sahc d7 en - european commission · the solar energy collected by solar panels can be used either...

SAHC D7

SAHC Project

Promotion of Solar Assisted Heating and Cooling in the agrofood sector

Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE)

ALTENER- Renewable heating and cooling

EIE/07/224

D7 Result of feasibility studies

Deliverable Author: Giorgio Recine Organization: LABOR Srl E-mail: [email protected]

Dissemination level : PU Publication date: 30/03/2010

Version: v.0

Project website: www.sahc.eu

SAHC D7

Content List Summary .............................................................................................................................5 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................7

1.1 Solar cooling..........................................................................................................7 1.2 Calculation methodology .......................................................................................8

2 Feasibility studies for Italy...........................................................................................10 2.1 Societa’ agricola C.P.L. di Parma (Parmesan) ....................................................10

2.1.1 Energy production plant................................................................................10 2.1.2 Hypothesis on consumption .........................................................................11 2.1.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing............................................................................12 2.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ................................................19 2.1.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................20

2.2 Latteria Sociale Copoperativa Zibello (Parmesan) ..............................................21 2.2.1 Energy production plant................................................................................21 2.2.2 Hypothesis on consumption .........................................................................22 2.2.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing............................................................................23 2.2.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ................................................30 2.2.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................31

2.3 Stabilimento di via cavour Guido Berlucchi & C. SPA (Sparkling Wine) .............32 2.3.1 Energy production plant................................................................................32 2.3.2 Hypothesis on consumption .........................................................................33 2.3.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing............................................................................35 2.3.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ................................................41 2.3.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................43

2.4 Stabilimento di via Duranti Guido Berlucchi & C. SPA (Sparkling wine) .............44 2.4.1 Energy production plant................................................................................44 2.4.2 Hypothesis on consumption .........................................................................45 2.4.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing............................................................................45 2.4.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ................................................51 2.4.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................53

3 Feasibility studies for Spain ........................................................................................54 3.1 Caves of covides in vilafranca (Wine)..................................................................54


3.2 Caves of covides in sant sadurní (Wine) .............................................................62 3.2.1 Energy production plant................................................................................62 3.2.2 Hypothesis on consumption .........................................................................62 3.2.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing............................................................................63 3.2.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ................................................67 3.2.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................69

3.3 Lactoganadera de río mayor (Aged Cheese) ......................................................70 3.3.1 Energy production plant................................................................................70 3.3.2 Hypothesis on consumption .........................................................................70 3.3.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing............................................................................71 3.3.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ................................................75 3.3.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................77

3.4 Cooperativa de l’olivera (Wine and olive oil)........................................................78

SAHC D7


4 Feasibility studies for France ......................................................................................83 4.1 company of wine languedoc roussillon (Wine).....................................................83

4.1.1 Energy production plant................................................................................83 4.1.2 Hypotheses on consumption ........................................................................83 4.1.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing ..........................................................................84 4.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ................................................88 4.1.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................89

4.2 Company of wine at tain-l’hermitage (Wine).......................................................91 4.2.1 Energy production plant................................................................................91 4.2.2 Hypotheses on consumption ........................................................................91 4.2.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing ..........................................................................92 4.2.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ................................................96 4.2.5 Conclusions..................................................................................................97

5 Feasibility studies for Greece .....................................................................................98 5.1 Charma brewery, Chania, Crete (Beer) ...............................................................98

5.1.1 Energy production plant................................................................................98 5.1.2 Hypotheses on consumption ........................................................................99 5.1.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing ........................................................................100 5.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ..............................................107 5.1.5 Conclusions................................................................................................108

5.2 Peiraiki brewery, Peiraus (Beer) ........................................................................109 5.2.1 Energy production plant..............................................................................109 5.2.2 Hypotheses on consumption ......................................................................110 5.2.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing ........................................................................111 5.2.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ..............................................118 5.2.5 Conclusions................................................................................................119

5.3 Brink’s brewery, Rethymnon, Crete (Beer) ........................................................120 5.3.1 Energy production plant..............................................................................120 5.3.2 Hypotheses on consumption ......................................................................121 5.3.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing ........................................................................122 5.3.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ..............................................129 5.3.5 Conclusions................................................................................................130

5.4 Hellenic Brewery of Atalanti, Greece (Beer) ......................................................131 5.4.1 Energy production plant..............................................................................131 5.4.2 Hypotheses on consumption ......................................................................132 5.4.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing ........................................................................133 5.4.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ..............................................140 5.4.5 Conclusions................................................................................................141

6 Feasibility studies for Portugal..................................................................................142 6.1 Niepoort Vinhos SA (Wine)................................................................................142

6.1.1 Energy production plant..............................................................................142 6.1.2 Hypotheses on consumption ......................................................................143 6.1.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing ........................................................................145 6.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters ..............................................148 6.1.5 Conclusions................................................................................................149

7 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................150

SAHC D7

Disclaimer The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect

the opinion of the European Communities. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that maybe made of the information contained therein.

SAHC D7

Summary

The main aim of SAHC project is to remove barriers to the adoption of solar assisted heating and cooling plants in the agrofood sector, providing the managers of agro-food companies, energy managers, plant designers and energy service companies with a decision support software and guidelines enabling a preliminary assessment of the technical and economical feasibility of the application of such kind of plants in production processes.

In the framework of the SAHC project, 37 energy audits were carried out in agrofood companies selected in Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal and France in dairy, wine, soft drinks and breweries sector. Out of the 37 companies, 15 were selected presenting the most suitable profiles and conditions for the adoption of solar plants, for the realisation of a feasibility study.

The studies were carried out applying the simulation software and methodology developed in the SAHC project, to test its applicability in real conditions.

This document reports the results of these feasibility studies carried out in the following companies:

• 4 Italian companies : 2 from the dairy sector and 2 from the wine sector. • 4 Spanish companies: 3 wine companies and 1 from the dairy sector. • 2 French companies from the wine sector • 4 Greek companies : all of them breweries. • 1 Portuguese winery

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

wineries dairy soft drinks breweries

Portugal

Greece

Spain

Italy

France

FIGURE 1. FEASIBILITY STUDIES DISTRIBUTED BY SECTOR AND COUNTRY

SAHC D7

Companies are grouped by country instead of agro industry sector, because subsidies and incentives are different among the analyzed countries. It has been found that subsidies are in most cases critical for the feasibility of the implementation of a SAHC system.

It should be noticed that the systems under study are considered as the first case scenario and should be used for guidance only, they could change substantially within the executive project, once the process specifications are known in more detail.

In most of the cases, two different SACH systems where analyzed, one with small solar collector coverage (in most cases for heating only purposes) and one with bigger area (for integrated heating and cooling). Sometime the load request was not enough to required a solar system with high coverage or a cooling absorption machine.

The studies are performed using the expert system and evaluating the technical and economical implementation of 2 scenarios of implementation of SAHC plants in the target productions. In most of the cases the 1st scenario is heating-only and the 2nd includes the integration of cooling. The sensibility of the results with respect to the foreseen energy inflation and with respect to the level of incentives was evaluated. Economic results with the current subsidies scenario are summarized in the conclusions.

Besides, Solar Cooling is an emerging technology which will find its profitability with the evolution of the technology itself through efficiency gains and cost reductions in the short term.

SAHC D7

1 Introduction

1.1 SOLAR COOLING

The solar energy collected by solar panels can be used either directly as process heat and/for for heating of warehouses, or indirectly, to power an absorption refrigerator to produce cooling energy, creating a system of "Solar Cooling”.

As an alternative to an absorption refrigeration considered in this study, for the production of solar cold it can be also used the adsorption machines and/or systems such as "dessicant cooling”, however, characterized by worse performance and less market accessibility.

The absorption chiller is a heat pump, that is a machine that, like normal (gas compression) reverse cycle fridges allows the transfer of heat from a source at low temperature to one of a higher temperature. But contrary to traditional compression of gas in order to function it does not require (if minimally) mechanical energy, ie electricity, but is fed by thermal energy at medium-high temperature. For this reason its is particularly useful in systems where there is available waste heat (cogeneration systems) or solar thermal systems.

Its operation is based on the ability of certain salt solutions to absorb a refrigerant fluid, allowing the compression of the liquid phase instead of the gas phase. For correct operation is essential, however, accompany the installation of a cooling tower to properly dispose of the large amount of low temperature heat that is produced (if it can not be successfully reused in the production process).

On the market there are two types of absorption machines, single effect and double effect. The first one, for an effective and efficient operation, requires temperatures between 80 and 90 °C, while the latter characterized by higher refrigeration efficiency, requires temperatures between 160 and 170 ° C. However, double-effect machines are availa ble only in sizes medium to high (> 100 kW).

In the case of a system of solar collectors, even at medium-high temperature, it is proposed a single effect absorption machine, because with increasing operating temperature collectors significantly reduce their efficiency.

FIGURE 2. COLLECTORS FIELD OF CILINDER-PARABOLIC COLLETTORS AND COMPACT PARABOLIC

COLLECTOR (CPC)

SAHC D7

Given the variability of solar energy and low affordability in over sizing the plant, it is becoming essential to provide backup and support systems both for production of heat (boilers) and for the production of cold (traditional chillers).

The following diagram shows the reference system proposed under the project SAHC.

FIGURE 3. OUTLINE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM WITH HEAT ABSORTION MACHINE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF

HEAT AND COOL

It should be noted that the solution proposed below is only a first approximation, as to provide further definition is necessary to further investigate the actual characteristics of the different plant parameters and of the manufacturing process.

1.2 CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

In order to optimize the sizing of the solar system from an energy and economic standpoint different dynamic simulations were carried out, on an annual basis, taking into account the actual availability of the solar source and the variability of the environmental conditions, and consequently the different requests of warehouse conditioning. The daily estimated demand for the various stages of the process was rather seen more as it is described below.

For carrying out these simulations a free software application has been used: Decision Support Tool – SAHC. It uses the dynamic simulator TRNSYS (Transient System Simulation). This simulation tool allows to predict the performance of all system parameters for a given period, in this case over an entire year, almost continuously, updating the energy balance of the individual components of the system at successive hour intervals.

The meteorological data used for the calculation of this study were obtained from the database Meteonorm.

Unità di backup

Torre evaporativa Macchina ad assorbimento

SAHC D7

The calculation model considers important aspects of the real system:

• effects of stratification in tanks and their heat loss

• temperature jump caused by the presence of heat exchangers, under practical operating conditions

• energy demand curve based on assumptions of the process, considering the periods of

interruption of the process For the final design it is mandatory to perform more accurate measurements of actual energy flow of the process in order to identify the best strategies for the management of the primary circuit and storage systems.

SAHC D7

2 Feasibility studies for Italy

2.1 SOCIETA ’ AGRICOLA C.P.L. DI PARMA (PARMESAN )

2.1.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 447 tons/year of Parmigiano Reggiano (corresponding to about 13 000 forms). The stock for seasoning has a maximum capacity of 16 000 forms. Adjacent to the plant there is high availability of land for the installation of solar panels.

FIGURE 4. AERIAL VIEW OF THE AGRO INDUSTRY

In 2007 the annual production of Parmigiano Reggiano amounted to 370 tons with a fairly constant trend during the year as shown by the following figure.

FIGURE 5. MONTHLY PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE 2007 The processes that were considered susceptible to potential integration with the solar system are:

-

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

kgch

eese

/mon

th

SAHC D7

Heating: o Warming of the water entering to the boiler (steam generator) from 15 to approximately

80/90 °C o Production of hot water (about 60 °C) for morning cleaning operations of work equipment

and vehicles. Cooling:

o Warehouse summer air conditioning and conditioning of the premises for salting and pre-salting

During the audit it was verified that the winter heating of the warehouse, in this case, it was extremely small and therefore not taken into consideration for a possible integration with the solar system. Currently, to satisfy the heating and cooling loads a boiler (steam generator) is been used powered by diesel, of a power rating of 1550 kW, and several cooling units for a nominal power greater than 50 kW cooling energy. In the present study two types of solar systems solutions are analyzed, the first one for the exclusive production of heat and the second one involves also the production of cool. Using SAHC tool various simulations were conducted in both cases, the best systems were respectively as follows:

1. Solar system for heating alone: 300 m2 solar energy absorber with heat storage of 15 m3 I

2. Solar system for heating and cooling: 900 m2 of solar energy absorber with 45 m3 of thermal storage and absorption machine of nominal power of 40 kW cooling capacity.

2.1.2 Hypothesis on consumption Consumption is assumed to refer only to those processes suitable for integration with the solar system, and correspond to those estimated from the data gathered during the audit. Therefore it relates to a production of about 370 tons of Parmigiano Reggiano. All data are expressed in terms of flow of hot water, which undergoes the process of temperature jump. For the production of cold, water flow is equivalent to the power required by an absorption refrigeration, with ∆T = 5 ° C. The load profiles are represented in the forms assumed hourly by day and day-type by month.

2.1.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Corresponds to the possible preheating of the boiler feed water (steam generator) from 15 to about 80/90 ° C. This consumption actually varies i n function of production, which is practically constant, with variability not always predictable. Therefore, this consumption was considered constant throughout the year.

SAHC D7

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 5 10 15 20

kg_H2O/h

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Jan Feb Mar Apr Mag Jun Jul Ag Set Oct Nov Dic

kg_H2O/d

FIGURE 6. LOAD PROFILE AT 90 ºC

2.1.2.2 Load profile at 60 °C Production of hot water (about 60/65 °C) for mornin g cleaning operations of work equipment and vehicles

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 5 10 15 20

kg_H2O/h

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000


kg_H2O/d


2.1.2.3 Load profile at 7 °C Warehouse summer air conditioning and conditioning of the premises for salting and pre-salting. Conservatively based on appropriate considerations applicable to the referred industry it has been set to a quantity of cooling energy slightly lower than the one estimated based on the audit.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

10 12 14 16 18 20

kg_H2O/h

Apr

Mag

Jun

Jul

Ag

Set

Oct

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000


kg_H2O/d

FIGURE 8. LOAD PROFILE AT 7ºC

2.1.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing As mentioned above, two types of solar systems that can achieve different percentages of solar fraction (SF-Solar Fraction) were considered:

• A low-coverage solar system, producing only heat (with a hot SF of about 50%) • A high coverage solar system, with production of both heating and cooling energy capacity

(with SF for heat and cold of 75% and 55% respectively)

SAHC D7

2.1.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile Following are presented, with respect to processes identified, the calculated values obtained by the simulation software for the annual application of heating and cooling and their demands covered by solar source. In the case of the system at low solar coverage the presence of an absorption refrigerator is not sufficiently motivated by an economic point of view. The system is therefore able to produce only heat. The assumptions for the system are:

• Collectors type: Parabolic • Collectors area: 300 m2 • Storage tank : 15 m3

while the energy provided by the simulation results are as follows:

Reference system SAHC system

Annual energy demand Total (kWh) Actual costs Produced solar energy Total (kWh) % Use of solar system

Heating Energy 263.904 € 25.558 Heating energy 127.688 100%

Cooling energy 114.245 € 7.711 Cooling energy 0 0%

Cost of investment of SAHC system On the economic front, the investment cost of this facility is as follows: Plant costs

Collectors

Number of collectors 25 Area per collector (m2) 12,00 Total collectors area (m2) 300,00 Cost € 88.106

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 15

Cost € 21.073

General costs and indirect costs € 19.652 Design and control € 15.460

Total plant cost € 144.291

SAHC D7

Financial parameters Economics Fuel cost 0,75 €/Unit Electricity cost 0,135 €/kWh Annual energy cost increment 4 % Inflation rate 2 % Interest rate 3 % Subsidies % Investment costs 42 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh The incentive to the investment costs, taken as 42%, refers to the tax deduction of 55% of the cost of the plant, recognized today (2010) up to the maximum deductible amount of € 60,000. Comparing then, the maximum amount deductible to the total investment cost gives the actual percentage of the incentive in this case. SAHC system profitability Based on above data, calculated and/or entered, the system provides the profitability of the plant, assumed a life of 25 years. In this case investment is particularly beneficial, both in terms of energy and of economy, with average production costs of thermal energy extremely low, a high net present value, high Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and a short return period of investment (payback period). Heating energy Net energy produced 127.688 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 48% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,04 €/kWh_fuel Average production cost (SAHC) 0,05 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,15 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 0,00 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 0% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,11 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 144.291 € Net present value 221.020 € Actualized avoided costs 337.866 € Payback period 8 years IRR 16%

SAHC D7

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

€/k

Wh

-

Heating energy Cooling energy


FIGURE 9. HEATING AND COOLING AVERAGE PRODUCTION COSTS.

