Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
energies
Article
Heating Performance Analysis of an Air-to-Water Heat
Pump Using Underground Air for Greenhouse Farming
Taesub Lim 1, Yong-Kyu Baik 1,* and Daeung Danny Kim 2, *
1Department of Architectural Engineering, Seoil University, Seoul 02192, Korea; francis9@seoil.ac.kr
2Architectural Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM),
Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
*Correspondence: ykbaik29@seoil.ac.kr (Y.-K.B.); dkim@kfupm.edu.sa (D.D.K.)
Received: 29 June 2020; Accepted: 27 July 2020; Published: 28 July 2020
Abstract:
As one of the main businesses in Jeju-do in South Korea, specialized local products are grown
in greenhouses. For greenhouse farming, it is preferable to use geothermal heat pump systems for energy
conservation because of the stable temperature of the ground. In the same manner, heat pumps using
underground air is recommended for greenhouse farming since underground air can easily be obtained
from porous volcanic rocks in Jeju-do. However, direct usage of the underground air is not feasible for
planting in the greenhouse or livestock care because the underground air is relatively humid and its
temperature is low. For the present study, the heating performance of an air-to-water heat pump which
used underground air as a heat source for greenhouse farming during the winter was assessed through
measurements. In addition, the economic impact of the air-to-water heat pump (AWHP) was compared
with a conventional air heater. According to the results, an AWHP can save more than 70% of the total
heating costs compared with a conventional air heater. In sum, the utilization of the air-to-water heat
pump using underground air can have a positive impact on reducing energy consumption as well as
provide direct economic benefits.
Keywords: air-to-water heat pump; greenhouse; heating load; underground air
1. Introduction
While facing significant global warming, a lot of concerns have focused on energy use by buildings,
which accounts for more than half of the total energy consumption [
1
,
2
]. Thus, a reduction in building energy
consumption can lead to a reduction in CO
2
emissions. According to previous studies, energy savings
can be achieved by applying appropriate thermal insulation to building envelopes and the use of
advanced mechanical systems [
3
–
7
]. As building occupants spend more time in an indoor environment,
the importance of the selection of proper mechanical systems has become a main concern for building
stakeholders regarding thermal comfort and energy conservation [8].
Among current technologies for providing both heating and cooling, heat pumps have generally
applied for residential and commercial buildings by implementing demand response measures which
enable one to shift building energy loads [
9
–
11
]. These systems can maintain indoor thermal comfort
as well as provide a potential for energy savings in buildings by extracting energy from the air, water,
and soil [
12
–
15
]. Even though heat pumps often have excessive system complexity, they have increasingly
been used to building applications [
14
,
16
]. Among the broad range of heat pump applications, heat pump
technology can also be utilized in the area of agriculture.
Energies 2020,13, 3863; doi:10.3390/en13153863 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2020,13, 3863 2 of 9
According to a review article of Daghigh et al., heat pumps can be used to dry agricultural and
forest products even under low-temperature conditions [
17
]. In addition, Kosan et al. have analyzed the
efficiency of photovoltaic-thermal assisted heat pump drying systems [
18
]. Kumar et al. have used a
closed-loop heat pump system for drying herbal leaves [
19
]. Besides, several studies have proposed drying
methods based on heat pump technology for preserving agricultural products [
20
–
24
]. Among other
applications, heat pump technology has been utilized to control the thermal performance in greenhouses.
According to a study by Yang et al., the temperature in a greenhouse could be controlled by using an
earth-air heat exchanger system [
25
]. Moreover, Ozgener and Hepbasli have studied the performance
of a solar-assisted geothermal heat pump system for greenhouse heating under the climatic conditions
in Turkey, where the night temperature drops to 14
◦
C while the day temperature is about 31
◦
C [
26
–
28
].
Ozgener has also proposed the use of a hybrid solar-assisted geothermal heat pump technology with a
small wind turbine system for greenhouse heating [29].
