استفاده از پمپ های حرارتی زمین گرمایی در ساختمان ها: مثال از شمال چین

عنوان انگلیسی
Energy and environmental implications of using geothermal heat pumps in buildings: An example from north China
کد مقاله سال انتشار تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی
145804 2017 9 صفحه PDF
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 167, 20 November 2017, Pages 484-492

ترجمه کلمات کلیدی
پمپ گرمایش ژئوترمال، ارزیابی چرخه حیات، ساختمان، مصرف انرژی، انتشارات محیط زیست،
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی
Geothermal heat pump; Life cycle assessment; Building; Energy consumption; Environmental emissions;
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله  تأثیرات انرژی و محیط زیست استفاده از پمپ های حرارتی زمین گرمایی در ساختمان ها: مثال از شمال چین

چکیده انگلیسی

Integration of renewable energy technologies and buildings is a step toward more energy efficient buildings in China. However, the life-cycle of energy and environmental emissions associated with geothermal resource use in buildings is not well understood. This study quantifies the life-cycle energy consumption and environmental pollutant emissions of geothermal heat pump (GHP) deployment in China using a university building as an example. A process-based hybrid life cycle inventory (LCI) modeling approach was used to enable a comprehensive system boundary for footprint accounting and to provide specific insights for the design and operation of the geothermal technology. The life-cycle energy of the GHP system was 192 TJ, and the life-cycle SO2, NOx, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were estimated at 35 metric tons (MT), 45 MT, and 19130 MT CO2e. The annual operational energy use of the GHP was 6.2 and 4.1 kWh per square meter floor area for building heating and cooling respectively. This was an energy use reduction of 84% and 83% compared to municipal heating and air conditioner cooling. The energy and GHG payback times of the GHP systems were 0.5 and 0.3 years respectively, and the facility is estimated to be economically cost-effective in 7.4 years.