05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Avoided costs per year [€/year] Average product ion cost (SAHC) [€/year]

FIGURE 10. CASH-FLOW. In the absence of the state contribution suggested, while remaining the cost effectiveness of the investment, the IRR would be reduced to 10% while the Payback Period would rise to 13 years.

Environmental benefits From an environmental perspective, in terms of consumption and related emissions avoided, the benefits of the continuous operation of the plant for 25 years are as follows: Environmental benefits Tonne of oil equivalent (TOE) in 25 years 343 TOE Specific cost of TOE 517,19 €/TOE Avoided CO2 emissions per year 25.538 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of avoided CO2 emissions 0,28 €/kg _CO2

2.1.3.2 High coverage solar system

Energy load profile In the case of the solar system at high coverage, the presence of an absorption refrigeration machine becomes convenient, resulting mainly in increasing energy and environmental benefits.

SAHC D7

The assumptions for the system are:


• Absorption refrigeration machine : 40 kW

while the energy provided by the simulation results are as follows: Reference system SAHC system Annual energy demand Total (kWh) Actual costs Produced solar

energy Total (kWh) % Use of solar system

Heating Energy

263.904

€ 25.558 Heating Energy

197.945

64%

Cooling energy

114.245

€ 7.711

Cooling energy

65.516

36%


Collectors


Heat Absorption

Size (kW) 40

Cost € 40.000

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 45

Cost € 46.993



SAHC D7

Financial parameters Economics Fuel cost 0,75 €/Unit Electricity cost 0,135 €/kWh Annual energy cost increment 4 % Inflation rate 2 % Interest rate 3 % Subsidies % Investment costs 15 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh

For the same reasons mentioned above (maximum contribution limit set at € 60,000) the considered amount of the incentive drops to 15%, being the investment more than doubled. SAHC system profitability Also in this case the investment is particularly beneficial, both in terms of energy and economy. Heating energy Net energy produced 197.945 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 75% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,05 €/kWh_fuel Average production cost (SAHC) 0,06 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,15 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 65.516 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 55% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,29 €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) 0,15 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,11 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 377.497 € Net present value 263.398 € Actualized avoided costs 644.594 € Payback period 15 years IRR 8%

SAHC D7

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

€/k

Wh

-



FIGURE 11. HEATING AND COOLING AVERAGE PRODUCTION COSTS..

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


FIGURE 12. CASH-FLOW. In the absence of the state contribution suggested, while remaining cost effectiveness of the investment, the IRR would be reduced to 7% while the Payback Period would rise to 18 years. The presence of absorption refrigeration machine (of small size and thus characterized by high costs), in this scenario of economic contributions, create a greater economic cost compared to the previous case, but a better use of solar energy. If in fact the system with capturing surface equal to (900 m2) with no absorption machine SF of heating provided by the simulator is limited to 80% (compared to 48% with only 300 m2). The result is that wanting to increase production from solar energy in the case of low coverage, tripling the surface would result in an increase in production that does not exceed 70%. Therefore, in view of contributions to the production of heat by solar energy even at 5 c€/kWh for this high coverage system the inclusion of the absorption chiller would be more advantageous from the economic point of view.


SAHC D7

2.1.4 Sensitivity analysis of economic parameters

2.1.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth of energy cost As mentioned, both system solutions are economically viable even without the initial state contribution. In this case of no contributions, it was defined the sensitivity of the economic parameters to the increase in annual energy costs, average over the next 25 years. As a baseline we chose a conservative value of 4% per annum. It can be seen how, in a worst case, with growth of energy prices up to 6%, the solar system at high coverage is more sensitive to this parameter resulting in a larger increase of cost. Low coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4% Total plant cost 144.291 € Net present value 160.418 € Actualized avoided costs 337.866 € Payback period 13 Years IRR 10%

Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 6% Total plant cost 144.291 € Net present value 255.293 € Actualized avoided costs 432.742 € Payback period 12 years IRR 12%

High coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4% Total plant cost 377.497 € Net present value 202.998 € Actualized avoided costs 644.594 € Payback period 18 years IRR 7%


2.1.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies Finally, there it was analyzed the convenience of investing in two different scenarios of government contribution. We compare the economic performance in the case already analyzed, which refers to the current Italian situation, which allows the deduction of taxes amounting to 55% of initial installation (with a maximum of € 60,000 deductible ) with those obtained in the hypothetical case of an incentive on the production of heat from solar thermal panels. To calculate the quantity of heat under subsidies we are referring directly to the amount of heat needed by the thermal processes without plant losses and the amount sent to the absorption refrigeration machine (suitably recalculated based on the cooling energy produced).

SAHC D7

As already anticipated this subsidies are particularly advantageous for resolving high coverage with production of cooling energy. Low coverage Case with subsidies on initial investment (55% max € 60,000) Total plant cost 144.291 € Net present value 221.020 € Actualized avoided costs 337.866 € Payback period 8 years IRR 16%

Case with incentive heat production from solar source (10 c€ / kWh) Total plant cost 144.291 € Net present value 382.763 € Actualized avoided costs 560.211 € Payback period 7 years IRR 18%

High coverage Case with subsidies on initial investment (55% max € 60,000) Total plant cost 377.497 € Net present value 263.398 € Actualized avoided costs 644.594 € Payback period 15 years IRR 8%

Case with incentive heat production from solar source (10 c€ / kWh) Total plant cost 377.497 € Net present value 710.660 € Actualized avoided costs 1.152.256 € Payback period 9 years IRR 14%

2.1.5 Conclusions The results obtained in the present feasibility study have revealed a higher profitability of the SAHC solar thermal systems than the conventional systems. The two identified systems under study are considered as the first case scenario and should be used for guidance only, they could change substantially within the executive project, once the process specifications are known in more detail. Especially for the high coverage solar system a correction made to increase the cooling energy demand (such as deliberately underestimated as a precaution) could bring significant energy and especially economic benefits to the plant, thanks to strong economies of scale on the absorption machine. The Internal Rate of Return on investment, calculated in different cases, are always profitable and are included among 8% and 18%.

SAHC D7

2.2 L ATTERIA SOCIALE COPOPERATIVA Z IBELLO (PARMESAN )

2.2.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 450 tons/year of Parmigiano Reggiano (corresponding to about 13 000 forms). The stock for seasoning has a maximum capacity of 2.000 forms and is only used as temporary storage after processing pending the transfer of the same forms in deposits of other companies. Adjacent to the plant there is high availability of land for the installation of solar panels.


In 2007 the annual production of Parmigiano Reggiano amounted to 435 tons with a fairly constant trend during the year. The processes that were considered susceptible to potential integration with the solar system are: Heating:

o Warming of the water entering to the boiler (steam generator) from 15 to approximately

80/90 °C o Production of hot water (about 60 °C) for morning cleaning operations of work equipment

and vehicles. o Winter conditioning of the warehouse.

Cooling:

o Warehouse summer air conditioning and conditioning of the premises for salting, pre-salting and creaming

Currently, to satisfy the heating and cooling loads a boiler (steam generator) is been used powered by diesel, of a power rating of 1396 kW, and several cooling units for a nominal power greater than 50 kW cooling energy. In the present study two types of solar systems solutions are analyzed, the first one for the exclusive production of heat and the second one involves also the production of cool.

SAHC D7

Using SAHC tool various simulations were conducted in both cases, the best systems were respectively as follows:

1. Solar system for heating alone: 200 m2 solar energy absorber with heat storage of 10 m3


2.2.2 Hypothesis on consumption Consumption is assumed to refer only to those processes suitable for integration with the solar system, and correspond to those estimated from the data gathered during the audit. Therefore it relates to a production of about 435 tons of Parmigiano Reggiano. All data are expressed in terms of flow of hot water, which undergoes the process of temperature jump. For the production of cold, water flow is equivalent to the power required by an absorption refrigeration, with ∆T = 5 ° C. The load profiles are represented in the forms assumed hourly by day and day-type by month.

2.2.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Corresponds to the possible preheating of the boiler feed water (steam generator) from 15 to about 80/90 ° C. This consumption actually varies i n function of production, which is practically constant, with variability not always predictable. Therefore, this consumption was considered constant throughout the year.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 5 10 15 20

kg_H2O/h

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000


kg_H2O/d


2.2.2.2 Load profile at 60 °C Production of hot water (about 60/65 °C) for mornin g cleaning operations of work equipment and vehicles

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 5 10 15 20

kg_H2O/h

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000


kg_H2O/d


SAHC D7

2.2.2.3 Load profile at 30 °C Production of hot water (about 30/35 °C) for wareho use winter conditioning.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

kg_H2O/h

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Oct

Nov

Dic

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000


kg_H2O/d


2.2.2.4 Load profile at 7 °C Warehouse summer air conditioning and conditioning of the premises for salting, pre-salting and creaming. Conservatively based on appropriate considerations applicable to the referred industry it has been set to a quantity of cooling energy slightly lower than the one estimated based on the audit.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

10 12 14 16 18 20

kg_H2O/h

Apr

Mag

Jun

Jul

Ag

Set

Oct

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000


kg_H2O/d





SAHC D7






Heating Energy

202.754

€ 20.192 Heating energy 88.920 100%

Cooling energy

39.172

€ 2.546 Cooling energy 0 0%


Collectors


Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 10

Cost € 15.903



SAHC D7

Financial parameters Economics Fuel cost 0,70 €/Unit Electricity cost 0,135 €/kWh Annual energy cost increment 4 % Inflation rate 2 % Interest rate 3 % Subsidies % Investment costs 55 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh The incentive to the investment costs refers to the tax deduction of 55% of the cost of the plant, recognized today (2010) up to the maximum deductible amount of € 60,000, that in this case is not reached. SAHC system profitability Based on above data, calculated and/or entered, the system provides the profitability of the plant, assumed a life of 25 years. In this case investment is particularly beneficial, both in terms of energy and of economy, with average production costs of thermal energy extremely low, a high net present value, high Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and a short return period of investment (payback period). Heating energy Net energy produced 88.920 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 44% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,04 €/kWh_fuel Average production cost (SAHC) 0,05 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,16 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 0,00 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 0% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,10 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 108.548 € Net present value 166.786 € Actualized avoided costs 241.940 € Payback period 7 years IRR 19%

SAHC D7

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

€/k

Wh

-




05.000

10.00015.00020.00025.00030.00035.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


FIGURE 19. CASH-FLOW. In the absence of the state contribution suggested, while remaining the cost effectiveness of the investment, the IRR would be reduced to 9% while the Payback Period would rise to 14 years.

Environmental benefits From an environmental perspective, in terms of consumption and related emissions avoided, the benefits of the continuous operation of the plant for 25 years are as follows: Environmental benefits Tonne of oil equivalent (TOE) in 25 years 239 TOE Specific cost of TOE 564,42 €/TOE Avoided CO2 emissions per year 17,784 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of avoided CO2 emissions 0,30 €/kg _CO2


Energy load profile In the case of the solar system at high coverage, the presence of an absorption refrigeration machine becomes convenient, resulting mainly in increasing energy and environmental benefits. The assumptions for the system are:

SAHC D7


• A bsorption refrigeration machine : 20 kW



Heating Energy

202.754


131.112

71%

Cooling energy

39.172

€ 2.546 Cooling energy

31.152

29%


Collectors


Heat Absorption

Size (kW) 20

Cost € 29.532

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 25

Cost € 30.776



SAHC D7


The incentive considered in the investment cost of 24% refers to the tax deduction of 55% of the cost of the plant, which as mentioned above is recognized today (2010) until the maximum amount of deductible € 60,000. Comparing then the maximum amount deductible to the total investment cost gives the actual percentage of the incentive in this case. SAHC system profitability Also in this case the investment is particularly beneficial, both in terms of energy and economy. Heating energy Net energy produced 131.112 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 65% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,05 €/kWh_fuel Average production cost (SAHC) 0,06 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,16 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 31.152 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 76% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,33 €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) 0,16 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,10 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 250.639 € Net present value 176.313 € Actualized avoided costs 412.064 € Payback period 14 years IRR 9%

SAHC D7

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

€/k

Wh

-




0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


FIGURE 21. CASH-FLOW. In the absence of the state contribution suggested, while remaining cost effectiveness of the investment, the IRR would be reduced to 6% while the Payback Period would rise to 18 years. The presence of absorption refrigeration machine (of small size and thus characterized by high costs), in this scenario of economic contributions, create a greater economic cost compared to the previous case, but a better use of solar energy. If in fact the system with capturing surface equal to (500 m2) with no absorption machine SF of heating provided by the simulator is limited to 69% (compared to 44% with only 200 m2). The result is that wanting to increase production from solar energy in the case of low coverage, more than doubling the surface would result in an increase in production that does not exceed 60%. Therefore, only in view of contributions to the production of heat by solar energy at least of 10 c€/kWh for this high coverage system the inclusion of the absorption chiller would be more advantageous from the economic point of view.


SAHC D7




High coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4% Total plant cost 250.639 € Net present value 116.160 € Actualized avoided costs 412.064 € Payback period 18 years IRR 6%


2.2.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies Finally, there it was analyzed the convenience of investing in two different scenarios of government contribution. We compare the economic performance in the case already analyzed, which refers to the current Italian situation, which allows the deduction of taxes amounting to 55% of initial installation (with a maximum of € 60,000 deductible ) with those obtained in the hypothetical case of an incentive on the production of heat from solar thermal panels. To calculate the quantity of heat under subsidies we are referring directly to the amount of heat needed by the thermal processes without plant losses and the amount sent to the absorption refrigeration machine (suitably recalculated based on the cooling energy produced).