For agricultural applications in South Korea, heat pumps have also applied to greenhouse space
heating. In the case of Jeju-do in South Korea, where about 20% of the people work in agriculture cultivating
local specialties like tangerines and mandarins. In the winter, these local specialties and others such
as livestock and flowers are generally raised or planted in greenhouses where heating is provided by
air-source heat pumps. Since the ground temperature is stable at a depth of 3 m–50 m, it is preferable
to use the ground as a heat source for both heating and cooling (i.e., geothermal heat pumps) [
25
,
30
].
Like geothermal heat pumps, air source heat pump systems using underground air are recommended
for greenhouse farming. Since Jeju-do is a dormant volcano in which the geographical features consist of
volcanic and sedimentary rocks, basanites, and so on, it can form underground air and water tables between
rocks and sediment [
31
]. Thus, it is easy to obtain underground air from porous volcanic rocks, in which
the underground air temperature ranges around 15
◦
C–18
◦
C. However, the use of this underground
air for planting or livestock care is not feasible because the underground air is relatively humid and its
temperature is low. Most studies have investigated the performance of the air-source heat pumps and there
have been few studies about air-to-water heat pumps using heat transferred from underground air. For the
present study, the heating performance of an air-to-water heat pump (AWHP) system intended for use in
greenhouse farming was assessed. To analyze the performance of the AWHP, the heating capacity and
COP were analyzed through measurements. In addition, the economic impact of the heating performance
of the AWHP for greenhouse farming was compared with a conventional air heater.
2. Heat Transfer from Underground Air to Heat Pumps
Figure 1shows the schematic diagram of the AWHP. Temperature sensors were located at the
underground air intake of the air/water direct contact heat exchanger, the compressor and evaporator,
the fan-coil unit, and the heat storage tank. In addition, water flow meters were located at each unit of
the AWHP. For the specification, the air/water direct contact heat exchanger is a cylinder of 1 m diameter
with a height of 2.5 m. From a borehole, underground air is drawn by the turbo blower to the air/water
direct contact heat exchanger through a cylinder of 0.3 m diameter. Similar to the process of cooling
towers, the airflow at the lower part of the heat exchanger is mixed with water sprayed from the top.
In addition, this heat exchanger utilizes plastic splash type fill to enhance the contact between air and water.
During the process, the heat is transferred from the humid underground air at 16
◦
C to water. Therefore,
as a heat source, the water flow is sent to the AWHP to provide further greenhouse heating. In the
AWHP, heat transferred from the air/water direct contact heat exchanger is delivered to the evaporator.
Passing the compressor, water is heated at the condenser. The control system uses a Programmable Logic
Controller (PLC).
Energies 2020,13, 3863 3 of 9
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 9
Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the AWHP.
3. Method
3.1. The AWHP at the Greenhouse
To analyze the heating performance of the AWHP, the AWHP was installed at the greenhouse
for flower production located in Jeju-do in South Korea. The size of the greenhouse was 330 m2. The
specifications of the AWHP are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Specifications of the AWHP.
Component Specification
Air/water direct contact heat exchanger
Material Stainless steel
Diameter (mm) 1000
Height (mm) 2500
Heat transfer fluid Normal water
Heat pump
Compressor
Type High-temperature scroll type
Capacity 35 kW (10 RT)
Voltage 380 V (3 Phase)
Condenser/Evaporator Flat type heat exchanger
Refrigerant R22
Heat storage tank
Diameter (mm) 2000
Height (mm) 2000
Heat storage fluid Normal water
Turbo blower Capacity 7.5 kW
Airflow rate 102 m3/min
Air/Water
Direct
Contact
Heat
Exchanger
Underground Air
Heat Pump
Heat
Storage
Tan k
Fan
Coil
Unit
Greenhouse
Evaporator
Condenser
Expansion
Valve
Compressor
Underground Air in
Wate r in
Wate r ou t
Underground air out
Wate r ba sin
Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the AWHP.
3. Method
3.1. The AWHP at the Greenhouse
To analyze the heating performance of the AWHP, the AWHP was installed at the greenhouse for flower
production located in Jeju-do in South Korea. The size of the greenhouse was 330 m
2
. The specifications of
the AWHP are presented in Table 1.
