6.3.2 Energy Payback Time (EPBT)
It is the required time to payback the embodied energy of the product. It is evaluated as [142]: (6.1)
6.3.3 CO2 Emission
Watt et al., have reported that, the emission of average CO2 is approximately equivalent of 0.98 kg of CO2/kWh in the electricity generated by coal [143]. The CO2 emission per year can be calculated as [144]
(6.2)
6.3.4 Carbon Mitigation and Earned Carbon Credit
The mitigation of carbon dioxide (CO2) is used to measure the climate change potential. The net CO2 mitigations are measured per kilowatt hour. Therefore, it is compared with other power production system. The carbon credit is defined as “a key component of national and international emissions trading schemes that have implemented …show more content…
The case 1 is taken as the reference because here no artificial cooling arrangement is applied. Hence the EPBT for the case 1 is 8.23 years, while for case 2 when the top air cooling is provided with the panel is1.24 year and for case 3 is 1.09 years. In case 4 and 5, hybrid solar PVT collector gets bottom cooled by water at flow rate 1 and 2 respectively. The mass flow rate is also increased in the case of flow rate 2 as compared to flow rate 1. The mass flow rate at flow rate 1 is 0.0068 kg/s while at flow rate 2, it is 0.0281 kg/s. Due to increased mass flow rate the annual output of energy in the case 5 is 1427.78 kWh however in the case 4 it is only 1190.84 kWh. Hence, due to the19.89%increase in annual energy output from case 4 to case 5, the EPBT decreases by 17.30% in the case 5.The EPBT in case 4 is 0.52 years however, for case 5 is 0.43. In the case, 6 and 7, both mode of cooling with different mass flow rates is effective on the panel; Hence annual output of energy in these cases is increased, which is in the case 6 is 1696.78 kWh and in case 7 is 2579.80 kWh. Due to increase in annual energy output, the EPBT for case 7 decreases, which is 0.24 year, and EPBT for case 6 is 0.36 years which shows a decrease of 33.34% from case 6 to
It is the required time to payback the embodied energy of the product. It is evaluated as [142]: (6.1)
6.3.3 CO2 Emission
Watt et al., have reported that, the emission of average CO2 is approximately equivalent of 0.98 kg of CO2/kWh in the electricity generated by coal [143]. The CO2 emission per year can be calculated as [144]
(6.2)
6.3.4 Carbon Mitigation and Earned Carbon Credit
The mitigation of carbon dioxide (CO2) is used to measure the climate change potential. The net CO2 mitigations are measured per kilowatt hour. Therefore, it is compared with other power production system. The carbon credit is defined as “a key component of national and international emissions trading schemes that have implemented …show more content…
The case 1 is taken as the reference because here no artificial cooling arrangement is applied. Hence the EPBT for the case 1 is 8.23 years, while for case 2 when the top air cooling is provided with the panel is1.24 year and for case 3 is 1.09 years. In case 4 and 5, hybrid solar PVT collector gets bottom cooled by water at flow rate 1 and 2 respectively. The mass flow rate is also increased in the case of flow rate 2 as compared to flow rate 1. The mass flow rate at flow rate 1 is 0.0068 kg/s while at flow rate 2, it is 0.0281 kg/s. Due to increased mass flow rate the annual output of energy in the case 5 is 1427.78 kWh however in the case 4 it is only 1190.84 kWh. Hence, due to the19.89%increase in annual energy output from case 4 to case 5, the EPBT decreases by 17.30% in the case 5.The EPBT in case 4 is 0.52 years however, for case 5 is 0.43. In the case, 6 and 7, both mode of cooling with different mass flow rates is effective on the panel; Hence annual output of energy in these cases is increased, which is in the case 6 is 1696.78 kWh and in case 7 is 2579.80 kWh. Due to increase in annual energy output, the EPBT for case 7 decreases, which is 0.24 year, and EPBT for case 6 is 0.36 years which shows a decrease of 33.34% from case 6 to