SAHC D7

As already anticipated this subsidies are particularly advantageous for resolving high coverage with production of cooling energy. Low coverage Case with subsidies on initial investment (55% max € 60,000) Total plant cost 108.548 € Net present value 166.786 € Actualized avoided costs 241.940 € Payback period 7 years IRR 19%




2.2.5 Conclusions The results obtained in the present feasibility study have revealed a higher profitability of the SAHC solar thermal systems than the conventional systems. The two identified systems under study are considered as the first case scenario and should be used for guidance only, they could change substantially within the executive project, once the process specifications are known in more detail. Especially for the high coverage solar system a correction made to increase the cooling energy demand (such as deliberately underestimated as a precaution) could bring significant energy and especially economic benefits to the plant, thanks to strong economies of scale on the absorption machine. From an economic point of view, with the hypotheses made, the solution to low coverage may be more advantageous, however it was demonstrated the existence of scenarios that make the high coverage the preferred solution. The Internal Rate of Return on investment, calculated in different cases, are always profitable and are included among 6% and 19%.

SAHC D7

2.3 STABILIMENTO DI VIA CAVOUR GUIDO B ERLUCCHI & C. SPA (SPARKLING W INE)

2.3.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 52.000 hl/year of sparkling wine classic method (corresponding to about 7.000.000 bottles). In the section of Via Cavour, subject of this feasibility study, all the work of harvesting and post-harvest are developed. Also in the many warehouses, the aging of wine for periods (of the order of years) is performed. It varies as a function of the characteristics of different vintages and the requirements of the subsequent mixing. Adjacent to the plant there is low availability of land for the installation of solar panels but all the covers, both flat (for a total of about 6,700 m2) and pitch (about 5,300 m2) are suitable to 'eventual installation of the panels.


In 2007 the annual production amounted to 45,000 hl (corresponding to approximately 6,000,000 bottles). The productive processes that were considered susceptible to potential integration with the solar system are: Heating:

o Production of hot water (about 60 ° -80 ° C) for v arious harvesting operations (only for August and September)

o Production of hot water (about 60 ° C) for various operations and for winter heating of workplaces

o heating with water at 30 ° C in the month of Janua ry, for warehouse condition and for the activation of second fermentation in the bottle

Cooling:

SAHC D7

o Warehouse summer air conditioning Currently, to satisfy the heating and cooling loads a boiler (steam generator) is been used, it is powered by diesel, of a power rating of 87,2 kW. Besides this, in the harvest period another boiler of 116,3 kW is rented and also during January for the activation of the second fermentation a reversible heat pump of 116,3 kW is lend For the cooling load there are several cooling units at the warehouses for a nominal power greater than 250 kW cooling energy. Other important groups are present in the plant to satisfy the requests of cryogenic temperatures, thus not compatible for integration with SAHC systems, which are not able to produce cooling at temperatures below 4 ° C. In the present study two types of solar systems solutions are analyzed, the first one for the exclusive production of heat and the second one involves also the production of cool. Using SAHC tool various simulations were conducted in both cases, the best systems were respectively as follows:

1. Solar system for heating alone: 250 m2 solar energy absorber with heat storage of 12.5 m3


In both cases it was contemplated the installation of the panels on the flat roofs of the warehouses.

2.3.2 Hypothesis on consumption Consumption is assumed to refer only to those processes suitable for integration with the solar system, and correspond to those estimated from the data gathered during the audit. In this work the comsuption is taken as registered in 2007. Due to lack of sufficient information to determine the load profiles simplifying assumptions have been used. All data are expressed in terms of flow of hot water, which undergoes the process of temperature jump. For the production of cold, water flow is equivalent to the power required by an absorption refrigeration, with ∆T = 5 ° C. The load profiles are represented in the forms assumed hourly by day and day-type by month.

2.3.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Corresponds to the production of hot water at about 80-90 °C required in the different harvesting processes. We consider a temperature jump of about 20 ° C (returning stream to 60/70 ° C).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20

kg_H2O/h

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


kg_H2O/d


SAHC D7

2.3.2.2 Load profile at 60 °C Production of hot water (about 60/65 °C with �t = 5 °C) for various operations and winter heating of the workplaces, it is estimated based on the fuel consumption.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

0 5 10 15 20

kg_H2O/h

Jan - Feb - Mar -Apr

Mag - Dic

Oct - Nov

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000


kg_H2O/d


2.3.2.3 Load profile at 30 °C Production of hot water (about 30/35 °C) for wareho use winter conditioning and for the activation of second fermentation in the bottle.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

kg_H2O/h

Jan

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000


kg_H2O/d


2.3.2.4 Load profile at 7 °C Wine ageing warehouse summer air conditioning.

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

10 12 14 16 18 20

kg_H2O/h

Apr

Mag

Jun

Jul

Ag

Set

Oct

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000


kg_H2O/d


SAHC D7





• Collectors type: Parabolic • Collectors area: 250 m2 • Storage tank : 12,5 m3




Heating Energy

144.069

€ 16.557 Heating energy 63.852 100%

Cooling energy

474.044

€ 31.998 Cooling energy 0 0%

SAHC D7


Collectors


Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 12,6

Cost € 18.555


Total plant cost € 126.868 Financial parameters Economics Fuel cost 0,89 €/Unit Electricity cost 0,135 €/kWh Annual energy cost increment 4 % Inflation rate 2 % Interest rate 3 % Subsidies % Investment costs 47 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh The incentive to the investment costs, taken as 47%, refers to the tax deduction of 55% of the cost of the plant, recognized today (2010) up to the maximum deductible amount of € 60,000. Comparing then, the maximum amount deductible to the total investment cost gives the actual percentage of the incentive in this case. SAHC system profitability Based on above data, calculated and/or entered, the system provides the profitability of the plant, assumed a life of 25 years. In this case investment is beneficial enough, both in terms of energy and of economy, with average production costs of thermal energy extremely low, a high net present value, good Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and acceptable return period of investment (payback period).

SAHC D7

Heating energy Net energy produced 63.852 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 45% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,07 €/kWh_fuel Average production cost (SAHC) 0,09 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,18 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 0,00 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 0% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,11 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 126.868 € Net present value 103.389 € Actualized avoided costs 200.492 € Payback period 11 years IRR 12%

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

0,20

€/k

Wh

-




0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


FIGURE 28. CASH-FLOW. In the absence of the state contribution suggested, while remaining a low cost effectiveness of the investment, the IRR would be reduced to 5% while the Payback Period would rise to 20 years.

SAHC D7

Environmental benefits From an environmental perspective, in terms of consumption and related emissions avoided, the benefits of the continuous operation of the plant for 25 years are as follows: Environmental benefits Tonne of oil equivalent (TOE) in 25 years 172 TOE Specific cost of TOE 914 €/TOE Avoided CO2 emissions per year 12.770 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of avoided CO2 emissions 0,49 €/kg _CO2


Energy load profile In the case of the solar system at high coverage, the presence of an absorption refrigeration machine becomes convenient, resulting mainly in increasing energy and environmental benefits. The assumptions for the system are:

• Collectors type: Parabolic • Collectors area: 1.000 m2 • Storage tank : 50 m3




Heating Energy

144.069


111.454

32%

Cooling energy

474.044

€ 31.998 Cooling energy

141.420

68%

SAHC D7


Collectors


Heat Absorption

Size (kW) 120

Cost € 64.699

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 49,8

Cost € 50.602


Total plant cost € 435.355 Financial parameters Economics Fuel cost 0,89 €/Unit Electricity cost 0,135 €/kWh Annual energy cost increment 4 % Inflation rate 2 % Interest rate 3 % Subsidies % Investment costs 14 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh

For the same reasons mentioned above (maximum contribution limit set at € 60,000) the amount of the incentive drops to 14%, since the investment was more than the triple than the investment of the previous case. SAHC system profitability In this case the investment is almost not beneficial in economic terms but more beneficial than the previous case in energetic terms.

SAHC D7

Heating energy Net energy produced 111.454 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 79% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,05 €/kWh_fuel Average production cost (SAHC) 0,06 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,18 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 141.420 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 29% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,26 €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) 0,13 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,11 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 435.355 € Net present value 168.247 € Actualized avoided costs 610.769 € Payback period 19 years IRR 6%

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

0,20

€/k

Wh

-




010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Costi annui evitati [€/year]Avoided costs per year [€/year] Average product ion cost (SAHC) [€/year]

FIGURE 30. CASH-FLOW.

SAHC D7

In the absence of the state contribution, particularly low as percentage of investment costs, while remaining cost effectiveness of the investment, the IRR would be reduced of one point to 5% while the Payback Period would rise 2 years up to 21 years. The presence of absorption refrigeration machine (of small size and thus characterized by high costs), in this scenario of economic contributions, create a greater economic cost compared to the previous case, but a better use of solar energy. Therefore, only in view of contributions to the production of heat by solar energy at least of 10 c€/kWh for this high coverage system the inclusion of the absorption chiller would be more advantageous from the economic point of view.



2.3.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth of energy cost As mentioned, both system solutions are economically viable even without the initial state contribution. In this case of no contributions, it was defined the sensitivity of the economic parameters to the increase in annual energy costs, average over the next 25 years. As a baseline we chose a conservative value of 4% per annum. It can be seen how, in a worst case, with growth of energy prices up to 6%, the solar system at high coverage is more sensitive to this parameter resulting in a larger increase of cost. Low coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4% Total plant cost 126.868 € Net present value 43.761 € Actualized avoided costs 200.492 € Payback period 20 Years IRR 5% Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 6% Total plant cost 126.868 € Net present value 100.061 € Actualized avoided costs 256.792 € Payback period 17 years IRR 7%

High coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4% Total plant cost 435.355 € Net present value 107.297 € Actualized avoided costs 610.769 €

SAHC D7

Payback period 21 years IRR 5%


2.3.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies Finally, there it was analyzed the convenience of investing in two different scenarios of government contribution. We compare the economic performance in the case already analyzed, which refers to the current Italian situation, which allows the deduction of taxes amounting to 55% of initial installation (with a maximum of € 60,000 deductible ) with those obtained in the hypothetical case of an incentive on the production of heat from solar thermal panels. To calculate the quantity of heat under subsidies we are referring directly to the amount of heat needed by the thermal processes without plant losses and the amount sent to the absorption refrigeration machine (suitably recalculated based on the cooling energy produced). As already anticipated this subsidies are particularly advantageous for resolving high coverage with production of cooling energy. Low coverage Case with subsidies on initial investment (55% max € 60,000) Total plant cost 126.868 € Net present value 103.389 € Actualized avoided costs 200.492 € Payback period 11 years IRR 12%



Case with incentive heat production from solar source (10 c€ / kWh) Total plant cost 435.355 € Net present value 653.169 € Actualized avoided costs 1.156.641 € Payback period 10 years IRR 13%

SAHC D7

2.3.5 Conclusions The results obtained in the present feasibility study have revealed a higher profitability of the SAHC solar thermal systems than the conventional systems. The two identified systems under study are considered as the first case scenario and should be used for guidance only, they could change substantially within the executive project, once the process specifications are known in more detail. It should be noticed that Solar Cooling is an emerging technology which will find its profitability with the evolution of the technology itself through efficiency gains and cost reductions in the short term. From an economic point of view, with the hypotheses made, the solution to low coverage may be more advantageous, however it was demonstrated the existence of scenarios that make the high coverage the preferred solution. The Internal Rate of Return on investment, calculated in different cases, are always profitable enough and are included among 5% and 13%.

SAHC D7

2.4 STABILIMENTO DI VIA DURANTI GUIDO B ERLUCCHI & C. SPA (SPARKLING WINE )

2.4.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 52.000 hl/year of sparkling wine classic method (corresponding to about 7.000.000 bottles). In the section of Via Duranti, subject of this feasibility study, all the work of disgorging, dosing, filling and packaging is developed. Also in this plant there are offices and underground cellars for storing of the sparkling wine. Adjacent to the plant there is low availability of land for the installation of solar panels but a pitch cover (about 900 m2) south oriented is suitable to 'eventual installation of the panels.


In 2007 the annual production amounted to 45,000 hl (corresponding to approximately 6,000,000 bottles). The productive processes that were considered susceptible to potential integration with the solar system are related to the cold production in particular the summer air conditioning of the packaging place, the storehouse and the cellars. Currently, to satisfy these loads a cooling units are used with a nominal power greater than 100 kW cooling energy. Other important groups are present in the plant to satisfy the requests of cryogenic temperatures, thus not compatible for integration with SAHC systems, which are not able to produce cooling at temperatures below 4 ° C. In the present study two types of solar systems solutions are analyzed, at low and high coverage. Using SAHC tool various simulations were conducted in both cases, the best systems were respectively as follows:

1. Solar system low coverage: 200 m2 solar energy absorbers with heat storage of 10 m3 and absorption machine of nominal power of 50 kW cooling capacity.

2. Solar system high coverage: 900 m2 of solar energy absorbers with 45 m3 of thermal storage and absorption machine of nominal power of 125 kW cooling capacity.

SAHC D7

In both cases it was contemplated the installation of the panels on the roofs of the workplaces (south oriented and 30° slope).

2.4.2 Hypothesis on consumption Consumption is assumed to refer only to those processes suitable for integration with the solar system, and correspond to those estimated from the data gathered during the audit. In this work the comsuption is taken as registered in 2007. Due to the particular construction and operation of the plant and the definition of load curves, which relate only to the summer demand for cooling, this study is referred to the actual consumption recorded and to the information provided by technicians during the study visit to the plant. Have therefore not considered load curves provided by the software Sahco - Decision Support Tool, which are generated based on the geographic coordinates of the location, size and isolation of premises and set the internal temperature. All data are expressed in terms of flow of hot water, which undergoes the process of temperature jump. For the production of cold, water flow is equivalent to the power required by an absorption refrigeration, with ∆T = 5 ° C. The load profiles are represented in the forms assumed hourly by day and day-type by month.