3.2. COP of the AWHP
For the control of the AWHP, a blower, an air/water direct contact heat exchanger, water pumps were
operated to heat or cool the water in the heat storage tank to reach the setpoint temperature. In the case
that the setpoint temperature of the AWHP does not reach the heating or cooling set temperatures in the
greenhouse, water pumps of the heat storage tank and the fan of the fan-coil unit were operated. To measure
the Coefficient of Performance (COP) for the AWHP in a heating application, T-type thermocouples and
ultrasonic flowmeters (PT868, Panametrics, Boston, MA, USA) were located at the condenser, the evaporator,
and the heat storage tank. In addition, the power usage of the AWHP was measured by using a power
meter (CW240, Yokogawa, Tokyo, Japan). The specifications of the equipment are presented in Table 2.
Energies 2020,13, 3863 4 of 9
Table 1. Specifications of the AWHP.
Component Specification
Air/water direct contact heat exchanger
Material Stainless steel
Diameter (mm) 1000
Height (mm) 2500
Heat transfer fluid Normal water
Heat pump
Compressor
Type High-temperature scroll type
Capacity 35 kW (10 RT)
Voltage 380 V (3 Phase)
Condenser/Evaporator Flat type heat exchanger
Refrigerant R22
Heat storage tank
Diameter (mm) 2000
Height (mm) 2000
Heat storage fluid Normal water
Turbo blower Capacity 7.5 kW
Airflow rate 102 m3/min
Table 2. Specifications of the equipment.
PT868
- Non-Intrusive Liquid Flowmeter
- Velocity range: −12.2 m/s to 12.2 m/s
- Accuracy: 2%
-
Fluid temperature:
−
40
◦
C to 150
◦
C
CW240
- Voltage: 150 V to 1000 V
- Frequency range: 45 Hz to 65 Hz
- Accuracy: ±0.2% reading
- Display interval: Approx. 0.5 s
Before calculating the COP, the heating capacity was calculated using Equation (1) below:
Qh=ρw·Vw·cw·(Tw,o−Tw,i)(1)
where Q
h
is the heating capacity of the AWHP (kcal/h, 1 kcal/h=0.0012 kW). In addition,
ρw
,V
w
, and c
w
are water density (kg/m
3
), water flow (m
3
/s), and the specific heat capacity of water (kJ/kg
◦
C), respectively.
T
w,o
and T
w,i
are the water temperatures at the outlet and inlet of the condenser (
◦
C). Using Equation (2) [
32
],
the COP was calculated for open-loop and closed-loop systems. In an open-loop system, heated water
from the condenser is dumped directly to the outside, while water at the heat storage tank circulates and is
reheated at the condenser and returns to the heat storage tank for a closed-loop system:
COPh=Qh
PHP
(2)
where COP
h
is the COP of the AWHP for the heating application. Moreover, P
HP
is the power usage
of the AWHP (kW). To compare the heating energy consumption and temperature distributions in the
greenhouse, a conventional heat pump system was also installed in the same size of the greenhouse.
Energies 2020,13, 3863 5 of 9
4. Results
4.1. The Temperature Profiles of the System During the Condenser Operation
It is important to figure out the relationship between the temperature changes of each component
of the AWHP and the outdoor temperature conditions. The measurement results are shown in Figure 2.
For the open-loop system, the heating performance was observed for 7 min until the water was drawn off,
while it took 3 h to heat 6 tons of water from 18 ◦C to 50 ◦C for the closed-loop system on 24 March 2015.
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 9
runoff. For the closed-loop system, the outdoor air temperature was slightly decreased from 10 °C to
8 °C, while the underground air temperature was also maintained at 15 °C during the measurement.
In the case of the evaporator, both water temperatures at the inlet and outlet were dropped from
about 15 °C to 5 °C after 10 min from the beginning of the measurement. It was caused by the low
temperature in the condenser at the early operation, which required a large amount of heat transfer.