2.4.2.1 Load profile at 7 °C The application relates to the cooling needs of local packaging, together with the storage, and underground cellars. Summer air conditioning of the premises of packaging is mainly in the daytime, while the conditioning of the wineries is only at night. Wineries during the day are in fact open to the public for tours. Chilling during the night therefore serves to offset the supply of heat, leading to higher temperatures, that occur during the visits.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 5 10 15 20

kg_H2O/h

Mar

Apr

Mag

Jun

Jul

Ag

Set

Oct

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000


kg_H2O/d


2.4.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing As mentioned above, two types of solar systems that can achieve different percentages of solar fraction (SF-Solar Fraction) were considered. both systems are designed for the production of cooling energy alone (ie, where the heat produced by the panels is for the exclusive use of absorption refrigeration machine):

• A low-coverage solar system, with SF of 20% • A high-coverage solar system, with SF of 76%

SAHC D7

2.4.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile Following are presented, with respect to processes identified, the calculated values obtained by the simulation software for the annual application of heating and cooling and their demands covered by solar source. The assumptions for the low coverage system are:






Heating Energy 0

€ 0 Heating energy

0 0%

Cooling energy

269.141

€ 18.167 Cooling energy 55.367 100%


Collectors

Number of collectors 17 Area per collector (m2) 12,00 Total collectors area (m2) 204 Cost € 66.231

Heat Absorption

Size (kW) 50

Cost € 44.104

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 10,2

SAHC D7

Plant costs

Cost € 15.903


Total plant cost € 166.835 Financial parameters Economics Fuel cost 0,89 €/Unit Electricity cost 0,135 €/kWh Annual energy cost increment 4 % Inflation rate 2 % Interest rate 3 % Subsidies % Investment costs 36 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh The incentive to the investment costs, taken as 36%, refers to the tax deduction of 55% of the cost of the plant, recognized today (2010) up to the maximum deductible amount of € 60,000. Comparing then, the maximum amount deductible to the total investment cost gives the actual percentage of the incentive in this case. SAHC system profitability Based on above data, calculated and/or entered, the system provides the profitability of the plant, assumed a life of 25 years. In this case investment is not beneficial enough, in economic terms, with average production costs of cooling energy higher than the traditional system, a negative net present value, almost cero Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The return period of investment (payback period) is not defined. Cooling energy Net energy produced 55.367 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 20% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,28 €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) 0,138 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,106 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 166.835 € Net present value - 30.972 € Actualized avoided costs 102.110 € Payback period non defined years IRR 1%

SAHC D7

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

€/k

Wh

-




02.0004.0006.0008.000

10.00012.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Costi annui evitati [€/year]Avoided costs per year [€/year] Average product ion cost (SAHC) [€/year]

FIGURE 34. CASH-FLOW. In the absence of the state contribution suggested, the IRR is negative (-2%).

Environmental benefits From an environmental perspective, in terms of consumption and related emissions avoided, the benefits of the continuous operation of the plant for 25 years are as follows: Environmental benefits Tonne of oil equivalent (TOE) in 25 years 149 TOE Specific cost of TOE 1.298 €/TOE Avoided CO2 emissions per year 16.057 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of avoided CO2 emissions 0,48 €/kg _CO2


Energy load profile In the case of the solar system at high coverage, is possible to have an absorption refrigeration machine of higher nominal power, resulting in increasing energy and environmental benefits, due to the economy of the scale in these kind of machines.

SAHC D7

The assumptions for the system are:





Heating Energy 0

€ 0 Heating Energy

0

0%

Cooling energy

269.141

€ 18.167 Cooling energy 210.636 100%


Collectors


Heat Absorption

Size (kW) 125

Cost € 65.865

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 45

Cost € 46.993



SAHC D7


For the same reasons mentioned above (maximum contribution limit set at € 60,000) the amount of the incentive drops to 15%, since the investment was more than the double of the investment of the previous case. SAHC system profitability Also in this case the investment is not beneficial in economic terms but compared to the previous case, the average cost of producing energy of the SAHC cooling system is very close, and only slightly lower than the reference system. Cooling energy Net energy produced 210.636 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 76% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,23 €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) 0,113 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,106 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 411.680 € Net present value - 25.567 € Actualized avoided costs 388.460 € Payback period non definito years IRR 2%

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

Energia Energia

€/k

Wh

-




SAHC D7

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


FIGURE 36. CASH-FLOW. Moreover also in the absence of the state contribution, particularly low as percentage of investment costs, the economic profitability of the investment would not change much, in fact, the IRR would be reduced by one point, to 1% As seen below, only in view of contributions to the production of heat by solar energy at least of 10 c€/kWh for both systems, in particular for that at high coverage, the SAHC systems would result more convenient than the conventional system of reference.


It can be seen, as compared to the solution to low coverage, the specific costs of the environmental benefits obtained are very small and make from this point of view, much more affordable the solution to high coverage.


2.4.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth of energy cost As mentioned, both system solutions are not economically viable and even more without the initial state contribution. In this case of no contributions, it was defined the sensitivity of the economic parameters to the increase in annual energy costs, average over the next 25 years. As a baseline we chose a conservative value of 4% per annum. It can be seen how, in a worst case, with growth of energy prices up to 6% there is still no economic convenience, even if the solar system at high coverage, more sensitive to this parameter, results in a positive net present value. Low coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4% Total plant cost 166.835 € Net present value - 91.033 € Actualized avoided costs 102.110 € Payback period non defined Years IRR -2%

SAHC D7

Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 6% Total plant cost 166.835 € Net present value - 62.360 € Actualized avoided costs 130.783 € Payback period non defined years IRR 0%

High coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4% Total plant cost 411.680 € Net present value - 87.319 € Actualized avoided costs 388.460 € Payback period non defined years IRR 1%

Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 6% Total plant cost 411.680 € Net present value 21.764 € Actualized avoided costs 497.543 € Payback period non defined years IRR 3%

2.4.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies Finally, there it was analyzed the convenience of investing in two different scenarios of government contribution. We compare the economic performance in the case already analyzed, which refers to the current Italian situation, which allows the deduction of taxes amounting to 55% of initial installation (with a maximum of € 60,000 deductible ) with those obtained in the hypothetical case of an incentive on the production of heat from solar thermal panels. To calculate the quantity of heat under subsidies we are referring directly to the amount of heat needed by the thermal processes without plant losses and the amount sent to the absorption refrigeration machine (suitably recalculated based on the cooling energy produced). As already anticipated the production subsidies are more advantageous for these kind of plants, particularly for high coverage, making convenient to invest in both cases. Low coverage

Case with subsidies on initial investment (55% max € 60,000) Total plant cost 166.835 € Net present value - 30.972 € Actualized avoided costs 102.110 € Payback period non defined years IRR 1% Case with incentive heat production from solar source (10 c€ / kWh) Total plant cost 166.835 € Net present value 46.698 € Actualized avoided costs 239.841 € Payback period 19 years IRR 5%

High coverage Case with subsidies on initial investment (55% max € 60,000)

SAHC D7

Total plant cost 411.680 € Net present value - 25.567 € Actualized avoided costs 388.460 € Payback period non defined years IRR 2%


2.4.5 Conclusions The results obtained in the present feasibility study have revealed that in case of a plant with power generation only for summer cooling in the absence of a subsidies scheme and/or in the presence of the current scheme is not verified the higher profitability of the SAHC solar thermal systems over the conventional systems. The convenience of SAHC systems occurred only in cases where subsidies are provided for the production of solar energy, replacing the initial investment contribution. In any case, the two identified systems under study are considered as the first case scenario and should be used for guidance only, they could change substantially within the executive project, once the process specifications are known in more detail. It should be noticed that Solar Cooling is an emerging technology which will find its profitability with the evolution of the technology itself through efficiency gains and cost reductions in the short term. From an economic point of view, with the hypotheses made, the solution to low coverage even having a higher percentace of investment subsidies is however more expensive. From an environmental point of view the solution to high coverage can achieve interesting results as 31 tons/year of avoided CO2 with low specific costs (0.31 € / kg_CO2).

SAHC D7

3 Feasibility studies for Spain

3.1 CAVES OF COVIDES IN VILAFRANCA (W INE)

3.1.1 Energy production plant In the SAHC project we already conducted an audit for COVIDES of Vilafranca, because it was the industry producing more litres of wine and, a priori, one of the most interesting to integrate solar thermal power (even if bottling occurs in Sant Sadurni, the demands are smaller. To produce this heat, they currently use a system with a oil boiler and to produce cool they use big compression chillers. This project analyses the feasibility of making a solar heating system or a solar cooling system. In this document we present the first results of four options analyzed for the system. These are the studied cases:

1. Solar system for heating: 400 m2 + 24 m3 accumulation

2. Solar system for cooling: 5000 m2 + 250 m3 heating accumulation + absorption chiller 1000 kW

3.1.2 Hypothesis on consumption We have considered the demands of heat usable for the thermal solar systems. According to the data mentioned above, we have considered consumption related to the following profiles.

3.1.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Hot water T = 90°C to clean jars, bottles and tanks


3.1.2.2 Load profile at 7 °C Cold water at 7ºC for the caves’ cooling

SAHC D7


3.1.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing Two systems will be analyzed:

• A system with low solar coverage, about 20% • A system with high solar coverage, about 60%

3.1.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile Despite raising the possibility of making a solar cooling system, in the case of wine, where the demand for constant cooling throughout the year is significantly lower than the demand of heating, we see that the results are not very encouraging for cooling production. The hypotheses considered in this case are:

• Area of the collectors : 400 m2 • Accumulation : 20 m3

The simulation results give the following energy values:


Annual energy demand Total (kWh) Solar energy produced Total (kWh) % of use of solar system

Heating energy 858,868.99 Heating energy 169,124.73 100%

Cooling energy 52,041.57 Cooling energy 0.00 0%

Economically, this is the investment cost of such systems: Cost of investment of SAHC system

Plant cost Collectors Number of collectors 44 Àrea of each collector 9.03 Total area of the collectors 397.32 Cost € 173,506.49

SAHC D7

Tank Hot water tank (m3) 19.866 Cost € 25,870.81 Overall and indirect costs € 35,887.91 Control and design € 28,231.83 Total plant cost € 263,497.04

Financial parameters Economics Fuel cost 1 €/l Electricity cost 0.12 €/kWh Annual energy cost increment 4 % Inflation rate 2 % Interest rate 3 % Subsidies % Investment costs 37 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 169,124.73 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 20%

Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.06 €/kWh_fuel

Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.07 €/kWh

Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.16 €/kWh

Cooling energy

Net energy produced 0.00 kWh

Solar fraction (SF) 0% Normalized energy cost (LEC) €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh Plant

Total plant cost 263,497.04 €

Net current value 256,831.32 €

Updated avoided costs 462,079.67 €

Recovery time 11 years

SAHC D7

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

Energia calefacció Energia refrigeració

€/k

Wh

Sistema de referència Sistema SAHC


0,0010000,0020000,0030000,0040000,0050000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Avoided costs per year [€/year] Cost mitjà de producció (SAHC) [€/year]

FIGURE 40. CASH-FLOW LOW F.S.CASE

Environmental benefits These are the environmental benefits of the project: Environmental benefits Tons of oil equivalent (TEP) in 25 years 18.18 TOE/year Specific cost of TOE 666.19 €/TOE CO2 emissions avoided per year 33,825 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of CO2 emissions avoided 0.36 €/kg _CO2

3.1.3.2 High coverage solar system Energy load profile In the case of high coverage worth provide heat only for heat processes, because the cool ones are less profitable. The hypotheses considered in this case are:



SAHC D7




Cooling energy 52,041.57 Cooling energy 10,232.34 3%

Cost of investment of SAHC system Economically, this is the investment cost of such systems: Plant cost Collectors Number of collectors 100 Àrea of each collector 9.03 Total area of the collectors 903.00 Cost € 359,012.59 Absorption heat pump Dimensions (kW) 300.00 Cost € 96,621.25 Tank Hot water tank (m3) 175.58 Cost € 47,107.45 Overall and indirect costs € 90,493.43 Control and design € 71,188.17 Total plant cost € 664,422.89 SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 352,793.38 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 41% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.05 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.06 €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.16 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 10,232.34 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 18% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 1.03 €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.52 €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 664,422.89 € Net current value 252,020.48 € Updated avoided costs 980,669.99 € Recovery time 13 years TIR 8%

SAHC D7

-

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60


€/k

Wh



0,0020000,0040000,0060000,0080000,00

100000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25





3.1.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth indicators Low coverage We see that the system currently remains viable without subsidies. However, the recovery period goes up to 17 years and the TIR is at 5%. If energy price rise to 6%, the numbers come out better.

SAHC D7

Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 263,497.04 € Net current value 159,337.42 € Updated avoided costs 462,079.67 € Recovery time 17 year TIR 5%


High coverage We see that the system currently remains viable without subsidies. However, the recovery period goes up to 19 years and the TIR is at 3%. If energy price rise to 6%, these would be the results: Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 664,422.89 € Net current value 252,020.48 € Updated avoided costs 980,669.99 € Recovery time 19 year TIR 3%

Plant without subsidies (energy growth 5%) Total plant cost 664,422.89 € Net current value 527,401.52 € Updated avoided costs 1,256,051.02 € Recovery time 17 year TIR 5%

3.1.4.2 Sensitivity towards subsidies’ mark We made a comparison between what would happen without subsidies for solar heating and cooling (previous chapter) and maintaining subsidies that the Institut Català d’Energia (ICAEN) currently gives, which are 37% of eligible costs. On the other hand, we consider what would happen with a premium of 0.15 €/kWhtermic per each kWh produced. Low coverage

Plant with premium= 0.15 €/kWh Total plant cost 263,497.04 € Net current value 601,086.50 € Updated avoided costs 903,828.74 € Recovery time 7 years

Plant with subsidies of 37% Total plant cost 263,497.04 € Net current value 256,831.32 € Updated avoided costs 462,079.67 € Recovery time 11 years TIR 10%

SAHC D7

TIR 14% High coverage Plant with subsidies of 37% Total plant cost 664,422.89 € Net current value 773,237.99 € Updated avoided costs 1,256,051.02 € Recovery time 12 years TIR 9%

Plant with premium= 0.15 €/kWh Total plant cost 664,422.89 € Net current value 1,487,068.85 € Updated avoided costs 2,215,718.36 € Recovery time 8 years TIR 12%

3.1.5 Conclusions After the above analysis, we see, at the level of returns, that solar heating systems are more profitable than conventional systems. In the case of SAHC solar thermal systems for heat and cold, we do not currently have sufficient returns to the processes of the wine sector, but with an adequate subsidy mark, based on solar thermal premium, we could achieve market returns in short time. Solar cooling is an emerging technology that will find its profitability with the evolution of technology (increased efficiency and cost reduction), the improving of the control and the technical knowledge for the cost reduction of engineering and control systems, the rising prices of fossil fuels. Seeing the situation at the moment, it is important that the administration takes a number of immediate solutions, such as subsidies to increase the number of demonstration plants, research into improving equipment and global designs, and the dissemination and training of technicians. However, if we compare the numbers of environmental savings that involve other competing technologies (and viable through the legal mark), we see that:

• Photovoltaic Investment: 5000 € / kWp • Energy performance: 1.100 kWh / kWp • Avoided emissions electric (350 kg CO2/MWh electric avoided) • Specific cost of emissions FV: 5000 / (1100 * 0350 * 20) = 0.65 € / kg CO2

We can see that a technology that is currently getting premiums and investment returns between 8 and 10%, is less efficient at avoiding CO2 than either solar thermal systems (heat and cold + heat) that we designed. Therefore, the current legal framework should encourage the type of systems like the SAHC.

SAHC D7

3.2 CAVES OF COVIDES IN SANT SADURNÍ (W INE)

3.2.1 Energy production plant In the SAHC project we conducted an audit for COVIDES of Sant Sadurní, in a location where they bottle wine; in this case it is a study of the cave. To produce heat, they currently use a system with a oil boiler; to produce cool, they use two compression chillers of 200kW and they rent two more during the fermentation. This project analyses the feasibility of making a solar heating system or a solar cooling system. In this document we present the first results of two options analyzed for the system proposed in the head office of Sant Sadurní of COVIDES These are the studied cases:


2. Solar system for cooling: 5000 m2 + 250 m3 heating accumulation + absorption chiller of 1000 kW

3.2.2 Hypothesis on consumption We have considered the demands of heat usable for the thermal solar systems. According to the data mentioned above, we have considered consumption related to the following profiles:

3.2.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Hot water T = 90 ° C to clean jars, bottles and tan ks


3.2.2.2 Load profile at 7 °C Cool water at 7ºC for the caves’ cooling

SAHC D7



• A system with low solar coverage, about 20% • A system with high solar coverage, about 60%

3.2.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile Despite raising the possibility of making a solar cooling system, in the case of wine, where the demand for constant cooling throughout the year is significantly lower than the demand of heating, we see that the results are not very encouraging for cooling production. The hypotheses considered in this case are:

• Area of the collectors: 150 m2 • Accumulation: 7.5 m3





Cooling energy 249,944.88 Cooling energy 0.00 0%

Economically, this is the investment cost of such systems: Cost of investment of SAHC system Plant cost Collectors Number of collectors 17 Àrea of each collector 9.03 Total area of the collectors 153.51 Cost € 74,734.01 Tank

SAHC D7

Hot water tank (m3) 7.67 Cost € 12,921.63 Overall and indirect costs € 15,778.02 Control and design € 12,412.04 Total plant cost € 115,845.70

Financial parameters Economic Data Cost of fuel 1 €/l Cost of electricity (€ / kWh) 0.12 €/kWh Annual increase in the cost of energy (%) 4 % Inflacion (%) 2 % Devaluacion (%) 3 % Incentives % of the cost 37 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 63,463.00 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 19% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.07 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.09 €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.16 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 0.00 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 0% Normalized energy cost (LEC) €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 115,845.70 € Net current value 78,228.57 € Updated avoided costs 173,392.53 € Recovery time 14 years

SAHC D7

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18


€/k

Wh



0,00

5000,00

10000,00

15000,00

20000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25




3.2.3.2 High coverage solar system Energy load profile In the case of high coverage worth provide heat only for heat processes, because the cool ones are less profitable. The hypotheses considered in this case are:



SAHC D7



Heating energy 327,079.71 Heating energy 128,618.36 78% Cooling energy 249,944.88 Cooling energy 36,181.64 22%

Cost of investment of SAHC system Economically, this is the investment cost of such systems:

Plant cost Collectors Number of collectors 44 Àrea of each collector 9.03 Total area of the collectors 400.00 Cost € 174,542.65 Absorption heat pump Dimensions (kW) 130.00 Cost € 67,005.38 Tank Hot water tank (m3) 20 Cost € 25,998.08 Overall and indirect costs € 48,158.30 Control and design € 37,884.53 Total plant cost € 353,588.95 SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 128,618.36 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 39% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.06 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.07 €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.16 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 36,181.64 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 14% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.32 €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.16 €/kWh Average cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 353,588.95 € Net current value 148,556.92 € Updated avoided costs 410,721.78 € Recovery time 16 years TIR 5%

SAHC D7

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18


€/k

Wh



0,0010000,0020000,0030000,0040000,0050000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25





3.2.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth indicators Low coverage We see that the system currently remains viable without subsidies. However, the recovery period goes up to 17 years and the TIR is at 5%. If energy price rise to 6%, the numbers come out better. Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 115,845.70 € Net current value 35,365.67 € Updated avoided costs 173,392.53 € Recovery time 20 year TIR 3%

Plant without subsidies (energy growth 6%)

SAHC D7

Total plant cost 115,845.70 € Net current value 84,055.86 € Updated avoided costs 222,082.72 € Recovery time 17 year TIR 5%

High coverage We see that the system currently remains viable without subsidies. However, the recovery period goes up to 19 years and the TIR is at 3%.If energy price rise to 6%, these would be the results: Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 353,588.95 € Net current value 17,729.01 € Updated avoided costs 410,721.78 € Recovery time 24 year TIR 1%


3.2.4.2 Sensitivity towards subsidies’ mark We made a comparison between what would happen without subsidies for solar heating and cooling (previous chapter) and maintaining subsidies that the Institut Català d’Energia (ICAEN) currently gives, which are 37% of eligible costs. On the other hand, we consider what would happen with a premium of 0.15 €/kWhtermic per each kWh produced. Low coverage

Plant with premium= 0.15 €/kWh Total plant cost 115,845.70 € Net current value 201,129.26 € Updated avoided costs 339,156.13 € Recovery time 9 years TIR 11%

High coverage Plant with subsidies of 37% Total plant cost 353,588.95 € Net current value 148,556.92 €


SAHC D7

Updated avoided costs 410,721.78 € Recovery time 16 years TIR 5%


3.2.5 Conclusions After the above analysis, we see, at the level of returns, that solar heating systems are more profitable than conventional systems. In the case of SAHC solar thermal systems for heat and cold, we do not currently have sufficient returns to the processes of the wine sector, but with an adequate subsidy mark, based on solar thermal premium, we could achieve market returns in short time. Solar cooling is an emerging technology that will find its profitability with the evolution of technology (increased efficiency and cost reduction), the improving of the control and the technical knowledge for the cost reduction of engineering and control systems, the rising prices of fossil fuels. Seeing the situation at the moment, it is important that the administration take a number of immediate solutions, such as subsidies to increase the number of demonstration plants, research into improving equipment and global designs, and the dissemination and training of technicians. However, if we compare the numbers of environmental savings that involve other competing technologies (and viable through the legal mark), we see that:



SAHC D7

3.3 L ACTOGANADERA DE RÍO MAYOR (AGED CHEESE)

3.3.1 Energy production plant In the SAHC project we already conducted an audit for Lactoganadera Rio Mayor, to see the energy efficiency of the process, under which we ran a series of technical recommendations on energy efficiency, and we took the data to analyze the feasibility of making a system of solar heating and cooling. They currently use two steam boilers, de 1000 y 300kW, to produce heat, and a chiller of 70kW to cool the tanks. The cooling chambers of the cheese have their autonomous systems. This project analyses the feasibility of making a solar heating system or a solar cooling system. In this document we present the first results of two options analyzed for the system proposed in the cheese factory of Heute. These are the studied cases:

3. Solar system for heating: 155 m2 + 7.54 m3 accumulation

4. Solar system for cooling: 400 m2 + 20 m3 heating accumulation + absorption chiller of 150 kW

3.3.2 Hypothesis on consumption We have considered the demands of heat usable for the thermal solar systems. According to the data mentioned above, we have considered consumption related to the following profiles:

3.3.2.1 Load profile at 60 °C


SAHC D7






• A system with low solar coverage, about 20% (only heat) • A system with high solar coverage, about 60% (cold and heat)

3.3.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile The scenario considered in this case will be:

• Area of collectors: 155 m2 • Accumulation: 7.5 m3

The simulation results are:

SAHC D7


Annual energy demand Total (kWh) Solar energy

produced Total (kWh)

% of use of solar system


Cost of investment of SAHC system

Plant cost

Collectors

Number of collectors 17

Àrea of each collector 9.03

Total area of the collectors 153.51

Cost € 74,734.01

Tank

Hot water tank (m3) 10

Cost € 15,597.61

Overall and indirect costs € 19,710.65

Control and design € 15,505.71

Total plant cost € 144,720.01 Financial parameters Economic Data Cost of fuel 1 €/l Cost of electricity (€ / kWh) 0.12 €/kWh Annual increase in the cost of energy (%) 4 % Inflacion (%) 2 % Devaluacion (%) 3 % Incentives % of the cost 37 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 122,362.64 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 25% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.04 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.05 €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.16 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 0.00 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 0% Normalized energy cost (LEC) €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh

SAHC D7

Plant Total plant cost 144,720.01 € Net current value 217,251.30 € Updated avoided costs 334,317.09 € Recovery time 9 years TIR 13%

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12

0,14

0,16

0,18

Energia calefacción Energia refrigeración

€/k

Wh

Sistema de referencia Sistema SAHC


0,00

10000,00

20000,00

30000,00

40000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Costo anual evitado [€/año] Coste medio de producción (SAHC) [€/year]


Environmental benefits These are the environmental benefits of the project: Beneficios medioambientales Tons of oil equivalent (TEP) in 25 years 13.15 TOE/year Specific cost of TEP 518.91 €/TOE CO2 emissions avoided per year 24,473 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of CO2 emissions avoided 0.28 €/kg _CO2

3.3.3.2 High coverage solar system Energy load profile

• Area of collectors : 400 m2 • Accumulation : 28 m3 • Absorption chiller : 130 kW

SAHC D7


Annual energy demand Total (kWh) Solar energy

produced Total (kWh)



Cost of investment of SAHC system

Plant cost




Cost € 173,506.49

Absorption heat pump

Dimension (kW) 130.00

Cost € 67,005.38

Tank

Hot wáter tank (m3) 19.866

Cost € 25,870.81



Total plant cost € 352,051.35 Financial parameters Heating energy Net energy produced 208,426.79 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 43% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.04 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.06 €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.16 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 2,840.67 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 7% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 2.44 €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) 1.22 €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 352,051.35 € Net current value 313,079.26 € Updated avoided costs 574,116.82 € Recovery time 12 years TIR 9%

SAHC D7

-

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

1,40

Energia calefacción Energia refrigeración

€/k

Wh

Sistema de referencia Sistema SAHC


0,0010000,0020000,0030000,0040000,0050000,0060000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Costo anual evitado [€/año] Coste medio de producción (SAHC) [€/year]


Environmental benefits Beneficios medioambientales Tons of oil equivalent (TEP) in 25 years 22.71 TOE/year Specific cost of TEP 689.29 €/TOE CO2 emissions avoided per year 42,509 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of CO2 emissions avoided 0.37 €/kg _CO2


3.3.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth indicators Low coverage Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 144,720.01 € Net current value 163,704.90 € Updated avoided costs 334,317.09 € Recovery time 13 year TIR 7%

SAHC D7


High coverage Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 352,051.35 € Net current value 182,820.26 € Updated avoided costs 574,116.82 € Recovery time 18 year TIR 4%


3.3.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies Low coverage


High coverage Plant with subsidies of 37% Total plant cost 352,051.35 € Net current value 313,079.26 € Updated avoided costs 574,116.82 € Recovery time 12 years TIR 9%

Plant with premium= 0.15 €/kWh

Plantwith subsidies of 37% Total plant cost 144,720.01 € Net current value 217,251.30 € Updated avoided costs 334,317.09 € Recovery time 9 years TIR 13%

SAHC D7

Total plant cost 352,051.35 € Net current value 737,824.87 €

Updated avoided costs 1,129,121.42 € Recovery time 8 years TIR 13%

3.3.5 Conclusions After the above analysis, we see, at the level of returns, that solar heating systems are more profitable than conventional systems. In the case of SAHC solar thermal systems for heat and cold, we do not currently have sufficient returns to the processes of the cheese sector, but with an adequate subsidy mark, based on solar thermal premium, we could achieve market returns in short time. Solar cooling is an emerging technology that will find its profitability with the evolution of technology (increased efficiency and cost reduction), the improving of the control and the technical knowledge for the cost reduction of engineering and control systems, the rising prices of fossil fuels. Seeing the situation at the moment, it is important that the administration takes a number of immediate solutions, such as subsidies to increase the number of demonstration plants, research into improving equipment and global designs, and the dissemination and training of technicians. However, if we compare the numbers of environmental savings that involve other competing technologies (and viable through the legal mark), we see that:



SAHC D7

3.4 COOPERATIVA DE L ’ OLIVERA (W INE AND OLIVE OIL )

3.4.1 Energy production plant The cooperative L’Olivera produces wine and olive oils and it is a cooperative of social integration, which includes people with difficulties that are actively involved in all the process. Some of these people live in the area of L’Olivera, which is also used to make olive oils, and has a significant demand of refrigeration. In this moment they use a system of oil boilers completed by a solar energy system of 70m2 to produce heat. This field of collectors is quite large, so that in the summer it tends to have problems of overheating.

3.4.2 Hypothesis on consumption We have considered the demands of heat usable for the thermal solar systems. According to the data mentioned above, we have considered consumption related to the following profiles.

3.4.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Hot water T = 90 ° C to clean jars, bottles and tan ks

0

20

40

60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Kg H2O/h

0100200300400500

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov

Kg H2O/d


3.4.2.2 Load profile at 7 °C Cool water at 7ºC for the cooling of the spaces to make oil.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Kg H2O/h May

Jun

Jul

Ago

Sep

Oct

0

5000

10000

15000

20000


Kg H2O/d


SAHC D7

3.4.3 Hypothesis for plant sizing This project analyses the feasibility of making a solar heating system or a solar cooling system. In this document we present the first results of the option analyzed for the system proposed in the building of L’Olivera.

• Solar system for cooling: 70 m2 + 3.2 m3 heating accumulation + absorption chiller 20 kW

Note that the solution proposed is a first approximation. It should be optimized with the following analysis: This project analyses the feasibility of completing the actual solar system with two absorption chillers of 10kW de Climatewell This is the case study: • Collector SATIUS 22 DISOL - 70 m2 + 2 chillers ABS Climatewell 10 kW

3.4.3.1 System without heat recovery Energy load profile Despite raising the possibility of making a solar cooling system, in the case of wine, where the demand for constant cooling throughout the year is significantly lower than the demand of heating, we see that the results are not very encouraging for cooling production. The hypotheses considered in this case are:

• Area of the collectors : 80 m2 • Accumulacion : 4 m3




Heating energy Heating energy


Economically, this is the investment cost of such systems:: Cost of investment of SAHC system In this case we do not consider the cost of the collectors and of the accumulator, because these investments have already been realized.

Plant cost

Collectors




Cost € 0

Tank


SAHC D7

Cost € 0



Total plant cost € 39,029.91 Financial parameters Economic Data Cost of fuel 1 €/l Cost of electricity (€ / kWh) 0.12 €/kWh Annual increase in the cost of energy (%) 4 % Inflacion (%) 2 % Devaluacion (%) 3 % Incentives % of the cost 37 % Euro per solar kWh 0 €/kWh SAHC system profitability Cooling energy Net energy produced 18,340.12 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 78% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.20 €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.10 €/kWh Avarage cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 39,029.91 € Net current value - 8,635.07 € Updated avoided costs 30,065.14 € Recovery time n.d. years

-

0,02

0,04

0,06

0,08

0,10

0,12


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

Environmental benefits These are the environmental benefits of the project: Environmental benefits Tons of oil equivalent (TEP) in 25 years 1.97 TOE/year Specific cost of TOE 1,078.35 €/TOE CO2 emissions avoided per year 5,319 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of CO2 emissions avoided 0.40 €/kg _CO2


3.4.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth indicators We see that with the current framework of subsidies, the solar cooling system is not profitable today. It becomes profitable if energy prices rise to 7%, though with a very low yield, below a minim of 3%. Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 39,029.91 € Net current value - 8,635.07 € Updated avoided costs 30,065.14 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.