After the temperature in the condenser was increased, the amount of heat transfer was decreased.
Therefore, the temperatures at the inlet and outlet of the evaporator were slightly increased to 8 °C
after the temperature was slightly increased in the condenser. Simultaneously, the underground air
temperature at the outlet of the air/water direct contact heat exchanger was also increased.
Figure 2. Temperature profiles of the system for open-loop and closed-loop application.
4.2. Heating Capacity for the Heating Application
Figure 3 shows the heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop applications. The
observed heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop systems was ranged from 35,000 to
41,000 kcal/h and 27,000 to 40,000 kcal/h, respectively. In addition, the heat extracted by the air/water
direct contact heat exchanger for the open-loop system was about 28,000 kcal/h. For the closed-loop
system, the extracted heat was decreased from 30,000 kcal/h to 18,000 kcal/h.
Figure 3. The heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop systems.
Based on the values of the heating capacity and electricity consumption, the COP values were
calculated using Equation (2). As can be seen in Figure 4, the COP values were ranged from 4.3 to 5.5
for the open-loop system, while the COP value was decreased from 5.0 to 2.5 for the closed-loop
system as the inlet water temperature of the condenser was increased to 50 °C. For energy
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
123456789101112131415
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729313335
Figure 2. Temperature profiles of the system for open-loop and closed-loop application.
When measuring the water temperature of the open-loop system, the outdoor air temperature was
about 13.8
◦
C, while the underground air temperature at the inlet of the air/water direct contact heat
exchanger was maintained at 15
◦
C. Because of the short observation, there were a little temperature
changes at both inlet and outlet of the condenser. In the case of the evaporator, about a 5
◦
C decrease in
water temperature was observed at both inlet and outlet due to the rapid water runoff. For the closed-loop
system, the outdoor air temperature was slightly decreased from 10
◦
C to 8
◦
C, while the underground
air temperature was also maintained at 15
◦
C during the measurement. In the case of the evaporator,
both water temperatures at the inlet and outlet were dropped from about 15
◦
C to 5
◦
C after 10 min
from the beginning of the measurement. It was caused by the low temperature in the condenser at the
early operation, which required a large amount of heat transfer. After the temperature in the condenser
was increased, the amount of heat transfer was decreased. Therefore, the temperatures at the inlet and
outlet of the evaporator were slightly increased to 8
◦
C after the temperature was slightly increased in the
condenser. Simultaneously, the underground air temperature at the outlet of the air/water direct contact
heat exchanger was also increased.
4.2. Heating Capacity for the Heating Application
Figure 3shows the heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop applications. The observed
heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop systems was ranged from 35,000 to 41,000 kcal/h and
27,000 to 40,000 kcal/h, respectively. In addition, the heat extracted by the air/water direct contact heat
exchanger for the open-loop system was about 28,000 kcal/h. For the closed-loop system, the extracted
heat was decreased from 30,000 kcal/h to 18,000 kcal/h.
Energies 2020,13, 3863 6 of 9
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 9
runoff. For the closed-loop system, the outdoor air temperature was slightly decreased from 10 °C to
8 °C, while the underground air temperature was also maintained at 15 °C during the measurement.
In the case of the evaporator, both water temperatures at the inlet and outlet were dropped from
about 15 °C to 5 °C after 10 min from the beginning of the measurement. It was caused by the low
temperature in the condenser at the early operation, which required a large amount of heat transfer.
After the temperature in the condenser was increased, the amount of heat transfer was decreased.
Therefore, the temperatures at the inlet and outlet of the evaporator were slightly increased to 8 °C
after the temperature was slightly increased in the condenser. Simultaneously, the underground air
temperature at the outlet of the air/water direct contact heat exchanger was also increased.
Figure 2. Temperature profiles of the system for open-loop and closed-loop application.
4.2. Heating Capacity for the Heating Application
Figure 3 shows the heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop applications. The
observed heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop systems was ranged from 35,000 to
41,000 kcal/h and 27,000 to 40,000 kcal/h, respectively. In addition, the heat extracted by the air/water
direct contact heat exchanger for the open-loop system was about 28,000 kcal/h. For the closed-loop
system, the extracted heat was decreased from 30,000 kcal/h to 18,000 kcal/h.
Figure 3. The heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop systems.
Based on the values of the heating capacity and electricity consumption, the COP values were
calculated using Equation (2). As can be seen in Figure 4, the COP values were ranged from 4.3 to 5.5
for the open-loop system, while the COP value was decreased from 5.0 to 2.5 for the closed-loop
system as the inlet water temperature of the condenser was increased to 50 °C. For energy
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
123456789101112131415
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729313335
Figure 3. The heating capacity for the open-loop and closed-loop systems.
Based on the values of the heating capacity and electricity consumption, the COP values were
calculated using Equation (2). As can be seen in Figure 4, the COP values were ranged from 4.3 to 5.5 for
the open-loop system, while the COP value was decreased from 5.0 to 2.5 for the closed-loop system as the
inlet water temperature of the condenser was increased to 50
◦
C. For energy consumption, the electricity
usage for the open-loop system was decreased, while it was increased for the closed-loop system. It can be
seen that the continuous operation of the AWHP for increasing the water temperature in the heat storage
tank caused an increase in electricity consumption.
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 9
consumption, the electricity usage for the open-loop system was decreased, while it was increased
for the closed-loop system. It can be seen that the continuous operation of the AWHP for increasing
the water temperature in the heat storage tank caused an increase in electricity consumption.
Figure 4. The COP and energy consumption for the open-loop and closed-loop systems.
Figure 5 shows the comparison of air temperature in the greenhouse operated by the AWHP and
a conventional air heater. When the outdoor air temperature varied from 7 °C to 12 °C on 19 April 2015,
the air temperature in the greenhouse heated by the conventional air heater was ranged from 19 °C
to 26 °C, while the greenhouse heated by the AWHP showed a small air temperature fluctuation
which ranged from 20 °C to 22 °C. Based on the results, the AWHP can provide more stable heating
than the conventional air heater.
Figure 5. Comparison of heating performance between the AWHP and a conventional air heater.
4.3. Economic Assessment of the AWHP
To analyze the economic impact of the AWHP, the heating cost was compared with that of a
conventional air heater (Table 3). Since each system used different energy sources, the total heating
cost for these two systems was compared. From February to June in 2016, the AWHP consumed 4064
kWh/m2 of electricity at a cost of ₩45.5/kWh (South Korea Won, i.e., $0.04 (US Dollar)). In the case of
the conventional air heater, about 889.8 liters of diesel/m2 were consumed at ₩840 per liter (South
Korea Won, i.e., $0.70 (US Dollar)). As a result, the AWHP only consumed about 25% of the total
heating cost of the conventional air heater.
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
123456789101112131415
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1357911131517192123252729313335
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
Figure 4. The COP and energy consumption for the open-loop and closed-loop systems.
Figure 5shows the comparison of air temperature in the greenhouse operated by the AWHP and a
conventional air heater. When the outdoor air temperature varied from 7
◦
C to 12
◦
C on 19 April 2015,
the air temperature in the greenhouse heated by the conventional air heater was ranged from 19
◦
C to
26
◦
C, while the greenhouse heated by the AWHP showed a small air temperature fluctuation which
ranged from 20
◦
C to 22
◦
C. Based on the results, the AWHP can provide more stable heating than the
conventional air heater.
Energies 2020,13, 3863 7 of 9
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 9
consumption, the electricity usage for the open-loop system was decreased, while it was increased
for the closed-loop system. It can be seen that the continuous operation of the AWHP for increasing
the water temperature in the heat storage tank caused an increase in electricity consumption.
Figure 4. The COP and energy consumption for the open-loop and closed-loop systems.