3.4.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies We made a comparison between what would happen maintaining subsidies that the Institut Català d’Energia (ICAEN) currently gives, which are 37% of eligible costs, or increasing it to 50%. On the other hand, we consider what would happen with a premium of 0.15 €/kWhtermic per each kWh produced.

Plant with subsidies of 37%

Total plant cost 39,029.91 € Net current value - 3,561.18 € Updated avoided costs 30,065.14 € Recovery time 21 years TIR 3%

SAHC D7


3.4.5 Conclusions Solar thermal systems SACH for heating and cooling currently do not have a sufficient return for the wine sector processes, despite a solar thermal installation already exists. However, with an adequate mark of subsidies, based on a premium, they could achieve market returns in short time. Solar cooling is an emerging technology that will find its profitability with the evolution of technology (increased efficiency and cost reduction), the improving of the control and the technical knowledge for the cost reduction of engineering and control systems, the rising price of fossil fuels. Seeing the situation at the moment, it is important that the administration takes a number of immediate solutions, such as subsidies to increase the number of demonstration plants, research into improving equipment and global designs, and the dissemination and training of technicians. However, if we compare the numbers of environmental savings that involve other competing technologies (and viable through the legal mark), we see that: • Photovoltaic Investment: 5000 € / kWp • Energy performance: 1100 kWh / kWp • Avoided emissions electric (350 kg CO2/MWh electr ic avoided) •Specific cost of emissions FV: 5000 / (1100 * 0,350 * 20) = 0.65 € / kg CO2 We can see that a technology that is currently getting premiums and investment returns between 8 and 10%, is less efficient at avoiding CO2 than either solar thermal systems (heat and cold + heat) that we designed. Therefore, the current legal framework should encourage the type of systems like the SAHC.

SAHC D7

4 Feasibility studies for France

4.1 COMPANY OF WINE LANGUEDOC ROUSSILLON (W INE)

4.1.1 Energy production plant Under the project SAHC, AIGUASOL completed an initial audit in the Bassac area, located in Languedoc Roussillon, to analyze the energy efficiency of the process; AIGUASOL conducted a series of technical recommendations on energy efficiency and took the data to analyze the feasibility of a solar heating and cooling system. Meteorological data is taken from Meteonorm from Lyon. This project analyses the feasibility of making a solar heating system or a solar cooling system. We report here the first results of two options for the system proposed in the Bassac area. These are the studied cases:


2. Solar system for cooling: 110 m2 + 5 m3 heating accumulation + absorption chiller of 30 kW.

4.1.2 Hypotheses on consumption We have considered the demands of heat usable for the thermal solar systems. According to the data mentioned above, we have considered consumption related to the following profiles.

4.1.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Hot water T = 90°C to clean jars, bottles and tanks


4.1.2.2 Load profile at 7 °C Cool water at 7 °C for the caves’ cooling

SAHC D7


4.1.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing It will be analyzed two systems:

• A system with low solar coverage (20%, only heating) • A system with high solar coverage (60%, cooling and heating)

4.1.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile Despite raising the possibility of making a solar cooling system, in the case of wine, where the demand for constant cooling throughout the year is significantly lower than the demand of heating, we see that the results are not very encouraging for cooling production. So, for low solar coverage, we will try with only a pure solar system with:

• Area of the collectors : 20 m2 • Accumulation 1 m3


Annual energy demand Total (kWh) Energy for

cooling/heating Total (kWh)



Cooling energy 28,637.89 Cooling energy - 0%


Plant cost

Collectors


Area of each collector 9.03


Cost € 20,746.95

Tank


Cost € 4,493.59


SAHC D7


Total plant cost € 33,357.89 Financial parameters Economic Data Cost of fuel 0.12 €/l Cost of electricity (€ / kWh) 0.12 €/kWh Annual increase in the cost of energy (%) 4 % Inflation (%) 2 % Devaluation (%) 3 % Incentives % of the cost 40 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 10,756.88 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 46%

Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.18 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.23 €/kWh Average cost of production (ref.) 0.24 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 33,357.89 € Net current value 14,759.89 € Updated avoided costs 44,084.66 € Recovery time 16 years TIR 4%


SAHC D7

0,00

1000,00

2000,00

3000,00

4000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Avoided costs per year [€/year] Moyenne des coûts de production (SAHC) [€/year]



4.1.3.2 High coverage solar system Energy load profile In this case, with a high solar fraction, we also try to cover a portion of the application of cold. The hypotheses considered in this case are:

• Area of the collectors: 55 m2 • Accumulation: 2.7 m3 • Absorption heat pump: 15 kW







Plant cost

Collectors




Cost € 54,895.98


Dimensions (kW) 30.00

Cost € 35,267.34

SAHC D7

Tank

Hot water tank (m3) 5.5

Cost € 10,020.56



Total plant cost € 132,403.00 SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 16,135.33 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 69%

Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.16 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.20 €/kWh Average cost of production (ref.) 0.24 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 13,173.43 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 46% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.81 €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.41 €/kWh Average cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 132,403.00 € Net current value - 62,678.67 € Updated avoided costs 87,722.32 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.

-

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

Énergie pour le chauffage Energie pour le refroidissement

€/k

Wh

Système de référence System SAHC


SAHC D7

0,002000,004000,006000,008000,00

10000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25





4.1.4.1 sensitivity towards growth indicators Low coverage We see that, without such subsidies, the system is not profitable. If energy prices rise a 4% annual, these are the results: Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 33,357.89 € Net current value 1,416.74 € Updated avoided costs 44,084.66 € Recovery time 25 years TIR 0.

Plant without subsidies (energy growth 6%) Total plant cost 33,357.89 € Net current value 13,796.11 € Updated avoided costs 56,464.03 € Recovery time 20 years TIR 2%

High coverage Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 132,403.00 € Net current value - 62,678.67 € Updated avoided costs 87,722.32 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.

SAHC D7

Plant without subsidies (energy growth 6%) Total plant cost 132,403.00 € Net current value - 38,045.44 € Updated avoided costs 112,355.54 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.

4.1.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies The subsidies for renewable energy in France currently depend on local governments. In this case, considering also the reduction of taxes, we may consider the grant is approximately a 40%. On the other hand, we consider what would happen with a premium of 0.15 €/kWhtermic per each kWh produced. Low coverage


High coverage


4.1.5 Conclusions After the above analysis, we see, at the level of returns, that solar heating systems are more profitable than conventional systems.


Plant with subsidies of 40% Total plant cost 132,403.00 € Net current value - 9,717.47 € Updated avoided costs 87,722.32 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.

SAHC D7

As regards solar thermal systems for heating and cooling, we see that they are not profitable now, at least in the wine sector. Therefore, we think that we will not return in such systems if the mark of subsidies continues as now. Solar cooling is an emerging technology that will find its profitability with the evolution of technology (increased efficiency and cost reduction), the improving of the control and the technical knowledge for the cost reduction of engineering and control systems, the rising prices of fossil fuels. Seeing therefore the situation at the moment, it is important that the administration takes a number of immediate solutions, such as subsidies to increase the number of demonstration plants, research on improving equipment designs and global dissemination and training of technicians.

SAHC D7

4.2 COMPANY OF WINE AT TAIN -L ’ HERMITAGE (W INE)

4.2.1 Energy production plant Under the project SAHC, AIGUASOL completed an initial audit in the area of Alain Graillot, located at Pont de l’Isère, in the Rhone Valley, to analyze the energy efficiency of the process; AIGUASOL conducted a series of technical recommendations on energy efficiency and took the data to analyze the feasibility of a solar heating and cooling system. The meteorological data used for the calculation of this study come from the database of METEONORM for Lyon. This project analyses the feasibility of making a solar heating system or a solar cooling system. We report here the first results of two options for the system proposed in the area of Alain Graillot. These are the studied cases:


2. Solar system for cooling: 40 m2 + 2 m3 heating accumulation + absorption chiller of 15 kW.

4.2.2 Hypotheses on consumption We have considered the demands of heat usable for the thermal solar systems. According to the data mentioned above, we have considered consumption related to the following profiles.

4.2.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Hot water T = 90°C to clean jars, bottles and tank


4.2.2.2 Load profile at 7 °C Cool water at 7 °C for the caves’ cooling

SAHC D7


4.2.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing It will be analyzed two systems:

• A system with low solar coverage (20%, only heating) • A system with high solar coverage (60%, cooling and heating)

4.2.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile Despite raising the possibility of making a solar cooling system, in the case of wine, where the demand for constant cooling throughout the year is significantly lower than the demand of heating, we see that the results are not very encouraging for cooling production. So, for low solar coverage, we will try with only a pure solar system with:

• Area of the collectors : 20 m2 • Accumulation 1 m3






Cooling energy 19,237.83 Cooling energy - 0%


Plant cost

Collectors




Cost € 11,228.76

Tank


Cost € 2,709.20

SAHC D7



Total plant cost € 18,420.42 Financial parameters Economic Data Cost of fuel 0.12 €/l Cost of electricity (€ / kWh) 0.12 €/kWh Annual increase in the cost of energy (%) 4 % Inflation (%) 2 % Devaluation (%) 3 % Incentives % of the cost 40 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh

SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 5,378.44 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 46%

Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.21 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.26 €/kWh Average cost of production (ref.) 0.24 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 18,420.42 € Net current value 4,847.75 € Updated avoided costs 22,042.33 € Recovery time 19 years TIR 3%

-

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

Énergie pour le chauffage Energie pour le refroidissement

€/k

Wh

Système de référence System SAHC


SAHC D7

0,00500,00

1000,001500,002000,002500,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25




4.2.3.2 High coverage solar system Energy load profile In this case, with a high solar fraction, we also try to cover a portion of the application of cold. The hypotheses considered in this case are:

• Area of the collectors: 55 m2 • Accumulation: 2.7 m3 • Absorption heat pump: 15 kW


cooling/heating Total (kWh) % of use of solar system




Plant cost

Collectors




Cost € 29,711.07


Dimensions (kW) 15.00

Cost € 26,038.25

Tank

Hot water tank (m3) 2.7

Cost € 6,041.43

SAHC D7



Total plant cost € 81,662.66 SAHC system profitability Heating energy Net energy produced 4,166.15 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 37%

Normalized energy cost (LEC) 0.19 €/kWh_fuel Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.23 €/kWh Average cost of production (ref.) 0.16 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced 3,538.81 kWh Solar fraction (SF) 18% Normalized energy cost (LEC) 1.43 €/kWh_ee Average cost of production (SAHC) 0.71 €/kWh Average cost of production (ref.) 0.09 €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 81,662.66 € Net current value - 43,687.93 € Updated avoided costs 17,183.91 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.

FIGURE 69. HEATING AND COOLING AVERAGE PRODUCTION COSTS

SAHC D7

0,00

1000,00

2000,00

3000,00

4000,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25





4.2.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth of energy cost Low coverage We see that, without such subsidies, the system is not profitable. If energy prices rise a 4% annual, these are the results: Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 18,420.42 € Net current value - 2,520.42 € Updated avoided costs 22,042.33 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.

Plant without subsidies (energy growth 6%) Total plant cost 18,420.42 € Net current value 3,669.27 € Updated avoided costs 28,232.02 € Recovery time 23 years TIR 1%

High coverage Plant without subsidies (energy growth 4%) Total plant cost 81,662.66 € Net current value - 76,352.99 € Updated avoided costs 17,183.91 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.

SAHC D7

Plant without subsidies (energy growth 6%) Total plant cost 81,662.66 € Net current value - 71,527.59 € Updated avoided costs 22,009.31 € Recovery time n.d. year TIR n.d.

4.2.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies The subsidies for renewable energy in France currently depend on local governments. In this case, considering also the reduction of taxes, we may consider the grant is approximately a 40%. On the other hand, we consider what would happen with a premium of 0.15 €/kWhtermic per each kWh produced. Low coverage


4.2.5 Conclusions After the above analysis, we see, at the level of returns, that solar heating systems are more profitable than conventional systems. As regards solar thermal systems for heating and cooling, we see that they are not profitable now, at least in the wine sector. Therefore, we think that we will not return in such systems if the mark of subsidies continues as now. Solar cooling is an emerging technology that will find its profitability with the evolution of technology (increased efficiency and cost reduction), the improving of the control and the technical knowledge for the cost reduction of engineering and control systems, the rising prices of fossil fuels. Seeing therefore the situation at the moment, it is important that the administration takes a number of immediate solutions, such as subsidies to increase the number of demonstration plants, research on improving equipment designs and global dissemination and training of technicians.


SAHC D7

5 Feasibility studies for Greece

5.1 CHARMA BREWERY , CHANIA , CRETE (B EER)

5.1.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 500 hlt of beer, with a maximum capacity of 1000 hlt of beer. Adjacent to the plant, as well as on top of the roof, there is high availability of land for the installation of solar panels.

FIGURE 71. VIEW OF THE CHARMA BREWERY

Since Crete is a touristic island, the annual production has a strong seasonal trend, with 70% of the beer being produced from April until September and the rest 30% of the beer being produced from October until March, as shown by the following figure.

Charma beer production per month

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Bee

r pro

duct

ion,

lt

FIGURE 72. MONTHLY PRODUCTION PERFORMANCE

The processes that were considered susceptible to potential integration with the solar system are: Heating:

o Slow heating of the beer from 15 to approximately 80/90 °C Cooling:

o Cooling of the beer from 15 to approximately 3 °C Since the processes of fermentation and maturing require temperatures as low as -1.5 0C, they cannot be considered for a possible integration with the solar system.

SAHC D7

Currently, the heating and cooling loads are satisfied by electricity. However, 12m2 solar thermal collectors provide extra heat. In the present study two types of solar systems solutions are analyzed; the first one is heating only and the second one is for both heating and cooling.

o Solar system for heating only, covering 40% of the demand, which means 46 m2 solar collectors. After various simulations with the SAHC tool, this configuration was proven to be the most economically and environmentally efficient.

o Solar system for heating and cooling, covering 60% of the heating demand and 100% of the cooling demand, which means 71 m2 solar collectors. At this point it has to be said that the annual production of the brewery is relatively low, the cooling needs are limited and all market available chillers have surplus capacity; thus, all simulations produced full coverage of cooling loads, which is not always economically efficient.

5.1.2 Hypotheses on consumption Consumption is assumed to refer only to those processes suitable for integration with the solar system, and correspond to those estimated from the data gathered during the audit. The load profiles are represented in the forms assumed hourly by day and day-type by month.

5.1.2.1 Load profile at 90 °C Corresponds to the slow heating of the beer from 15 to approximately 80/90 °C. This consumption depends on the amount of productions throughout one year, so it follows the strong seasonal trend, with 70% of the hot water needed from April until September and the rest 30% needed from October until March.