Figure 5 shows the comparison of air temperature in the greenhouse operated by the AWHP and
a conventional air heater. When the outdoor air temperature varied from 7 °C to 12 °C on 19 April 2015,
the air temperature in the greenhouse heated by the conventional air heater was ranged from 19 °C
to 26 °C, while the greenhouse heated by the AWHP showed a small air temperature fluctuation
which ranged from 20 °C to 22 °C. Based on the results, the AWHP can provide more stable heating
than the conventional air heater.
Figure 5. Comparison of heating performance between the AWHP and a conventional air heater.
4.3. Economic Assessment of the AWHP
To analyze the economic impact of the AWHP, the heating cost was compared with that of a
conventional air heater (Table 3). Since each system used different energy sources, the total heating
cost for these two systems was compared. From February to June in 2016, the AWHP consumed 4064
kWh/m2 of electricity at a cost of ₩45.5/kWh (South Korea Won, i.e., $0.04 (US Dollar)). In the case of
the conventional air heater, about 889.8 liters of diesel/m2 were consumed at ₩840 per liter (South
Korea Won, i.e., $0.70 (US Dollar)). As a result, the AWHP only consumed about 25% of the total
heating cost of the conventional air heater.
7
7.5
8
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
123456789101112131415
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1357911131517192123252729313335
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
Figure 5. Comparison of heating performance between the AWHP and a conventional air heater.
4.3. Economic Assessment of the AWHP
To analyze the economic impact of the AWHP, the heating cost was compared with that of a
conventional air heater (Table 3). Since each system used different energy sources, the total heating cost for
these two systems was compared. From February to June in 2016, the AWHP consumed 4064 kWh/m
2
of
electricity at a cost of
₩
45.5/kWh (South Korea Won, i.e., $0.04 (US Dollar)). In the case of the conventional
air heater, about 889.8 liters of diesel/m
2
were consumed at
₩
840 per liter (South Korea Won, i.e., $0.70
(US Dollar)). As a result, the AWHP only consumed about 25% of the total heating cost of the conventional
air heater.
Table 3. Heating cost comparison for the AWHP and a conventional air heater.
System Energy Consumption Total Heating Cost Comparison (%)
South Korea Won US Dollar
AWHP 4064 kWh/m2(Electricity) ₩184,912 $154 24.7
Conventional air heater 889.8 liters of diesel/m2₩747,432 $621 100
5. Discussion and Conclusions
As one of the main businesses in Jeje-do in South Korea, agriculture is supported by the South Korean
Government. Heat pump systems using underground air are recommended for greenhouse farming,
however, the direct use of underground air may harm greenhouse products because of the high humidity
and low temperature of the underground air. The present study assessed the heating performance of an
AWHP for greenhouses in Jeju-do through measurements. Specifically, the AWHP used the heat extracted
from water in which the heat was transferred from underground air through an air/water direct contact
heat exchanger.
During the measurement period, the outdoor air temperature was in the range of 7
◦
C to 12
◦
C,
while the underground air temperature was maintained at 15
◦
C. When the water temperature of the heat
storage tank ranged 40
◦
C–45
◦
C, the COP was 2.1 to 2.7 and the heating capacity was 34.9 kW–44.2 kW.
Comparing the heating cost with the conventional air heater from February to June, the AWHP consumes
about 25% of the total heating cost.
Energies 2020,13, 3863 8 of 9
When delivering underground air at a rate of 102 m
3
/min, the underground air temperature dropped
from 15
◦
C to 10
◦
C and 32.6 kW of thermal energy was obtained. This was slightly lower than that
generated by conventional heat pumps since the heat energy was transferred twice through the air/water
direct contact heat exchanger and the evaporator. In addition, the COP for the closed-loop system decreased
from 5.0 to 2.5. Thus, it can be seen that an increase in water temperature in the heat storage tank during the
early AWHP operation reduced the amount of heat absorbed by the condenser and evaporator. The heat
reduction ultimately caused the AWHP to operate continuously leading to an increase in the electricity
consumption of the AWHP.
Considering the outcome of the present study, the AWHP system is more energy and cost-efficient
than a conventional mechanical system. Moreover, the utilization of the AWHP for greenhouse farming
can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For further study, it is necessary to find a feasible solution to increase
the COP for the closed-loop application. In addition, energy-advanced or more sophisticated controlled
conventional air heaters could be used for more accurate comparison with the AWHP. Furthermore,
life cycle cost analysis will be conducted considering factors such as capital investments.
Author Contributions:
T.L. and Y.-K.B. designed and performed the experiments; D.D.K. wrote the manuscript and
analyzed the data. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
P
é
rez-Lombard, L.; Ortiz, J.; Pout, C. A review on buildings energy consumption information. Energy Build.
2008
,
40, 394–398. [CrossRef]
2.
Gonzato, S.; Chimento, J.; O’Dwyer, E.; Bustos-Turu, G.; Acha, S.; Shah, N. Hierarchical price coordination of
heat pumps in a building network controlled using model predictive control. Energy Build.
2019
,202, 109421.
[CrossRef]
3.
Jim, C.Y. Air-conditioning energy consumption due to green roofs with different building thermal insulation.
Appl. Energy 2014,128, 49–59. [CrossRef]
4.
Stavrakakis, G.M.; Androutsopoulos, A.V.; Vyörykkä, J. Experimental and numerical assessment of cool-roof
impact on thermal and energy performance of a school building in Greece. Energy Build.
2016
,130, 64–84.
[CrossRef]
5.
Zagorskas, J.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Turskis, Z.; Burinskien
˙
e, M.; Blumberga, A.; Blumberga, D. Thermal insulation
alternatives of historic brick buildings in Baltic sea region. Energy Build. 2014,78, 35–42. [CrossRef]
6.
Jiang, A.; O’Meara, A. Accommodating thermal features of commercial building systems to mitigate energy
consumption in Florida due to global climate change. Energy Build. 2018,179, 86–98. [CrossRef]
7.
Hong, G.; Kim, D.D. Airtightness of electrical, mechanical and architectural components in South Korean
apartment buildings using the fan pressurization and tracer gas method. Build. Environ.
2018
,132, 21–29.
[CrossRef]
8.
Martinez, A.; D
í
az de Garayo, S.; Aranguren, P.; Astrain, D. Assessing the reliability of current simulation
of thermoelectric heat pumps for nearly zero energy buildings: Expected deviations and general guidelines.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2019,198, 111834. [CrossRef]
9.
D’Ettorre, F.; De Rosa, M.; Conti, P.; Testi, D.; Finn, D. Mapping the energy flexibility potential of single buildings
equipped with optimally-controlled heat pump, gas boilers and thermal storage. Sustain. Cities Soc.
2019
,
50, 101689. [CrossRef]
10.
Clauß, J.; Georges, L. Model complexity of heat pump systems to investigate the building energy flexibility and
guidelines for model implementation. Appl. Energy 2019,255, 113847. [CrossRef]
11.
Neirotti, F.; Noussan, M.; Simonetti, M. Towards the electrification of buildings heating—real heat pumps
electricity mixes based on high resolution operational profiles. Energy 2020,195, 116974. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020,13, 3863 9 of 9
12.
Li, S.; Gong, G.; Peng, J. Dynamic coupling method between air-source heat pumps and buildings in China’s
hot-summer/cold-winter zone. Appl. Energy 2019,254, 113664. [CrossRef]
13.
Lozano Miralles, J.A.; L
ó
pez Garc
í
a, R.; Palomar Carnicero, J.M.; Mart
í
nez, F.J.R. Comparative study of heat pump
system and biomass boiler system to a tertiary building using the life cycle assessment (LCA). Renew. Energy
2020,152, 1439–1450. [CrossRef]
14. Potoˇcnik, P.; Vidrih, B.; Kitanovski, A.; Govekar, E. Analysis and optimization of thermal comfort in residential
buildings by means of a weather-controlled air-to-water heat pump. Build. Environ.
2018
,140, 68–79. [CrossRef]
15.