Kg H2O/h

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Kg H2O/d

-

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000



SAHC D7

5.1.2.2 Load profile at 7 °C Corresponds to the cooling of the beer from 15 to approximately 3 °C. This consumption depends also on the amount of productions throughout one year, so it follows the seasonal trend.

Kg H2O/h

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Kg H2O/d

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350



5.1.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing As mentioned above, two types of solar systems that can achieve different percentages of solar fraction (SF-Solar Fraction) were considered:

• A low-coverage solar system, producing only heat (SF heating ~ 40%). • A high coverage solar system, producing both heating and cooling (SF heating ~ 60% and

SF cooling ~ 100%).

SAHC D7

5.1.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile The assumptions for the system are:

− Collectors area: 46 m2 flat plate collectors − Storage tank : 2.3 m3

According to the simulation results, the energy produced by the solar system, compared to the energy provided by the reference system (oil boiler) is: Reference system SAHC system


Heating Energy 41,164.92 € 5,315.57 Heating energy 15,778.19 98%

Cooling energy 600.69 € 21.93 Cooling energy 27.68 2%

Cost of investment of SAHC system The investment cost of this facility is as follows:

Plant costs

Collectors


Area per collector (m2) 2.70

Total collectors area (m2) 45.90

Cost € 9,180.00

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 2.295

Cost € 3,442.50

General costs and indirect costs € 2,272.05

Design and control € 1,787.35

Total plant cost € 16,681.90

Financial parameters Economics

Fuel cost 1 €/Unit

Electricity cost 0.073 €/kWh

Annual energy cost increment 4 %

Inflation rate 2 %

Interest rate 3 %

Subsidies

% Investment costs 0 %

Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh

Regarding subsidies, the default value for Greece has been set to 0% of the investment costs.

SAHC D7

SAHC system profitability According to the simulation results and assuming a plant lifetime of 25 years, the particular investment is has a low average production cost of thermal energy, a high net present value, high Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and 11 years payback. Heating energy

Net energy produced 15,778.19 kWh

Solar Fraction (SF) 39%

Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0.08 €/kWh_fuel

Average production cost (SAHC) 0.10 €/kWh

Average production cost (reference) 0.20 €/kWh

Cooling energy



Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 2.62 €/kWh_ee



Plant


Net present value 28,262.15 €

Actualized avoided costs 55,693.59 €

Payback period 11 years

IRR 12%

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25



If there was a state contribution, the Payback Period would shorten and this system could be even more cost effective.

Environmental benefits From an environmental perspective, the benefits of the continuous operation of the plant for 25 years are as follows: Environmental benefits

Tonne of oil equivalent (TOE) in 25 years 42.47 TOE

Specific cost of TOE 645.89 €/TOE

Avoided CO2 emissions per year 3,164 kg _CO2/year

Specific cost of avoided CO2 emissions 0.35 €/kg _CO2

SAHC D7


Energy load profile The presence of an absorption refrigeration machine results in increasing energy and environmental benefits. The assumptions for this system are:

− Collectors: 71 m2 flat plate collectors − Storage tank : 3.5 m3 − Absorption chiller : 7.5 kW






Plant costs

Collectors




Cost € 14,040.00

Heat Absorption pump

Size kW 7.50

Cost € 11,250.00

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 3.51

Cost € 5,265.00








Inflation rate 2 %

Interest rate 3 %

Subsidies



SAHC D7

Regarding subsidies, the default value for Greece has been set to 0% of the investment costs. SAHC system profitability Compared to the low coverage system, this investment has lower average production cost of thermal energy, higher net present value, lower Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and more years payback. For this particular system, the payback time is high because of the over-dimensioned chiller, due to the lack of smaller chillers in the market, combined with the fact that the chillers are still expensive. However, 16 years is not that long, comparing to the lifetime of the system and taking into account the total absence of state subsidies. Heating energy






Cooling energy






Plant





IRR 8%

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25








SAHC D7


5.1.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth of energy cost Both low and high coverage system have been proved as economically viable even without initial state contribution. The first sensitivity analysis is related to the increase in annual energy costs, average over the next 25 years. As a baseline we chose a conservative value of 4% per annum and we compare it with a 6% increase. It can be seen that, under a growth of energy prices up to 6%, the payback period of both solar systems decreases, with the high coverage system being more sensitive to this change. Low coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4%




Payback period 11 Years

IRR 12%

Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 6%





IRR 15%

High coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4%





IRR 8%






IRR 10%

5.1.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies The second sensitivity analysis is related to the amount of the national contribution in the initial cost of the system. Thus, we compare the economic performance of systems hypothetically granted with 30% subsidies on the initial cost with those granted with 60%. The analysis showed that even a national contribution of as small as 30% could give great opportunities in the solar thermal market in Greece, as the payback period of these systems would range from 8 to 12 years. At this point, it is worth saying that the high coverage heating and cooling system under 60% subsidies would offer only 7 years payback.

SAHC D7

Low coverage Case with subsidies on initial investment (30%)





IRR 17%

Case with subsidies on initial investment (60%)





IRR 28%

High coverage Case with subsidies on initial investment (30%)





IRR 11%






IRR 19%

5.1.5 Conclusions The investigated systems should be used for guidance only, since they could change substantially within a project, once the process specifications are known in more detail. The results obtained in the present feasibility study have revealed a high profitability of the SAHC solar thermal systems. The Internal Rate of Return on investment, for the low coverage system is 12% and for the high coverage is 8%. However, under the more realistic scenario of 30% national subsidies on the initial cost, the IRR becomes 17% and 11%, respectively. The analysis also showed that a national contribution of as small as 30% is enough to give great opportunities in the solar thermal market in Greece, since the payback period of these systems would be tempting for the potential installers.

SAHC D7

5.2 PEIRAIKI BREWERY , PEIRAUS (B EER)

5.2.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 1100 hlt of beer, with a maximum capacity of 10000 hlt of beer.

FIGURE 79. VIEW OF THE PEIRAIKI BREWERY

The annual production has a strong seasonal trend, with 70% of the beer being produced from April until September and the rest 30% of the beer being produced from October until March, as shown by the following figure.

Peiraiki beer production per month

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000


Bee

r pro

duct

ion,

lt




o Cooling of the beer from 15 to approximately 3 °C Since the processes of fermentation and maturing require temperatures as low as -1.5 0C, they cannot be considered for a possible integration with the solar system. Currently, the heating and cooling loads are satisfied by oil and electricity. In the present study two types of solar systems solutions are analyzed; the first one is heating only and the second one is for both heating and cooling.

SAHC D7


o Solar system for heating and cooling, covering 60% of the heating demand and 100% of the cooling demand, which means 78 m2 solar collectors. At this point it has to be said that the annual production of the brewery is relatively low, the cooling needs are limited and all market available chillers have surplus capacity; thus, all simulations produced full coverage of cooling loads, which is not always economically efficient.



Kg H2O/h

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Kg H2O/d

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000



SAHC D7


Kg H2O/h

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Kg H2O/d

-

100

200

300

400

500

600





SF cooling ~ 100%).

SAHC D7


− Collectors: 49 m2 flat plate collectors. − Storage tank : 2.4 m3






Plant costs

Collectors




Cost € 9,720.00

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 2.43

Cost € 3,645.00








Inflation rate 2 %

Interest rate 3 %

Subsidies




SAHC D7







Cooling energy






Plant





IRR 12%

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Avoided costs per year [€/year] Average production cost (SAHC) [€/year]








SAHC D7

5.2.3.2 High coverage solar system Energy load profile The presence of an absorption refrigeration machine results in increasing energy and environmental benefits. The assumptions for this system are:

− Collectors area: 78 m2 flat plate collectors − Storage tank : 4 m3 − Absorption chiller : 7.5 kW






Plant costs

Collectors




Cost € 15,660.00


Size kW 7.50

Cost € 11,250.00

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 3.915

Cost € 5,872.50








Inflation rate 2 %

Interest rate 3 %

Subsidies



SAHC D7

Regarding subsidies, the default value for Greece has been set to 0% of the investment costs. SAHC system profitability Compared to the low coverage system, this investment has almost the same average production cost of thermal energy and net present value, but lower Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and more years payback. For this particular system, the payback time is high because of the over-dimensioned chiller, due to the lack of smaller chillers in the market, combined with the fact that the chillers are still expensive. However, 16 years is not that long, comparing to the lifetime of the system and taking into account the total absence of state subsidies. Heating energy






Cooling energy






Plant





IRR 7%

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

10000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25








SAHC D7







IRR 12%






IRR 15%






IRR 7%






IRR 10%

5.2.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies The second sensitivity analysis is related to the amount of the national contribution in the initial cost of the system. Thus, we compare the economic performance of systems hypothetically granted with 30% subsidies on the initial cost with those granted with 60%. The analysis showed that even a national contribution of as small as 30% could give great opportunities in the solar thermal market in Greece, as the payback period of these systems would range from 8 to 12 years. At this point, it is worth saying that the high coverage heating and cooling system under 60% subsidies would offer only 7 years payback.

SAHC D7






IRR 17%






IRR 28%






IRR 11%






IRR 19%


SAHC D7

5.3 B RINK ’ S BREWERY , RETHYMNON, CRETE (B EER)

5.3.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 1000 hlt of beer, with a maximum capacity of 6000 hlt of beer. Adjacent to the plant, as well as on top of the roof, there is high availability of land for the installation of solar panels.

FIGURE 87. VIEW OF THE BRINK’S BREWERY

Since Crete is a touristic island, the annual production has a strong seasonal trend, with 70% of the beer being produced from April until September and the rest 30% of the beer being produced from October until March, as shown by the following figure.

Brink's beer production per month

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000


Bee

r pro

duct

ion,

lt




o Cooling of the beer from 15 to approximately 3 °C Since the processes of fermentation and maturing require temperatures as low as -1.5 0C, they cannot be considered for a possible integration with the solar system. Currently, the heating and cooling loads are satisfied by oil and electricity, respectively.

SAHC D7

In the present study two types of solar systems solutions are analyzed; the first one is heating only and the second one is for both heating and cooling.


o Solar system for heating and cooling, covering 60% of the heating demand and 100% of the cooling demand, which means 124 m2 solar collectors and 7.5 kW absorption chiller. At this point it has to be said that the annual production of the brewery is relatively low, the cooling needs are limited and all market available chillers have surplus capacity; thus, all simulations produced full coverage of cooling loads, which is not always economically efficient.



Kg H2O/h

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Kg H2O/d

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000



SAHC D7


Kg H2O/h

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Kg H2O/d

-

100

200

300

400

500

600





SF cooling ~ 100%).

SAHC D7


− Collectors area: 80 m2 flat plate collectors − Storage tank : 4 m3




Cooling energy 1,033.40 € 37.72 Cooling energy 63.99 2%


Plant costs

Collectors




Cost € 16,200.00

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 4.05

Cost € 6,075.00





Fuel cost 0.7 €/Unit



Inflation rate 2 %

Interest rate 3 %

Subsidies




SAHC D7







Cooling energy






Plant





IRR 9%

-

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

0.00

2000.00

4000.00

6000.00

8000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25









SAHC D7



− Collectors area: 124 m2 flat plate collectors − Storage tank : 6 m3 − Absorption chiller : 7.5 kW






Plant costs

Collectors




Cost € 24,840.00


Size kW 7.50

Cost € 11,250.00

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 6.21

Cost € 9,315.00








Inflation rate 2 %

Interest rate 3 %

Subsidies




SAHC D7

SAHC system profitability Compared to the low coverage system, this investment has almost the same average production cost of thermal energy, higher net present value, higher Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and less years payback. The payback time of the high coverage system is less than that of the low coverage system, mainly because Brink’s energy demands are particularly high relatively to its annual production. Higher energy demands means more avoided costs and thus, shorter payback time. 13 years is a relatively good payback time, comparing to the lifetime of the system and taking into account the total absence of state subsidies. Heating energy






Cooling energy






Plant





IRR 10%

-

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

0.00

5000.00

10000.00

15000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25








SAHC D7







IRR 9%






IRR 12%






IRR 10%






IRR 12%

5.3.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies The second sensitivity analysis is related to the amount of the national contribution in the initial cost of the system. Thus, we compare the economic performance of systems hypothetically granted with 30% subsidies on the initial cost with those granted with 60%. The analysis showed that even a national contribution of as small as 30% could give great opportunities in the solar thermal market in Greece, as the payback period of these systems would be around 10 years. At this point, it is worth saying that the high coverage heating and cooling system under 60% subsidies would offer only 6 years payback.

SAHC D7






IRR 13%






IRR 22%






IRR 14%






IRR 22%


SAHC D7

5.4 HELLENIC B REWERY OF ATALANTI , GREECE (B EER)

5.4.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 310,000 hlt of beer, with a maximum capacity of 550,000 hlt of beer. Adjacent to the plant, as well as on top of the roof, there is high availability of land for the installation of solar panels.

FIGURE 95. VIEW OF THE ATALANTI’S BREWERY

The annual production has a strong seasonal trend, with around 50% of the beer being produced in 3 months, from May to July, as shown by the following figure.

Atalanti beer production per month

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000


Bee

r pro

duct

ion,

lt




o Cooling of the beer from 15 to approximately 3 °C Since the processes of fermentation and maturing require temperatures as low as -1.5 0C, they cannot be considered for a possible integration with the solar system. Currently, the heating and cooling loads are satisfied by oil and electricity, respectively.

SAHC D7

In the present study two types of solar systems solutions are analyzed; the first one is heating only and the second one is for both heating and cooling.


o Solar system for heating and cooling, covering 60% of the heating demand and 100% of the cooling demand, which means 1610 m2 solar collectors and 7.5 kW absorption chiller. At this point it has to be said that the annual production of the brewery is relatively low, the cooling needs are limited and all market available chillers have surplus capacity; thus, all simulations produced full coverage of cooling loads, which is not always economically efficient.



Kg H2O/h

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Kg H2O/d

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000



SAHC D7


Kg H2O/h

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Kg H2O/d

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000





SF cooling ~ 100%).

SAHC D7


− Collectors area: 1050 m2 flat plate collectors − Storage tank: 52 m3




Cooling energy 20,357.24 € 743.04 Cooling energy 65.90 1%


Plant costs

Collectors




Cost € 210,060.00

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 52.515

Cost € 78,772.50








Inflation rate 2 %

Interest rate 3 %

Subsidies




SAHC D7







Cooling energy






Plant



Actualized avoided costs 1,156,672.86 €


IRR 13%

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

0.00

50000.00

100000.00

150000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25









SAHC D7



− Collectors area: 1610 m2 flat plate collectors − Storage tank: 80 m3 − Absorption chiller: 7.5 kW




Cooling energy 14,200.10 € 518.30 Cooling energy 13,809.39 4%

Cost of investment of SAHC system The investment cost of this facility is as follows: Plant costs

Collectors




Cost € 321,840.00


Size kW 7.50

Cost € 11,250.00

Storage tank

Hot tank (m3) 80.46

Cost € 120,690.00





Fuel cost 1432.64 €/Unit


Annual energy cost increment 107,877 %

Inflation rate 0.26 %

Interest rate %

Subsidies




SAHC D7

SAHC system profitability Compared to the low coverage system, this investment has lower average production cost of thermal energy, higher net present value, the same internal Rate of Return (IRR) and the same years payback. For a solar thermal system for heating and cooling, 10 years is a very good payback time, comparing to the lifetime of the system and taking into account the total absence of state subsidies. Heating energy






Cooling energy






Plant


Net present value 1,155,539.00 €



IRR 13%

-

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25


€/k

Wh



SAHC D7

0.00

50000.00

100000.00

150000.00

200000.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25








SAHC D7


5.4.4.1 Sensitivity with respect to growth of energy cost Both low and high coverage system have been proved as economically viable even without initial state contribution. The first sensitivity analysis is related to the increase in annual energy costs, average over the next 25 years. As a baseline we chose a conservative value of 4% per annum and we compare it with a 6% increase. It can be seen that, under a growth of energy prices up to 6%, the payback period of both solar systems decreases. Low coverage Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 4%





IRR 13%






IRR 15%






IRR 13%






IRR 15%

5.4.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies The second sensitivity analysis is related to the amount of the national contribution in the initial cost of the system. Thus, we compare the economic performance of systems hypothetically granted with 30% subsidies on the initial cost with those granted with 60%. The analysis showed that even a national contribution of as small as 30% could give great opportunities in the solar thermal market in Greece, as the payback period of these systems would be around 7 years. At this point, it is worth saying that the high coverage heating and cooling system under 60% subsidies would offer only 4 years payback.

SAHC D7






IRR 18%






IRR 30%






IRR 19%






IRR 30%

5.4.5 Conclusions The investigated systems should be used for guidance only, since they could change substantially within a project, once the process specifications are known in more detail. The results obtained in the present feasibility study have revealed a high profitability of the SAHC solar thermal systems. The Internal Rate of Return on investment, for the low and the high coverage system is 13%. However, under the more realistic scenario of 30% national subsidies on the initial cost, the IRR becomes 18% and 19%, respectively. The analysis also showed that a national contribution of as small as 30% is enough to give great opportunities in the solar thermal market in Greece, since the payback period of these systems would be tempting for the potential installers.

SAHC D7

6 Feasibility studies for Portugal

6.1 N IEPOORT V INHOS SA (W INE) QUINTA DE NÁPOLES was purchased by Niepoort in 1987. The Quinta includes nearly 30 ha of vineyard. The vines are at an altitude of 180-250m and the age varies between 18 and more than 70 years. Located at the left margin of the Têdo river, this were Niepoort makes their red, white and rosé wines. Within the project SAHC it was performed an energy audit at the Douro wine classic production plant NIEPOORT VINHOS SA, which allowed to learn about key dimensions and operating conditions of the plant located at the left margin of the Têdo river (DOURO), and the data on the monthly/annual production and consumption of fuel and electricity. Based on the information gathered it was possible to estimate the average consumption in terms of heat and cooling energy, associated with the main stages of the production process. The results obtained have allowed verifying that the plant in question it’s prepared for integration with a solar thermal system for direct production of heat and the cooling energy production through absorption machine.

6.1.1 Energy production plant The plant is sized for a nominal output of 4.150 hl/year of Douro wine classic method. In the Quinta de Nápoles, subject of this feasibility study, all the work of harvesting and post-harvest are developed. Also in the many warehouses, the aging of wine for periods (of the order of years) is performed. It varies as a function of the characteristics of different vintages and the requirements of the subsequent mixing. Adjacent to the plant there is low availability of land for the installation of solar panels but all the covers, both flat (for a total of about 1300 m2) and pitch (about 700 m2) are suitable to 'eventual installation of the panels.

FIGURE 103:AERIAL VIEW OF NIEPOORT

The energy consumed by the Niepoort port wine manufactured process is distributed in two main forms, namely, electric and fueloil, where the first came from totally from de the grid. The heat is the biggest weight in the energy balance, as shows de follows figures. Niepoort have no energy bill from Diesel resource for the year 2009.

SAHC D7

Energy Resources Season 2007-2008

32%

47%

21%

Electricity

Fueloi l for Heating

Fueloi l/Diesel

Energy Resources Season 2008-2009

19%

81%

0%

Electricity

Fueloi l for Heating

Fueloi l/Diesel

FIGURE 104: THE ENERGY RESOURCE USED IN THE SEASON 2007/2008 AND 2008/2009 The productive processes that were considered susceptible to potential integration with the solar system are: heating

• Production of hot water (about 60 ° -90 ° C) for v arious harvesting operations (only for August and September)

• Production of hot water (about 60 ° C) for various operations and for winter heating of workplaces

• Heating with water at 30 ° C from January, for Win ter store heating for malolactic fermentation

cooling

• Cold treatment (after wine pressing)

• Cold static decantation

• Cooling during Alcoholic Fermentation

• Cooling of ageing rooms and store

Observing the energy consumption values and graphs it appears that the consumption of electricity is constant and that the consumption of fuel oil had a higher incidence in the last quarter of the year. The primary energy (tep) per hectolitre (hl) for the season 2007/2008 is 0.04 toe/hl.year and 2008/2009 is 0.06 toe/hl.year. In the present study we only consider one type of solar system for the exclusive production of heat since we have identified that the use of solar system for cooling will not be suitable for this specific facility. Using SAHC tool various simulations were conducted, the best system simulated was: • Solar system for heating alone: 32 m2 solar energy absorber with heat storage of 0,45 m3

6.1.2 Hypotheses on consumption Consumption is assumed to refer only to those processes suitable for integration with the solar system, and correspond to those estimated from the data gathered during the audit. In this work the consumption is taken as registered in 2007/2008. Due to lack of sufficient information to determine the load profiles simplifying assumptions have been used. All data are expressed in terms of flow of hot water, which undergoes the process of temperature jump. The load profiles are represented in the forms assumed hourly by day and day-type by

SAHC D7

6.1.2.1 Load profile at 90 ºC Corresponds to the production of hot water at about 80-90 °C required in the different harvesting processes. We consider a temperature jump of about 20 ° C (returning stream to 60/70 ° C).

Kg H2O/d

0

500

1000

Jan M ar M ay Jul Sep Nov

Kg H2O/h

0

50

100

150

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22


6.1.2.2 Load profile at 60 ºC Production of hot water (about 60/65 °C with ∆t = 5 °C) for various operations and winter heating of the workplaces, it is estimated based on the fuel consumption.


6.1.2.3 Load profile at 30ºc Production of hot water (about 30/35 °C) for wareho use winter conditioning and for the activation of second fermentation in the bottle.


SAHC D7

6.1.3 Hypotheses for plant sizing As mentioned above one type of solar system was considered:

• A low-coverage solar system, producing only heat (with a hot SF of about 14%)

6.1.3.1 Low coverage solar system Energy load profile Following are presented, with respect to processes identified, the calculated values obtained by the simulation software for the annual application of heating and their demands covered by solar source. In the case of the system at low solar coverage the presence of an absorption refrigerator is not sufficiently motivated by an economic point of view. The system is therefore able to produce only heat. The assumptions for the system are:

• Collectors type: Flat • Collectors area: 32 m2 • Storage tank : 0,45 m3

while the energy provided by the simulation results are as follows: Reference System SAHC System

Annual Energy demand Total (kWh) Actual Cost Produced solar

energy Total (kWh) % use of solar system

Heating Energy

24.033

€ 3.103

Heating Energy

3.292

100%

Cooling Energy

-

-

Cooling Energy

-

-


Collectors

Number of collectors 1 Area per collector (m2) 9 Total collectors area (m2) 9 Cost € 6.077

Heat Absorption

Size (kW) 0

Cost -

Storage tank

SAHC D7

Plant costs

Hot tank (m3) 0,45

Cost € 1.633


Total plant cost € 18.190 Financial parameters Economics Fuel cost 1 €/Unit Electricity cost 0,12 €/kWh Annual energy cost increment 4 % Inflation rate 2 % Interest rate 3 % Subsidies % Investment costs 50 % Euro per kWh solar 0 €/kWh

The incentive considered in the investment cost of 50% refers to the expectations of financing in comparison with other incentives that already existed in Portugal. SAHC system profitability Also in this case the investment is particularly beneficial, both in terms of energy and economy. Heating energy Net energy produced 3.292 kWh Solar Fraction (SF) 14% Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) 0,13 €/kWh_fuel Average production cost (SAHC) 0,16 €/kWh Average production cost (reference) 0,20 €/kWh Cooling energy Net energy produced - kWh Solar Fraction (SF) - Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) - €/kWh_ee Average production cost (SAHC) - €/kWh Average production cost (reference) - €/kWh Plant Total plant cost 10.190 € Net present value 2.469 € Actualized avoided costs 11.617 € Payback period 19 years IRR 6%

SAHC D7

-

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25


€/k

Wh


FIGURE 108. HEATING AVERAGE PRODUCTION COSTS.

0,00

500,00

1000,00

1500,00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Avoided costs per year [€/year] Average production cost (SAHC) [€/year]


In the absence of the state contribution suggested, while remaining a low cost effectiveness of the investment, the IRR would be reduced to 5% while the Payback Period would rise to 20 years. Environmental benefits From an environmental perspective, in terms of consumption and related emissions avoided, the benefits of the continuous operation of the plant for 25 years are as follows: Environmental benefits Tonne of oil equivalent (TOE) in 25 years 9 TOE Specific cost of TOE 1.609 €/TOE Avoided CO2 emissions per year 859 kg _CO2/year Specific cost of avoided CO2 emissions 0,87 €/kg _CO2

SAHC D7



Case without subsidies with annual increase of energy costs to 6% Total plant cost 10190 € Net present value 5.731 € Actualized avoided costs 14.879 € Payback period 16 years IRR 9%

6.1.4.2 Sensitivity with respect to type and intensity of subsidies Finally, there it was analyzed the convenience of investing in two different scenarios of government contribution. We compare the economic performance in the case already analyzed, which refers to the current Portuguese situation. To calculate the quantity of heat under subsidies we are referring directly to the amount of heat needed by the thermal processes without plant losses and the amount sent to the absorption refrigeration machine (suitably recalculated based on the cooling energy produced). Low coverage Case with subsidies on initial investment Total plant cost 10.190 € Net present value 2.469 € Actualized avoided costs 11.617 € Payback period 19 years IRR 6%


SAHC D7

Economic data used: EconomicsFuel cost 1 €/UnitElectricity cost (€/kWh) 0,12 €/kWhAnnual energy cost increment (%) 6 %Inflation rate (%) 2 %Interest rate (%) 3 %

Subsidies% Investment costs 50 %Euro per kWh solar 0,1 €/kWh

-

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30


€/k

Wh


FIGURE 110. HEATING AVERAGE PRODUCTION COSTS.

6.1.5 Conclusions The results obtained in the present feasibility study have revealed a higher profitability of the SAHC solar thermal systems than the conventional systems. The study was considered as the first case scenario and should be used for guidance only, he could change substantially within the executive project, once the process specifications are known in more detail. From an economic point of view, with the hypotheses made, the solution to low coverage may be more advantageous. The Internal Rate of Return on investment, calculated in different cases, are always profitable and are included among 6% and 14%.

SAHC D7

7 Conclusions

In the following figures the results of the feasibility analysis are summarized. Only the results of feasibility studies in which 2 scenarios were evaluated are presented: heating-only and integrated heating and cooling, in order to evaluate the impact of the integration of cooling in the energetic and economic balance of the plant.

In the first figure the energetic values are reported: Solar Fraction for the first scenario, Solar Fraction for Heating and Cooling in the second scenario. Additionally, the increase of avoided emissions in the second scenario with respect to the first is shown.

In the last figure, the Return of Investment for the first and the second scenario without incentives are reported, as well as the same value for the second scenario with high value of incentive evaluated in the sensitivity analysis. The value of incentive is not the same in all studies: it was evaluated to be 10 Eurocents/kWh in some cases and 15 Eurocents/kWh in other cases for wine and dairy, 60% of the initial investment for breweries. The companies are grouped per sector in the figures.

It is interesting noticing the following figures:

• While in heating-only scenario the optimal solar fractions were considered to be in the range of 20-40%, the addition of cooling is only interesting with higher solar fractions (40-60% heating) to achieve sufficient use of the cooling, which is highly dependant on the specific production.

• The avoided emissions with integration of cooling increase from 50% up to 300% with respect to heating only; this is due to the much higher plant size.

• From the economic point of view, the ROI increases of 4-5 years with the addition of cooling, with respect to the 11-17 years for heating only, without considering incentives. In some cases, where the plant size is very high and the cost of cooling is negligible with respect to heating, the ROI is almost the same, even though the energy savings are higher

• The application of the incentives considered (10-15 Eurocents/kWh produced from solar source or 60% initial investment) brings the ROI to 5-10 years.

The use of SAHC plant seems to be more interesting in cases where seasonal loads for warehouse heating and cooling can be met by the same solar plant, increasing the use of the solar field during summer or in big size plants, where the economy of scale make the investment lower.

The increase of substitution of fossil energy with solar source through the integration of cooling can be relevant, but with increased plant size of almost the same percentage and reduction of the economic profitability. The existence of adequate incentives could make the investment profitable. This is evaluated in Deliverable 9 “Suggestion of EU regulation to promote solar plants in industrial production”.

SAHC D7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%C

PL

(IT

)

ZIB

ELL

O (

IT)

CU

EN

CA

(S

P)

CO

VID

ES

(IT

)

BA

SS

AC

(F

R)

BE

RLU

CC

HI

CA

VO

UR

(IT

)

CH

AR

MA

(H

E)

PE

IRA

IKI

(HE

)

BR

INK

’S (

HE

)

AT

ALA

NT

I (H

E)

Sol

ar F

ract

ion

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

Avo

ided

incr

ease

em

issi

ons

SF HEAT (%) SF COOL (%)

SF heating only (%) Increase avoided emissions (%)

Dairy sector Winery sector Beer Sector

FIGURE 111. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT SAHC SYSTEM RESULTS

SAHC D7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

CP

L (I

T)

ZIB

ELL

O (

IT)

CU

EN

CA

(S

P)

CO

VID

ES

(IT

)

BA

SS

AC

(F

R)

BE

RLU

CC

HI

CA

VO

UR

(IT

)

CH

AR

MA

(H

E)

PE

IRA

IKI

(HE

)

BR

INK

’S (

HE

)

AT

ALA

NT

I (H

E)

year

s

ROI heating + cooling

ROI heating only

ROI incentive

Dairy sector Winery sector Beer Sector

FIGURE 112. RETURN OF INVESTMENT FOR TWO TYPES OF SOLAR SYSTEMS : WITH AND WITHOUT COOLING. ALSO THE ROI FOR THE SYSTEM OBTAINED WHEN THERE ARE INCENTIVES IS PRESENTED

sahc d7 en - european commission · the solar energy collected by solar panels can be used either...

Documents