Yu, Q.d. Applied research on water loop heat pump system based on a novel mechanism of energy conversion.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2019,153, 575–582. [CrossRef]
16.
Le, K.X.; Huang, M.J.; Shah, N.N.; Wilson, C.; Artain, P.M.; Byrne, R.; Hewitt, N.J. Techno-economic assessment of
cascade air-to-water heat pump retrofitted into residential buildings using experimentally validated simulations.
Appl. Energy 2019,250, 633–652. [CrossRef]
17.
Daghigh, R.; Ruslan, M.H.; Sulaiman, M.Y.; Sopian, K. Review of solar assisted heat pump drying systems for
agricultural and marine products. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010,14, 2564–2579. [CrossRef]
18.
Ko¸san, M.; Demirta¸s, M.; Akta ¸s, M.; Di¸sli, E. Performance analyses of sustainable PV/T assisted heat pump
drying system. Sol. Energy 2020,199, 657–672. [CrossRef]
19.
Ashok Kumar, M.; Kumaresan, G.; Rajakarunakaran, S. Experimental study of moisture removal rate in Moringa
leaves under vacuum pressure in closed-loop heat pump dryer. Mater. Today Proc. 2020. [CrossRef]
20.
Singh, A.; Sarkar, J.; Sahoo, R.R. Experimental energy, exergy, economic and exergoeconomic analyses of
batch-type solar-assisted heat pump dryer. Renew. Energy 2020,156, 1107–1116. [CrossRef]
21.
Hasan Ismaeel, H.; Yumruta¸s, R. Investigation of a solar assisted heat pump wheat drying system with
underground thermal energy storage tank. Sol. Energy 2020,199, 538–551. [CrossRef]
22.
Kuan, M.; Shakir, Y.; Mohanraj, M.; Belyayev, Y.; Jayaraj, S.; Kaltayev, A. Numerical simulation of a heat pump
assisted solar dryer for continental climates. Renew. Energy 2019,143, 214–225. [CrossRef]
23.
Fadhel, M.I.; Sopian, K.; Daud, W.R.W.; Alghoul, M.A. Review on advanced of solar assisted chemical heat pump
dryer for agriculture produce. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011,15, 1152–1168. [CrossRef]
24.
Tunckal, C.; Doymaz, ˙
I. Performance analysis and mathematical modelling of banana slices in a heat pump
drying system. Renew. Energy 2020,150, 918–923. [CrossRef]
25.
Yang, L.-H.; Huang, B.-H.; Hsu, C.-Y.; Chen, S.-L. Performance analysis of an earth–air heat exchanger integrated
into an agricultural irrigation system for a greenhouse environmental temperature-control system. Energy Build.
2019,202, 109381. [CrossRef]
26.
Ozgener, O.; Hepbasli, A. Performance analysis of a solar-assisted ground-source heat pump system for
greenhouse heating: An experimental study. Build. Environ. 2005,40, 1040–1050. [CrossRef]
27.
Ozgener, O.; Hepbasli, A. Experimental performance analysis of a solar assisted ground-source heat pump
greenhouse heating system. Energy Build. 2005,37, 101–110. [CrossRef]
28.
Ozgener, O.; Hepbasli, A. Exergoeconomic analysis of a solar assisted ground-source heat pump greenhouse
heating system. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2005,25, 1459–1471. [CrossRef]
29.
Ozgener, O. Use of solar assisted geothermal heat pump and small wind turbine systems for heating agricultural
and residential buildings. Energy 2010,35, 262–268. [CrossRef]
30.
Ozgener, O.; Hepbasli, A. Modeling and performance evaluation of ground source (geothermal) heat pump
systems. Energy Build. 2007,39, 66–75. [CrossRef]
31. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province. Available online: https://www.Jeju.Go.Kr/(accessed on 28 June 2020).
32. Dizaji, H.S.; Jafarmadar, S.; Khalilarya, S. Novel experiments on cop improvement of thermoelectric air coolers.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2019,187, 328–338. [CrossRef]
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).